Civil Case No. 1:20-cv-661-RP

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AUSTIN DIVISION

MITEZ T. ORMOND, §

Plaintiff, §

§

v. §

§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:20-cv-00661-RP

CTVSEH PLLC, d/b/a CENTRAL TEXAS §

VETERINARY SPECIALTY AND §

EMERGENCY HOSPITAL, §

Defendant. §

DEFENDANT’S FIRST AMENDED ANSWER

Defendant CTVSEH, d/b/a Central Texas Veterinary Specialty and Emergency Hospital 

(“Defendant” or “CTVSEH”), by and through its counsel of record, and pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 

(a)(1)(A) files its First Amended Answer to the Complaint of Plaintiff Mitez T. Ormond 

(“Plaintiff”) and asserts it affirmative defenses as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. Admitted in part; denied in part. Neither the ADAAA nor the Texas Commission

on Human Rights Act (“TCHRA”), Tex. Lab. Code § 21.105 allow recovery of liquidated 

damages, so denied. Plaintiff’s claim under the TCHRA is not timely made, so denied. Denied 

that Plaintiff was discriminated against regarding the terms and conditions of her employment.

PARTIES

2. Admitted.

3. Admitted.

4. Denied.
Civil Case No. 1:20-cv-661-RP

2

DISCOVERY LEVEL

5. Neither admitted nor denied, as Tex. R. Civ. P. 190.3 is inapplicable to this case

due to removal to federal court.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

6. Admitted.

7. Admitted, although the United States District Court for the Western District of

Texas, Austin Division, also has jurisdiction over this cause of action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331,

1367, 1441 and 1446.

8. Admitted, although the United States District Court for the Western District of

Texas, Austin Division, also has jurisdiction over this cause of action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 

1367, 1441 and 1446.

PROCEDURAL REQUISITES

9. Admitted.

10. Admitted.

11. Admitted.

12. Denied that Plaintiff has met the conditions precedent to filing a cause of action

under the TCHRA, 21 Tex. Lab. Code §§ 21.202 and 21.254.

FACTS

13. Admitted.

14. It is admitted that CTVSEH operates three veterinary facilities in Austin and Round

Rock, Texas. It is admitted that Plaintiff reported directly to Dr. Stephanie Beardsley, but the 

remainder of the allegations of Paragraph 14 are denied.
Civil Case No. 1:20-cv-661-RP

3

14 (sic). Defendant is without sufficient information, knowledge or belief to admit 

or deny the allegations of Paragraph 15, as Plaintiff never informed Defendant of these allegations

nor did she ever submit any written medical documentation while Plaintiff was employed by 

Defendant, and therefore, these allegations are denied.

15. Denied, as Plaintiff never informed Defendant of these allegations nor did she ever

submit any written medical documentation of her alleged disability while Plaintiff was employed 

by Defendant. Defendant further denies the applicability of the two hearsay websites cited by 

footnote to this paragraph and denies that these websites support or are relevant or material to 

Plaintiff’s allegations.

16. Denied that Plaintiff’s alleged medical condition substantially impacts several

major life and work activities, as this allegation is vague, ambiguous and nonspecific, and assumes 

that Plaintiff is an individual with a covered disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 

as amended, which is denied. Denied that Plaintiff received a good performance review in May 

2018. Denied that Plaintiff was able to complete her duties in a timely manner. All remaining 

allegations in Paragraph 16 are denied.

17. Admitted that Plaintiff worked as a salaried Accounts Receivable Manager, rarely

on weekends, and that she was permitted to work from home on occasion, with the prior approval 

of Dr. Beardsley. All remaining factual allegations in Paragraph 17 are denied.

18. Denied.

19. Denied.

20. Denied.

21. It is denied that Plaintiff was normally expected to report to work after 8:35 a.m. or

that it was clear from a text message she sent to Dr. Beardsley on July 20, 2018 was a request to 
Civil Case No. 1:20-cv-661-RP

4

work from home. It is admitted that Plaintiff never responded to Dr. Beardsley’s directive to return 

CTVSEH business records and personal checks and other monies belonging to CTVSEH via 

courier. All remaining allegations in Paragraph 21 are denied.

22. Denied.

23. It is admitted that Plaintiff was notified of her termination on July 22, 2018 due to

her failure to call in sick on July 20, as well as her failure to respond to Dr. Beardsley’s directive 

to immediately courier CTVSEH business records and money, and the other performance issues 

which previously had been discussed with Plaintiff. All remaining allegations in Paragraph 23 are 

denied.

24. Denied.

CAUSE OF ACTION – VIOLATIONS OF THE AMERICANS

WITH DISABILITIES ACT AND TEX. LAB. CODE § 21.105

25. Except as otherwise admitted herein as to Paragraphs 1-24, denied.

26. Denied.

27. Denied.

28. Denied.

29. Denied.

30. Denied.

31. Denied.

32. Denied.

33. Denied.

CAUSE OF ACTION-FAMILY MEDICAL LEAVE ACT

(“FMLA”) – INTERFERENCE

34. Except as otherwise admitted herein as to Paragraphs 1-24, denied.
Civil Case No. 1:20-cv-661-RP

5

35. Denied.

36. Denied.

37. Denied.

JURY DEMAND

38. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information as to whether Plaintiff

has satisfied the requisites to demand a jury trial as alleged in the unnumbered Paragraph following 

Jury Trial, and therefore denies same.

REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE

39. Because of the removal of this action to federal court, the contents of the

unnumbered paragraph below Plaintiff’s Request for Disclosure have been rendered moot since

this matter will be governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

PRAYER

Defendant denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any of the relief requested in the unnumbered 

Prayer clause, including subparts (a) through (e), and respectfully requests that the Court dismiss 

the Complaint (Original Petition) in its entirety, and enter judgment in favor of Defendant and 

against Plaintiff.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

FIRST DEFENSE

Plaintiff’s Complaint (Original Petition) fails to state a claim against Defendant upon 

which relief may be granted.

SECOND DEFENSE

Upon information and belief, Plaintiff’s TCHRA claims are barred, in whole or in part, by 

applicable statutes of limitations.
Civil Case No. 1:20-cv-661-

RP

6

THIRD DEFENSE

Upon information and belief, Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, based upon 

the doctrines of waiver and estoppel.

FOURTH DEFENSE

Plaintiff’s claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act are barred to the extent that 

Plaintiff is not a qualified individual with a disability within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 12111(8) 

and has no standing to initiate this action and no right to any relief under the ADAAA.

FIFTH DEFENSE

Upon information and belief, Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because all 

employment decisions made with regard to Plaintiff were at all times motivated by legitimate, nondiscriminatory and lawful factors, and CTVSEH at no time acted in an unlawful manner in 

connection with any decision regarding Plaintiff.

SIXTH DEFENSE

Plaintiff’s claims are barred to the extent Defendant made good faith efforts to reasonably 

accommodate Plaintiff.

SEVENTH DEFENSE

Plaintiff cannot establish that she was subjected to interference because she did not provide 

sufficient information to reasonably apprise Defendant that she suffered from a serious health 

condition for which she needed leave.

EIGHTH DEFENSE

Plaintiff cannot establish that she was subjected to leave interference because she failed to 

follow Defendant’s policy for reporting absences and ignored specific directives.
Civil Case No. 1:20-cv-661-RP

7

NINTH DEFENSE

Plaintiff did not give Defendant notice of her intention or request to take FMLA leave, and 

she was not denied FMLA leave.

TENTH DEFENSE

Plaintiff cannot recover under the FMLA because she failed to give proper notice of a need 

to take FMLA leave within the time prescribed by the employer’s usual notice requirements for 

such leave.

ELEVENTH DEFENSE

Upon information and belief, Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by Plaintiff’s 

failure to take reasonable steps to mitigate his claims of damages, the existence of such damages 

being hereby denied.

TWELFTH DEFENSE

Plaintiff's punitive damages claims are barred because CTVSEH did not act with malice or 

with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Plaintiff.

THIRTEENTH DEFENSE

Plaintiff is not entitled to punitive damages because CTVSEH made good faith efforts to 

comply with the ADA, the FMLA and other applicable laws.

FOURTEENTH DEFENSE

Plaintiff is not entitled to liquidated damages under the ADA or the TCHRA as alleged in 

her original complaint.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, Defendant CTVSEH denies that Plaintiff is entitled 

to any of the relief requested in her Complaint, and respectfully requests that the Court dismiss the 

Complaint in its entirety, and enter judgment in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff.
By: 

Respectfully submitted, 

BETSY HALL BENDER 

Attorney at Law 

P.O. Box 340505 

Austin, Texas 78734-0505 

(512) 346-7292 (Telephone)

(512) 338-4401 (Fax)

bhb@bhbender.com

Civil Case No. l:20-cv-661-RP

��� 

Bar No. 08743800 

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT CTVSEH 

PLLC, d/b/a CENTRAL TEXAS 

VETERINARY & SPECIALTY EMERGENCY 

HOSPITAL 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of Defendant's First Amended Answer has 

been sent by Electronic Mail on this the 8th day of July, 2020, to the following counsel of record: 

Benjamin F. Foster (Via Email ben@fsfirm.com) 

Foster Salisbury PLLC 

405 Main Street, Suite 722 

Houston, TX 77002 

8