1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

LINDA LYNCH : 

 : 

 VS. : NO. 02-CV-4354 

 : 

HOWARD SCHULTZ : 

& ASSOCIATES and : 

PRG-SCHULTZ INTERNATIONAL INC.: 

AMENDED ANSWER

 Defendants, by and through their counsel, Joseph S. 

Nescio, Esquire, hereby answer the Complaint submitted by 

Plaintiff, as follows: 

1. Admitted. 

2. Admitted. 

3. Admitted. 

4. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is denied 

that Howard Schultz & Associates merged with Profit 

Recovery Group, Inc. However, it is admitted that The 

Profit Recovery International Group, Inc. (i) 

purchased substantially all of the assets and (ii) 

assumed substantially all of the liabilities of Howard 

Schultz & Associates. For purposes of this claim, it 

is admitted that defendant PRG-Schultz International, 

Inc. is the successor to Howard Schultz & Associates. 

5. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is denied 

that there was a merger. However, it is admitted that 

Case 2:02-cv-04354-AB Document 9 Filed 11/19/2002 Page 1 of 9
2 

defendant PRG-Schultz International, Inc. assumed the 

liabilities of Defendant Howard Schultz & Associates. 

6. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that 

this Court has jurisdiction over plaintiff’s 

discrimination claims, as set forth in Counts I and II 

of the Complaint. It is denied that the amount in 

controversy unrelated to the alleged civil rights 

violations exceeds $75,000. Therefore, it is denied 

that this Court has jurisdiction over Counts III and 

IV of the Complaint under diversity of citizenship. It 

is also denied that plaintiff was terminated in 

violation of her civil rights. Plaintiff was 

terminated on July 14, 2000 due to unsatisfactory work 

performance. 

7. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted 

that plaintiff filed a Charge of Discrimination with 

the EEOC on or about April 3, 2001. However, to the 

extent that the acts of which plaintiff complains 

occurred more than 180 days before April 3 2001, 

defendants deny that the filing of plaintiff’s 

complaint with the EEOC was timely. Defendants are 

without information or knowledge sufficient to form a 

belief as to the date on which plaintiff received the 

EEOC’s right to sue letter. 

COUNT I: AGE DISCRIMINATION

8. Denied. The allegations set forth in Paragraph 8 are 

denied. 

Case 2:02-cv-04354-AB Document 9 Filed 11/19/2002 Page 2 of 9
3 

9. Admitted. 

10. Admitted 

11. Denied. The allegations set forth in paragraph 11 are 

denied. 

12. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted 

that during quarterly marketing meetings, Mac 

Martirossian sometimes held after-hour gatherings for 

employees of the business development team. It is 

denied that Mr. Martirossian made any reference to 

plaintiff’s age and/or made any other disparaging 

regarding plaintiff’s age in response to her decision 

not to attend any such after-hour gatherings. The 

defendants deny all other allegations set forth in 

paragraph 12 which are not expressly admitted herein. 

13. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted 

that on July 14, 2000, Mr. James Polk, Vice President 

of the Business Development Group and plaintiff’s 

supervisor at the time, terminated plaintiff’s 

employment for unsatisfactory work performance. It is 

denied that the decision to terminate plaintiff’s 

employment was in any way based on plaintiff’s age or 

gender. The defendants deny all other allegations set 

forth in paragraph 13 which are not expressly admitted 

herein. 

14. Denied. The allegations set forth in paragraph 14 are 

denied. 

Case 2:02-cv-04354-AB Document 9 Filed 11/19/2002 Page 3 of 9
4 

COUNT II: GENDER DISCRIMINATION

15. Admitted. 

16. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that 

James Polk, a male Business Director, was promoted to 

the position of Vice President of Business Development 

in January of 2000. It is admitted that Jeff Ginn was 

transferred to the position of Director of Operations 

in January of 2000, but it is denied that Mr. Ginn’s 

transfer constituted a promotion. It is denied that 

Mr. Polk and/or Mr. Ginn were “young males” in that 

Mr. Polk was 49 years of age and Mr. Ginn was 40 years 

of age at the time. It is denied that plaintiff was 

denied promotional opportunities because of her age or 

gender. The defendants deny all other allegations set 

forth in paragraph 16 which are not expressly admitted 

herein. 

17. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted 

that women were not previously represented on the 

marketing materials which defendant Howard Schultz & 

Associates presented to clients and/or potential 

clients. It is admitted that the absence of women on 

these materials was brought to Mr. Martirossian’s 

attention. It is denied that Mr. Martirossian and/or 

his successor failed to change the marketing 

materials. To the contrary, Mr. Martirossian 

developed new marketing materials which featured 

women. The defendants deny all other allegations set 

Case 2:02-cv-04354-AB Document 9 Filed 11/19/2002 Page 4 of 9
5 

forth in paragraph 17 which are not expressly admitted 

herein. 

COUNT III: FAILURE TO PAY COMMISSIONS

AS REQUIRED BY EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT

18. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that, 

in addition to her salary, plaintiff was eligible to 

receive bonuses for certain vendor contracts that she 

obtained, subject to the following conditions: (i) a 

bonus for a particular contract was payable only after 

the commencement of the audit which was the subject of 

the contract in question; (ii) plaintiff was eligible 

to receive a bonus for a particular contract only if 

she was employed with Howard Schultz & Associates at 

the time the bonus was payable; and (iii) plaintiff 

was eligible to receive a bonus for a particular 

contract only if she was employed with Howard Schultz 

& Associates for a full 12 month cycle. Plaintiff has 

been paid all bonuses to which she is entitled. It is 

denied that plaintiff is entitled to any additional 

bonuses. It is admitted that plaintiff’s employment 

was terminated on July 14, 2000, but it is denied that 

she was terminated without cause. Plaintiff’s 

employment was terminated for unsatisfactory work 

performance. 

19. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted 

that plaintiff was entitled to a bonus in the amount 

of $1,000.00 for the Sunglass Hut contract, but it is 

averred that she was paid this bonus on or about 

Case 2:02-cv-04354-AB Document 9 Filed 11/19/2002 Page 5 of 9
6 

September 13, 2000. It is denied that plaintiff 

obtained contracts with respect to Bon Ton Stores, 

Advance Auto Parts, and/or Exide Corporation from 

January 1, 2000 to June 30, 2000. It is denied that 

plaintiff was and/or is entitled to any bonuses for 

the Bon Ton Stores, Advance Auto Parts, and/or Exide 

Corporation proposals. Plaintiff has been paid all 

bonuses to which she is entitled. It is denied that 

Plaintiff is entitled to any additional bonuses. 

20. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted 

that plaintiff submitted the proposals listed on 

Exhibit “B” of her complaint. Defendant Howard 

Schultz & Associates received a contract from 

Bestfoods, but this contract was obtained because of 

the efforts of an employee other than plaintiff. 

Defendant Howard Schultz & Associates received a 

contract from Advance Auto Parts, but the client 

terminated the contract before any work was performed, 

and defendant did not receive any revenues from the 

contract. Except for the aforementioned contracts 

relative to Bestfoods and Advance Auto Parts, no other 

contracts were obtained by the defendants relative to 

the proposals listed on Exhibit “B”. It is denied 

that plaintiff was eligible to receive any bonuses 

with respect to any of the proposals listed in Exhibit 

“B”. It is denied that plaintiff is entitled to any 

bonuses with respect to any of the proposals listed in 

Exhibit “B”. 

Case 2:02-cv-04354-AB Document 9 Filed 11/19/2002 Page 6 of 9
7 

COUNT IV: FAILURE TO KEEP CONDITIONS

OF PROMISED EMPLOYMENT

21. Denied. The allegations set forth in paragraph 21 are 

denied. 

22. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that 

plaintiff operated out of her home during the period 

of her employment. It is also admitted that plaintiff 

was not provided with a secretary or office during the 

period of her employment. The defendants deny all 

other allegations set forth in paragraph 22 which are 

not expressly admitted herein. 

23. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted 

that other Business Directors in other areas of the 

United States were provided space in existing offices 

of defendant Howard Schultz & Associates and, in 

certain cases, secretarial support. It is denied that 

defendants promised to provide plaintiff with a 

secretary or office space outside of her home. 

Furthermore, it is denied that defendants were in any 

way legally obligated to provide plaintiff with a 

secretary, an independent office, and/or office space 

outside of her home. The defendants deny all other 

allegations set forth in paragraph 23 which are not 

expressly admitted herein. 

ADDITIONAL DEFENSES

Case 2:02-cv-04354-AB Document 9 Filed 11/19/2002 Page 7 of 9
8 

Plaintiff’s claims for relief are barred or limited by 

the following defenses: 

1. The Complaint has failed to state a claim upon which 

relief can be granted. 

2. The termination of plaintiff’s employment was for 

legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons. 

3. To the extent plaintiff was denied a promotion, such 

denial was based on legitimate, non-discriminatory 

reasons. 

4. Plaintiff has failed to mitigate damages. 

 

5. To the extent that the acts of which plaintiff 

complains were not contained within the Charge of 

Discrimination which she filed with the EEOC and the 

Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission, plaintiff has 

failed to exhaust her administrative remedies. 

WHEREFORE, Defendants pray that judgment be entered in 

favor of defendants and against plaintiff. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 _________________________ 

Dated: _______ Joseph S. Nescio, Esquire 

 Attorney for Defendants 

Case 2:02-cv-04354-AB Document 9 Filed 11/19/2002 Page 8 of 9
9 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

LINDA LYNCH : 

 : 

 VS. : NO. 02-CV-4354 

 : 

HOWARD SCHULTZ : 

& ASSOCIATES and : 

PRG-SCHULTZ INTERNATIONAL INC.: 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the 

above and foregoing Amended Answer was sent, first class postage 

prepaid via U.S. Mail, this 18th day of November, 2002, addressed 

to the following: 

Kingsley A. Jarvis, Esquire 

903 One Montgomery Plaza 

Norristown, PA 19401 

 ______________________ 

 Joseph S. Nescio 

 Attorney for Defendants 

Case 2:02-cv-04354-AB Document 9 Filed 11/19/2002 Page 9 of 9