IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

MADELEINE ENTINE, :

:

Plaintiff, : Case No. 2:17-cv-00946

v. :

: Judge Algenon L. Marbley

SCOTT LISSNER, :

: Magistrate Judge Jolson

Defendant. :

JURY DEMAND

DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

Defendant Scott Lissner (“Lissner”), by and through the undersigned counsel, hereby

answers Plaintiff Madeleine Entine’s Verified Complaint Seeking Temporary Restraining Order, 

Declaratory Judgment, and Injunctive Relief (the “Complaint”) as follows:

1. As to Paragraph 1, Lissner admits that he is the Americans with Disabilities Act 

Coordinator for The Ohio State University. Lissner further admits that Plaintiff is an 

individual with a disability. Lissner states further that the remaining allegations are legal 

conclusions, to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, 

Lissner denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 1.

2. As to Paragraph 2, Lissner admits that, as of the filing of this Answer, Plaintiff is a 

second-year undergraduate student at The Ohio State University. 

3. As to Paragraph 3, Lissner admits that he is the Americans with Disabilities Act 

Coordinator for The Ohio State University. Lissner states further that the remaining 

allegations are legal conclusions, to which no response is required. To the extent a 

response is required, Lissner denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 3.

Case: 2:17-cv-00946-ALM-KAJ Doc #: 24 Filed: 12/22/17 Page: 1 of 10 PAGEID #: 270
2

4. The allegations contained in Paragraph 4 are legal conclusions to which no response is 

required. To the extent that a response is required, Lissner denies the allegations in 

Paragraph 4.

5. The allegations contained in Paragraph 5 are legal conclusions to which no response is 

required. To the extent that a response is required, Lissner denies the allegations in 

Paragraph 5.

6. As to Paragraph 6, Lissner admits that, as of the filing of this Answer, Plaintiff is a 

second-year undergraduate student at The Ohio State University. Lissner further admits 

that, as of the filing of Plaintiff’s Complaint, Plaintiff is a member of the Chi Omega 

sorority.

7. As to Paragraph 7, Lissner admits to the extent that The Ohio State University has 

policies governing campus housing. Lissner lacks knowledge or information sufficient to 

form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 7, and therefore 

denies the same. 

8. As to Paragraph 8, Lissner admits to the extent that the allegation is true. 

9. As to Paragraph 9, Lissner admits that Plaintiff “applied to live in the house and received 

approval.” Lissner lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the 

truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 9, and therefore denies the same.

10. Lissner lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the 

allegations in Paragraph 10, and therefore denies the same.

11. As to Paragraph 11, Lissner admits that Plaintiff “suffers from a disability.” Lissner 

lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the 

remaining allegations in Paragraph 11, and therefore denies the same.

Case: 2:17-cv-00946-ALM-KAJ Doc #: 24 Filed: 12/22/17 Page: 2 of 10 PAGEID #: 271
3

12. As to Paragraph 12, Lissner admits that Plaintiff’s medical records speak for themselves.

Lissner lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the 

remaining allegations in Paragraph 12, and therefore denies the same.

13. Lissner lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the 

allegations in Paragraph 13, and therefore denies the same. 

14. As to Paragraph 14, Lissner admits that Plaintiff has a dog. Lissner lacks knowledge or 

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

Paragraph 14, and therefore denies the same. 

15. Lissner lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the 

allegations in Paragraph 15, and therefore denies the same.

16. As to Paragraph 16, Lissner admits that Plaintiff notified the University of her disability 

and her request to have her dog approved as an Emotional Support Animal through the 

University’s Student Life Disability Services and that the dog was approved to reside 

with Plaintiff. Lissner denies to the extent that Plaintiff alleges that her dog was allowed 

to “accompany [her] to areas and buildings on campus where University policies would 

normally prohibit animals.” Lissner lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a 

belief about the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 16, and therefore denies 

the same. 

17. As to Paragraph 17, Lissner admits to the extent that Plaintiff sought and received 

approval for her dog to live with her in the Chi Omega house from Chi Omega 

leadership. Lissner further admits that the Chi Omega house is not owned or operated by 

the University but instead is owned and operated by ZACO, Inc. Lissner further admits 

Case: 2:17-cv-00946-ALM-KAJ Doc #: 24 Filed: 12/22/17 Page: 3 of 10 PAGEID #: 272
4

that students residing in the Chi Omega house remain subject to certain University 

policies. Lissner denies any remaining allegations in Paragraph 17.

18. As to Paragraph 18, Lissner admits to the extent that Chi Omega and ZACO, Inc. 

allowed Plaintiff to reside in the Chi Omega house with her dog. Lissner lacks 

knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining 

allegations in Paragraph 18, and therefore denies the same. 

19. As to Paragraph 19, Lissner admits to the extent that Plaintiff is referring to the 

housemate whose disabilities are exacerbated by the presence of Plaintiff’s dog. Lissner 

lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the 

remaining allegations in Paragraph 19, and therefore denies the same. 

20. As to Paragraph 20, Lissner admits that he is the University’s Americans with Disabilities 

Act Coordinator and that individuals from Chi Omega, ZACO Inc., or both, contacted 

him about a complaint that they had received pertaining to Plaintiff’s dog. Lissner denies 

any remaining allegations in Paragraph 20. 

21. As to Paragraph 21, Lissner admits that Plaintiff provided him with information about her 

disability and about her dog. Lissner denies any remaining allegations in Paragraph 21.

22. As to Paragraph 22, Lissner admits that he provided an email dated Wednesday, October 

4, 2017, which contained his impressions after speaking with relevant individuals and 

reviewing pertinent information. Lissner further states that the document, attached to 

Plaintiff’s Complaint as Exhibit A speaks for itself. Lissner denies any remaining 

allegations in Paragraph 22.

Case: 2:17-cv-00946-ALM-KAJ Doc #: 24 Filed: 12/22/17 Page: 4 of 10 PAGEID #: 273
5

23. As to Paragraph 23, Lissner admits this allegation to the extent that it accurately quotes 

the email shared with Plaintiff. Lissner further states that the document, attached to 

Plaintiff’s Complaint as Exhibit A speaks for itself.

24. As to Paragraph 24, Lissner admits this allegation to the extent that it accurately quotes 

the email shared with Plaintiff. Lissner further states that the document, attached to 

Plaintiff’s Complaint as Exhibit A speaks for itself. Lissner denies any remaining 

allegations in Paragraph 24.

25. As to Paragraph 25, Lissner admits this allegation. 

26. As to Paragraph 26, Lissner denies these allegations.

27. As to Paragraph 27, Lissner admits that both he and Plaintiff referred to Plaintiff’s dog as 

an Emotional Support Animal. The remaining allegations in Paragraph 27 are legal 

conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, 

Lissner states that he lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the 

truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 27, and therefore denies the same. 

28. As to Paragraph 28, Lissner denies Plaintiff’s first allegation and states that he lacks 

knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining 

allegations in Paragraph 28, and therefore denies the same. 

29. As to Paragraph 29, Lissner states that these records speak for themselves. Lissner denies 

any allegations contained in Paragraph 29 that do not accurately portray these records.

30. As to Paragraph 30, Lissner states that these records speak for themselves. Lissner denies 

any allegations contained in Paragraph 30 that do not accurately portray these records.

31. As to Paragraph 31, Lissner admits that the University and Plaintiff’s counsel exchanged 

emails regarding this matter and further states that these records speak for themselves. 

Case: 2:17-cv-00946-ALM-KAJ Doc #: 24 Filed: 12/22/17 Page: 5 of 10 PAGEID #: 274
6

Lissner denies any allegations contained in Paragraph 31 that do not accurately portray 

these records.

32. As to Paragraph 32, Lissner admits that the University and Plaintiff’s counsel exchanged 

emails regarding this matter and further states that these records speak for themselves. 

Lissner denies any allegations contained in Paragraph 32 that do not accurately portray 

these records.

33. As to Paragraph 33, Lissner denies these allegations. 

34. As to Paragraph 34, Lissner admits this allegation.

35. As to Paragraph 35, Lissner denies Plaintiff’s first allegation and states that he lacks 

knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining 

allegations in Paragraph 28, and therefore denies the same.

36. As to Paragraph 36, Lissner states that this is a legal conclusion, to which no response is 

required. To the extent a response is required, Lissner denies the same.

37. As to Paragraph 37, Lissner states that this is a legal conclusion, to which no response is 

required. To the extent a response is required, Lissner states that the University is an 

instrumentality of the State of Ohio and is subject to Title II of the Americans with 

Disabilities Act.

38. As to Paragraph 38, Lissner states that this is a legal conclusion, to which no response is 

required. To the extent a response is required, Lissner admits this allegation.

39. As to Paragraph 39, Lissner states that this is a legal conclusion, to which no response is 

required. To the extent a response is required, Lissner denies this allegation.

40. As to Paragraph 40, Lissner states that this is a legal conclusion, to which no response is 

required. To the extent a response is required, Lissner denies this allegation.

Case: 2:17-cv-00946-ALM-KAJ Doc #: 24 Filed: 12/22/17 Page: 6 of 10 PAGEID #: 275
7

41. As to Paragraph 41, Lissner states that this is a legal conclusion, to which no response is 

required. To the extent a response is required, Lissner denies this allegation.

42. As to Paragraph 42, Lissner states that this is a legal conclusion, to which no response is 

required. To the extent that a response is required, Lissner denies the same.

43. As to Paragraph 43, Lissner states that this is a legal conclusion, to which no response is 

required. To the extent a response is required, Lissner denies the same.

44. As to Paragraph 44, Lissner states that this is a legal conclusion, to which no response is 

required. To the extent a response is required, Lissner admits the same.

45. As to Paragraph 45, Lissner states that this is a legal conclusion, to which no response is 

required. To the extent a response is required, Lissner denies the same.

46. As to Paragraph 46, Lissner states that this is a legal conclusion, to which no response is 

required. To the extent a response is required, Lissner denies the same.

47. As to Paragraph 47, Lissner states that this is a legal conclusion, to which no response is 

required. To the extent a response is required, Lissner denies the same.

48. As to Paragraph 48, Lissner admits this allegation.

49. As to Paragraph 49, Lissner states that this is a legal conclusion, to which no response is 

required. To the extent a response is required, Lissner states that the University is an 

instrumentality of the State of Ohio and is subject to Title II of the Americans with 

Disabilities Act. Lissner denies any remaining allegations in Paragraph 49.

50. As to Paragraph 50, Lissner states that this is a legal conclusion, to which no response is 

required. To the extent a response is required, Lissner denies the same.

51. As to Paragraph 51, Lissner states that this is a legal conclusion, to which no response is 

required. To the extent a response is required, Lissner denies the same.

Case: 2:17-cv-00946-ALM-KAJ Doc #: 24 Filed: 12/22/17 Page: 7 of 10 PAGEID #: 276
8

52. As to Paragraph 52, Lissner states that this is a legal conclusion, to which no response is 

required. To the extent a response is required, Lissner denies the same.

53. As to Paragraph 53, Lissner states that this is a legal conclusion, to which no response is 

required. To the extent a response is required, Lissner denies the same.

54. As to Paragraph 54, Lissner states that this is a legal conclusion, to which no response is 

required. To the extent a response is required, Lissner admits the same.

55. As to Paragraph 55, Lissner states that this is a legal conclusion, to which no response is 

required. To the extent a response is required, Lissner denies the same.

56. Lissner denies each and every allegation not specifically admitted to in this Answer.

WHEREFORE, having answered Plaintiff’s allegations, Lissner denies that his actions 

toward Plaintiff have violated any laws or were otherwise unlawful. Lissner further denies that 

Plaintiff is entitled to any of the relief requested or any relief whatsoever. Lissner hereby asserts 

the following additional defenses which may include one or more additional defenses. 

ADDITIONAL DEFENSES

1. Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

2. This Court lacks jurisdiction over all or some of Plaintiff’s claims.

3. Lissner is immune from suit pursuant to the doctrine of sovereign immunity and the 

Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution.

4. To the extent that any claims are asserted against Lissner in his individual capacity, 

he is entitled to qualified immunity as to such claims.

5. Lissner asserts any and all immunities to which he may be entitled under state and 

federal law.

Case: 2:17-cv-00946-ALM-KAJ Doc #: 24 Filed: 12/22/17 Page: 8 of 10 PAGEID #: 277
9

6. Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by her failure to mitigate her alleged 

damages.

7. Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the equitable doctrines of unclean hands, estoppel,

accord and satisfaction, waiver, and/or laches.

8. Lissner expressly reserves the right to supplement this Answer and to assert new or

additional defenses should and when they become known.

WHEREFORE, Lissner respectfully requests that Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed with 

prejudice in its entirety against him at Plaintiff’s cost, and that the Court award Lissner the costs 

he incurred in this litigation, reasonable attorney’s fees incurred in this litigation, and such other 

and further relief as this Court deems just.

Respectfully submitted,

MICHAEL DEWINE (0009181)

Ohio Attorney General 

s/ Jeffrey A. Knight

_____________________________________

JAMES D. MILLER (0080357)

Trial Counsel

JEFFREY A. KNIGHT (0086649)

Co-Counsel

Assistant Attorneys General

Education Section

30 East Broad Street, 16th Floor

Columbus, Ohio 43215

Telephone: (614) 644-7250

Facsimile: (614) 644-7634

james.miller@ohioattorneygeneral.gov

jeffrey.knight@ohioattorneygeneral.gov\

Counsel for Defendant

Case: 2:17-cv-00946-ALM-KAJ Doc #: 24 Filed: 12/22/17 Page: 9 of 10 PAGEID #: 278
10

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of Defendant’s Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint has been 

served on the parties this 22nd day of, December 2017 via the Court’s electronic service.

/s/ Jeffrey A. Knight

____________________________________

JEFFREY A. KNIGHT (0086649)

Assistant Attorney General

Case: 2:17-cv-00946-ALM-KAJ Doc #: 24 Filed: 12/22/17 Page: 10 of 10 PAGEID #: 279