PHLEGAL: #1307397 v2 (S0SL02!.DOC) 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

FORREST KRAMER, : 

: CIVIL ACTION 

Plaintiff, : 

: 

v. : 

: 

WEBCRAFT TECHNOLOGIES, INC., : 

: No. 02-CV-4355 

Defendant. : 

ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO COMPLAINT

Defendant, Webcraft, L.L.C., which is improperly named as Webcraft 

Technologies, Inc. (“Webcraft” or “Defendant”), by and through its undersigned attorneys, 

hereby submits this Answer and Affirmative Defenses to the Complaint filed by plaintiff Forrest 

G. Kramer (“Kramer”) as follows: 

FIRST DEFENSE

IDENTIFICATION OF PARTIES 

1. After reasonable investigation, Webcraft is without knowledge or 

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 1 of 

the Complaint regarding Plaintiff’s residence, and the same are therefore denied. 

2. Admitted that Webcraft has a place of business at 4371 County Line Road, 

Chalfont, PA 18914. The remaining allegation of paragraph 2 are denied.

JURISDICTION 

3. Denied, except that Webcraft admits that Plaintiff purports to invoke this 

court’s jurisdiction pursuant to the statutes set forth in paragraph 3 of the Complaint. 

4. The allegations in paragraph 4 of the Complaint constitute conclusions of 

law to which no responsive pleading is required and the same are therefore denied. To the extent 

Case 2:02-cv-04355-RBS Document 5 Filed 09/10/2002 Page 1 of 9
-2- 

PHLEGAL: #1307397 v2 (S0SL02!.DOC) 

these allegations may be construed as factual, Webcraft denies that any unfair employment 

practice occurred, and after reasonable investigation, Webcraft is without knowledge or 

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in 

paragraph 4 and the same are therefore denied. 

5. The allegations in paragraph 5 of the Complaint constitute conclusions of 

law to which no responsive pleading is required and the same are therefore denied. 

6. Admitted. 

7. Admitted. 

8. Denied. 

9. Admitted that Plaintiff moved to the position of First Assistant in January 

1996. The remaining allegations of paragraph 9 are denied. 

COUNT ONE 

10. Webcraft incorporates by reference its responses to paragraphs 1 through 9 

as if fully set forth herein. 

11. The allegations in paragraph 11 of the Complaint state conclusions of law 

to which no responsive pleading is required and the same are therefore denied. To the extent that 

these allegations may be construed as factual, they are denied. 

12. After reasonable investigation, Webcraft is without knowledge or 

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 12 of the 

Complaint and the same are therefore denied. 

13. Admitted that Plaintiff was terminated on or about August 7, 2000. The 

remaining allegations in paragraph 13 of the Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which 

no responsive pleading is required and the same are therefore denied. To the extent that these 

allegations may be construed as factual, they are denied. 

Case 2:02-cv-04355-RBS Document 5 Filed 09/10/2002 Page 2 of 9
-3- 

PHLEGAL: #1307397 v2 (S0SL02!.DOC) 

14. Denied. 

15. The allegations in paragraph 15 of the Complaint constitute conclusions of 

law to which no responsive pleading is required and the same are therefore denied. To the extent 

that these allegations may be construed as factual, they are denied. 

16. Denied. 

17. The allegations in paragraph 17 of the Complaint constitute conclusions of 

law to which no responsive pleading is required and the same are therefore denied. 

18. The allegations in paragraph 18 of the Complaint are a demand for relief 

to which no responsive pleading is required and the same are therefore denied. To the extent that 

these allegations may be construed as factual, they are denied. 

19. The allegations in paragraph 19 of the Complaint state conclusions of law 

and a demand for relief to which no responsive pleading is required and the same are therefore 

denied. To the extent that these allegations may be construed as factual, they are denied. 

20. The allegations in paragraph 20 of the Complaint state conclusions of law 

and a demand for relief to which no responsive pleading is required and the same are therefore 

denied. To the extent that these allegations may be construed as factual, they are denied. 

WHEREFORE, Webcraft prays that Plaintiff’s claim for relief be denied, that the 

Complaint be dismissed in its entirety, and that judgment be entered in Webcraft’s favor, 

together with costs and reasonable attorney’s fees incurred herein, and any other relief as the 

Court deems just and proper. 

COUNT TWO 

21. Webcraft incorporates by reference its responses to paragraphs 1 through 

20 as if fully set forth herein. 

Case 2:02-cv-04355-RBS Document 5 Filed 09/10/2002 Page 3 of 9
-4- 

PHLEGAL: #1307397 v2 (S0SL02!.DOC) 

22. The allegations in paragraph 22 of the Complaint state conclusions of law 

to which no responsive pleading is required and the same are therefore denied. To the extent that 

these allegations may be construed as factual, they are denied. 

23. The allegations in paragraph 23 of the Complaint state conclusions of law 

to which no responsive pleading is required and the same are therefore denied. To the extent that 

these allegations may be construed as factual, they are denied. 

24. The allegations in paragraph 24 of the Complaint state conclusions of law 

to which no responsive pleading is required and the same are therefore denied. To the extent that 

these allegations may be construed as factual, they are denied. 

25. The allegations in paragraph 25 of the Complaint state conclusions of law 

to which no responsive pleading is required and the same are therefore denied. To the extent that 

these allegations may be construed as factual, they are denied. 

26. The allegations in paragraph 25 of the Complaint state conclusions of law 

to which no responsive pleading is required and the same are therefore denied. To the extent that 

these allegations may be construed as factual, they are denied. 

27. Admitted that Plaintiff sustained a work-related injury on or about July 13, 

2000, a few days after which he was able to work with light-duty restrictions. Further admitted 

that Plaintiff was able to return to full duty on or about September 19, 2000. 

28. The allegations in paragraph 28 of the Complaint state conclusions of law 

to which no responsive pleading is required and the same are therefore denied. To the extent that 

these allegations may be construed as factual, they are denied. 

Case 2:02-cv-04355-RBS Document 5 Filed 09/10/2002 Page 4 of 9
-5- 

PHLEGAL: #1307397 v2 (S0SL02!.DOC) 

29. The allegations in paragraph 29 of the Complaint state conclusions of law 

to which no responsive pleading is required and the same are therefore denied. To the extent that 

these allegations may be construed as factual, they are denied. 

30. Admitted that Plaintiff’s was terminated on or about August 7, 2000. The 

remaining allegations in paragraph 30 of the Complaint state conclusions of law to which no 

responsive pleading is required and the same are therefore denied. To the extent that these 

allegations may be construed as factual, they are denied. 

31. The allegations in paragraph 30 of the Complaint state conclusions of law 

and a demand for relief to which no responsive pleading is required and the same are therefore 

denied. To the extent that these allegations may be construed as factual, they are denied. 

32. The allegations in paragraph 32 of the Complaint state conclusions of law 

and a demand for relief to which no responsive pleading is required and the same are therefore 

denied. To the extent that these allegations may be construed as factual, they are denied. 

33. The allegations in paragraph 33 of the Complaint state conclusions of law 

and a demand for relief to which no responsive pleading is required and the same are therefore 

denied. To the extent that these allegations may be construed as factual, they are denied. 

34. The allegations in paragraph 34 of the Complaint state a demand for relief 

to which no responsive pleading is required and the same are therefore denied. To the extent that 

these allegations may be construed as factual, they are denied. 

35. The allegations in paragraph 35 of the Complaint state conclusions of law 

and a demand for relief to which no responsive pleading is required and the same are therefore 

denied. To the extent that these allegations may be construed as factual, they are denied. 

Case 2:02-cv-04355-RBS Document 5 Filed 09/10/2002 Page 5 of 9
-6- 

PHLEGAL: #1307397 v2 (S0SL02!.DOC) 

WHEREFORE, Webcraft prays that Plaintiff’s claim for relief be denied, that the 

Complaint be dismissed in its entirety, and that judgment be entered in Webcraft’s favor, 

together with costs and reasonable attorney’s fees incurred herein, and any other relief as the 

Court deems just and proper. 

SECOND DEFENSE

The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 

THIRD DEFENSE

The Complaint is or may be barred, in whole or in part, by the statute of 

limitations. 

FOURTH DEFENSE

Plaintiff’s damages are barred, in part or whole, by the doctrine of estoppel and/or 

judicial estoppel. 

FIFTH DEFENSE

The Complaint is or may be barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrines of laches, 

waiver and/or unclean hands. 

SIXTH DEFENSE

Webcraft’s employment decisions with respect to Plaintiff were made for 

legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons unrelated to Plaintiff’s age or shoulder injury. 

SEVENTH DEFENSE

Plaintiff was treated at all times in a legitimate non-discriminatory manner. 

EIGHTH DEFENSE

Plaintiff cannot identify any similarly situated employee who was treated more 

favorably than was he. 

Case 2:02-cv-04355-RBS Document 5 Filed 09/10/2002 Page 6 of 9
-7- 

PHLEGAL: #1307397 v2 (S0SL02!.DOC) 

NINTH DEFENSE

The Plaintiff is not entitled to some or all of the relief sought. 

TENTH DEFENSE

Plaintiff is not entitled to any relief for any period, if any, he has been unable to 

work due to disability. 

ELEVENTH DEFENSE

If Plaintiff suffered any injury, the injury is not due to the acts of the Webcraft. 

TWELFTH DEFENSE

The Plaintiff has failed to mitigate all or some of his alleged damages. 

THIRTEENTH DEFENSE

The Complaint is barred, in whole or in part, by Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his 

administrative remedies. 

FOURTEENTH DEFENSE

Plaintiff is not a “qualified individual” with a disability under the Americans with 

Disabilities Act. 

FIFTEENTH DEFENSE

Webcraft at all times reasonably accommodated Plaintiff’s shoulder injury. 

Webcraft reserve the right to add one or more of the affirmative defenses listed in 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(c) and 12(b) if facts are discovered to support an additional 

affirmative defense. 

Case 2:02-cv-04355-RBS Document 5 Filed 09/10/2002 Page 7 of 9
-8- 

PHLEGAL: #1307397 v2 (S0SL02!.DOC) 

WHEREFORE, Webcraft prays that Plaintiff’s claim for relief be denied, that the 

Complaint be dismissed in its entirety, and that judgment be entered in Webcraft’s favor, 

together with costs and reasonable attorney’s fees incurred herein, and any other relief as the 

Court deems just and proper. 

DATED: September 10, 2002 Respectfully submitted, 

Hope A. Comisky (56373) 

Natalie S. Abbott (87718) 

PEPPER HAMILTON LLP

3000 Two Logan Square 

Eighteenth & Arch Streets 

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2799 

(215) 981-4000 

Attorneys for Defendant, Webcraft 

Technologies, Inc. 

Case 2:02-cv-04355-RBS Document 5 Filed 09/10/2002 Page 8 of 9
PHLEGAL: #1307397 v2 (S0SL02!.DOC) 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that, on this date, I caused a copy of the foregoing Answer and 

Affirmative Defenses to Complaint to be served upon counsel for Plaintiff, via First Class Mail, 

Postage Prepaid: 

Richard J. Orloski 

Orloski, Hinga, Pandaleon & Orloski 

111 N. Cedar Crest Blvd. 

Allentown, PA 18104-4602 

__________________________________ 

Natalie S. Abbott 

Dated: September 10, 2002 

Case 2:02-cv-04355-RBS Document 5 Filed 09/10/2002 Page 9 of 9