554373 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

__________________________________________ 

 : 

MARTHA STEELE, : 

Plaintiff, : 

: 

 : Civil Action 

 v. : No. 2002 C 4347 

 : 

HCI DIRECT, : 

 Defendant. : 

__________________________________________: 

ANSWER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT

1. Defendant denies the averments set forth in paragraph 1 of the complaint 

because they are conclusions of law. To the extent that any averment is not a conclusion 

of law, it is denied. 

2. Defendant denies the averments set forth in paragraph 2 of the complaint 

because they are conclusions of law. To the extent that any averment is not a conclusion 

of law, it is denied. 

 3. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the averments 

set forth in paragraph 3 of the complaint and therefore they are denied. 

 4. Admitted in part, denied in part. Defendant admits only that HCI has 

Operations in Canada and the UK, and a business presence in France and Germany. All 

other averments are denied. 

 5. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the averments 

set forth in paragraph 5 of the complaint and therefore they are denied. 

 6. Admitted. 

 7. Admitted. 

Case 2:02-cv-04347-BWK Document 34 Filed 12/20/2004 Page 1 of 8
2

554373 

 8. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the averments 

set forth in paragraph 8 of the complaint and therefore they are denied. 

 9. Admitted. 

10. Defendant denies the averments set forth in paragraph 10 of the complaint 

because they are conclusions of law. To the extent that any averment is not a conclusion 

of law, it is denied. 

 11. Admitted. 

 12. Admitted. 

 13. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the averments 

set forth in paragraph 13 of the complaint and therefore they are denied. 

 14. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the averments 

set forth in paragraph 14 of the complaint and therefore they are denied. 

 15. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the averments 

set forth in paragraph 15 of the complaint and therefore they are denied. 

 16. Admitted. 

 17. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the averments 

set forth in paragraph 17 of the complaint and therefore they are denied. 

 18. Denied. 

 19. Admitted. 

 20. Admitted. 

 21. Admitted in part, denied in part. Defendant admits only that defendant’s 

Marketing Services Department consisted of three groups: Production, Creative Services 

and Print Buying. All other averments are denied. 

Case 2:02-cv-04347-BWK Document 34 Filed 12/20/2004 Page 2 of 8
3

554373 

 22. Admitted in part, denied in part. Defendant admits only that plaintiff was 

a member of the Copy group under the Creative Services Department that reported to Ms. 

Roper. All other averments are denied. 

 23. Denied. 

 24. Denied. 

 25. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the averments 

set forth in paragraph 25 of the complaint and therefore they are denied. 

 26. Admitted in part, denied in part. Defendant admits only that plaintiff 

claimed that her sister was ill. All other averments are denied. 

 27. Admitted in part, denied in part. Defendant admits only that Ms. Durst 

was advised of plaintiff’s sister’s brain surgery. All other averments are denied. 

 28. Admitted. 

 29. Defendant incorporates by reference its answers to all paragraphs, supra. 

30. Defendant denies the averments set forth in paragraph 30 of the complaint 

because they are conclusions of law. To the extent that any averment is not a conclusion 

of law, it is denied. 

31. Defendant denies the averments set forth in paragraph 31 of the complaint 

because they are conclusions of law. To the extent that any averment is not a conclusion 

of law, it is denied. 

32. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the averments 

set forth in paragraph 32 of the complaint and therefore they are denied. 

Case 2:02-cv-04347-BWK Document 34 Filed 12/20/2004 Page 3 of 8
4

554373 

33. Defendant denies the averments set forth in paragraph 33 of the complaint 

because they are conclusions of law. To the extent that any averment is not a conclusion 

of law, it is denied. 

34. Denied. 

35. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the averments 

set forth in paragraph 35 of the complaint and therefore they are denied. 

36. Denied. 

37. Denied. 

38. Denied. 

39. Defendant incorporates by reference its answers to all paragraphs, supra. 

40. Admitted. 

41. Denied. 

42. Defendant incorporates by reference its answers to all paragraphs, supra. 

43. Admitted. 

44. Defendant denies the averments set forth in paragraph 44 of the complaint 

because they are conclusions of law. To the extent that any averment is not a conclusion 

of law, it is denied. 

45. Admitted. 

46. Admitted in part, denied in part. Defendant admits only that plaintiff 

contributed to a front-end control package that resulted in a 30% increase in customer 

response. All other averments are denied. 

47. Denied. 

48. Defendant incorporates by reference its answers to all paragraphs, supra. 

Case 2:02-cv-04347-BWK Document 34 Filed 12/20/2004 Page 4 of 8
5

554373 

49. Admitted in part, denied in part. Defendant admits only that it hired Bob 

Olsen as an independent contractor. All other averments are denied. 

50. Admitted in part, denied in part. Defendant admits only that Mr. Olson 

had 20+ years copywriting experience and taught copywriting at the college level. All 

other averments are denied. 

51. Denied. 

52. Denied. 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

First Defense

 Plaintiff has failed to mitigate her damages. 

Second Defense

 Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted. 

Third Defense

 Plaintiff is estopped from pursuing and recovering on some or all of her claims. 

Fourth Defense

 Defendant always acted in good faith toward plaintiff. 

Fifth Defense

 Defendant’s adverse employment actions, if any, toward plaintiff were made for 

nondiscriminatory legitimate business reasons. 

Sixth Defense

 Plaintiff failed to exhaust her administrative remedies. 

Case 2:02-cv-04347-BWK Document 34 Filed 12/20/2004 Page 5 of 8
6

554373 

Seventh Defense

 Plaintiff is barred from recovering punitive damages because defendant employed 

good-faith anti-discrimination policies and procedures. 

Eighth Defense

 Plaintiff failed to file a timely charge of discrimination with the Equal 

Employment Opportunity Commission and Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission 

for some or all of her claims. 

Ninth Defense

 Plaintiff’s recoverable compensatory and punitive damages, if any, are capped 

under 42 U.S.C. §1981a(a). 

Case 2:02-cv-04347-BWK Document 34 Filed 12/20/2004 Page 6 of 8
7

554373 

Tenth Affirmative Defense

 Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because defendant exercised 

reasonable care and policies to prevent and correct any unlawful discrimination and 

plaintiff unreasonably failed to take advantage of preventative or corrective policies and 

opportunities. 

Wherefore, defendant demands judgment, attorney’s fees and all other relief that 

this honorable court deems equitable and proper. 

 

 ________________________ 

 Joseph J. Centeno 

 Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel LLP 

 One Penn Center, 19th Floor 

 1617 JFK Boulevard 

 Philadelphia, PA 19103-1895 

 (215)665-3107 

Case 2:02-cv-04347-BWK Document 34 Filed 12/20/2004 Page 7 of 8
554373 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 I, JOSEPH J. CENTENO, hereby certify that on this ______th day of December, 

2004, I caused the foregoing Answer to Amended Complaint to be served via first-class 

mail on the following: 

Karin M. Gunter, Esquire 

7323 North 21st Street 

Philadelphia, PA 19138 

 ___________________________ 

 JOSEPH J. CENTENO 

Dated: December ____, 2004 

Case 2:02-cv-04347-BWK Document 34 Filed 12/20/2004 Page 8 of 8