IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

HAMMOND DIVISION 

ERIC WALTON, ) 

 ) 

Plaintiff, ) 

v. ) CASE NO.: 2:15-CV-74 

 ) 

UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION, ) 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

Defendant, United States Steel Corporation (“U. S. Steel”), by counsel, Answers 

Plaintiff’s Complaint and states: 

STATEMENT OF LEGAL CLAIM

1. Walton suffered damages, emotional distress, emotional pain and suffering, 

and loss of income due to defamation via false statements and negative references given by 

US STEEL to potential employers, one being Arcelor Mittal located in Bums Harbor, IN 

(Mittal). 

 ANSWER: The allegations contained in Paragraph 1 of Plaintiff’s Complaint are 

denied. 

2. Walton suffered damages, emotional distress, emotional pain and suffering, 

and loss of income due to discriminatory retaliation via violation(s) of the Americans with 

Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA) by US STEEL; such violation(s) 

mentioned and inferred in #1. 

 ANSWER: The allegations contained in Paragraph 2 of Plaintiff’s Complaint are 

denied. 
 2

3. Walton suffered damages, emotional distress, emotional pain and suffering, 

and loss of income due to discriminatory retaliation via violation(s) of the Civil Rights Act 

(Title VII) by US STEEL; such violation(s) mentioned and inferred in #1. 

 ANSWER: The allegations contained in Paragraph 3 of Plaintiff’s Complaint are 

denied. 

FACTS IN SUPPORT OF CLAIM

 1. Walton is a resident of Gary, IN; address being 4021 E 13th Ave. 

 ANSWER: U. S. Steel admits only that, upon belief, Plaintiff is a resident of Gary 

Indiana, and resides at 4021 E 13th Avenue. 

 2. Walton was born on 2/4/77. 

 ANSWER: U. S. Steel admits only that, upon belief, Plaintiff was born on February 4, 

1977. 

 3. Walton was an employee of US STEEL, Tin Mill Department, 6 Stand Mill; 

Walton's starting date being 2/6/06 and ending date being 2/27/09. 

 ANSWER: The allegations contained in Paragraph 3 of Plaintiff’s Complaint are 

admitted. 

 4. US STEEL is headquartered in Pittsburgh, PA with facilities and operations in Gary, 

IN. 
 3

 ANSWER: The allegations contained in Paragraph 4 of Plaintiff’s Complaint are 

admitted. 

 

 5. During past employment with US STEEL, Walton suffered two debilitating and 

near fatal adverse reactions due to long term chemical exposure at 6 Stand Mill (worksite); both 

highly severe: first occurring 12/12/07, the second occurring 2/21/08. 

 ANSWER: U. S. Steel lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to 

the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 5 in the substance, manner and/or form stated. 

To the extent a response is deemed necessary, the allegations contained in Paragraph 5 are 

denied.

 6. Walton was forced to return to worksite at or around 2/4/08, his 31st birthday, by 

US STEEL despite doctor's orders and common sense. Safety refusal would be considered 

insubordination; this logically infers how and why Walton suffered second injury 2/21/08, just a 

mere 17 (seventeen) days later. 

 ANSWER: U. S. Steel lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to 

the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 6 in the substance, manner and/or form stated; 

to the extent the allegations contained in Paragraph 6 suggest or imply any wrongdoing on the 

part of U. S. Steel, its employees, and/or former employees, U. S. Steel denies them as untrue. 
 4

 7. After self-motivated investigation, Walton filed and was subsequently awarded 

worker's compensation benefits retroactively to 12/12/07. 

 ANSWER: The allegations contained in Paragraph 7 of Plaintiff’s Complaint are 

denied. 

 8. Walton thus recognized as one with disability and needing reasonable 

accommodation, i.e., new worksite, where coke dust and materials containing such (nickel), cutting 

oils (dichlorophene), and hydraulic fluid solution (propylene glycol). 

 ANSWER: U. S. Steel lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to 

the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 8 in the substance, manner and/or form stated; 

to the extent the allegations contained in Paragraph 8 suggest or imply any wrongdoing on the 

part of U. S. Steel, its employees, and/or former employees, U. S. Steel denies them as untrue. 

 9. From time of worker's compensation awarded (6/10/08), Walton experienced many 

patterns of "mistakes" by US STEEL leading up to his final date of employment described in #3; 

such "mistakes" included: monies paid in a timely fashion, false accusations of AWOL when not the 

case and such was proven with documentation Walton possessed, worker's compensation being 

terminated by US STEEL before reasonable accommodation made or a layoff offered due to fact 

reasonable accommodation wasn't available so Walton can get unemployment benefits, an 

unreasonable accommodation offered as a reasonable accommodation despite documents stating 

otherwise, suspended and subsequently terminated for insubordination despite documents and 
 5

evidence possessed vindicating Walton as being truthful and not guilty of insubordination when he 

followed instruction of his Local Union 1066 who worked in concert with US STEEL on Walton's 

behalf, insurance and benefits rightly due to Walton were terminated despite new contract agreement 

calling for such to be active during grievance filing and process, bad faith deals offered by US STEEL

to Walton, i.e. a last chance agreement despite Walton possession an impeccable disciplinary record 

and this disability/worker's compensation case being only incident during employment, US STEEL 

refusing to negotiate reasonable accommodation fairly due to Walton filing civil case 2:10-CV-00188, 

grievance hearing lost and recognized as controversial by numerous persons who Walton knows 

personally who possess decades of grievance experience by them grievers, employment lawyers, or 

International Union officers 

 ANSWER: The allegations contained in Paragraph 9 of Plaintiff’s Complaint are 

denied. 

 10. Walton developed further disabilities stemming from that which is described in #5 

#6, and #9; such disabilities include depression, fibromyalgia, hyperacusis, irritable bowel 

syndrome. 

 ANSWER: U. S. Steel lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to 

the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 10 in the substance, manner and/or form 

stated; to the extent the allegations contained in Paragraph 10 suggest or imply any wrongdoing 

on the part of U. S. Steel, its employees, and/or former employees, U. S. Steel denies them as 

untrue. 
 6

 11. Walton's care for all described, mentioned, and inferred in #10 are ongoing and have 

been since 2012, 2/1/12 being the date Walton finally gained insurance coverage via the Healthy 

Indiana Program (HIP) with the State of Indiana. 

 ANSWER: U. S. Steel lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to 

the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 11 in the substance, manner and/or form 

stated; to the extent the allegations contained in Paragraph 11 suggest or imply any wrongdoing 

on the part of U. S. Steel, its employees, and/or former employees, U. S. Steel denies them as 

untrue. 

 12. #9 through #11 shows obvious pattern of bad practices by US STEEL, very 

foundation of ongoing actions which is the current "Statement of Legal Claim". US STEEL 

previously made mention of events stated in #5 through #12 in its response to Walton's EEOC 

Charge No: 470-2014-01664; Walton in response clarified that is not the case however US STEEL's 

mere insinuation, albeit false, gives way for the past pattern of "mistakes", i.e., past actions and 

practices to be recalled and current litigation, more importantly the current Court and Judge to truly

take into consideration with this civil case as stated in "Statement of Legal Claim" 

 ANSWER: The allegations contained in Paragraph 12 of Plaintiff’s Complaint are 

denied. 

 13. Walton applies to Mittal at or around 3/11/13 utilizing an employee reference from his 

uncle; who happened to also previously worked at US STEEL before working at Mittal. 
 7

 ANSWER: U. S. Steel lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to 

the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 13 in the substance, manner and/or form 

stated; to the extent the allegations contained in Paragraph 13 suggest or imply any wrongdoing 

on the part of U. S. Steel, its employees, and/or former employees, U. S. Steel denies them as 

untrue. 

 14. Walton selected to take Work Keys test for Mittal at or around 4/2/13 

 ANSWER: U. S. Steel lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to 

the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 14 in the substance, manner and/or form 

stated. 

 15. Walton passes test with required score of 4. 

 ANSWER: U. S. Steel lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to 

the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 15 in the substance, manner and/or form 

stated. 

 16. Walton takes second test at Burns Harbor at or around 6/6/13; prior to taking test, 

Walton was asked if US STEEL could be contacted for reference to which Walton says sure. 

 ANSWER: U. S. Steel lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to 

the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 16 in the substance, manner and/or form 

stated. 
 8

 17. Walton receives email from Mittal dated 7/29/13 stating he is unable to be 

considered for further employment despite previous experience at US STEEL; "evaluation 

results are final and cannot be revised or discussed" is stated. 

 ANSWER: U. S. Steel lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to 

the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 17 in the substance, manner and/or form 

stated. 

 18. Walton runs into his uncle mentioned in #13 by chance; uncle assumed I was waiting on 

a hire date. After notifying uncle otherwise, uncle makes mention of Walton being blackballed and his 

personnel file has something showing negative statements and references; uncle had a similar situation

during his tenure at US STEEL where he suffered worksite injuries from adverse reactions suffered 

and permanent restrictions gained. Uncle states to Walton that he knows a HR Supervisor at Mittal 

(Walton also knows of said HR Supervisor after uncle describes who it is and how Walton knows 

said person) and will provide information. 

 ANSWER: The allegations contained in Paragraph 18 of Plaintiff’s Complaint are 

denied. 

 19. Walton learns from uncle via HR Supervisor mentioned in #18 that US STEEL indeed 

supplied bad references and negatively placed Walton in a bad light. Uncle made a logical inference 

based on strategic response and wording given by HR Supervisor. 
 9

 ANSWER: The allegations contained in Paragraph 19 of Plaintiff’s Complaint are 

denied. 

 20. Walton makes logical inference that he has been denied numerous job opportunities 

after interviews and up to the reference checks. Furthermore, time in between jobs (last day worked 

2/21/08, last day of being on payroll and recognized as an employee of US STEEL 2/27/09) is 

looked upon false and is misleading with US STEEL providing such false, misleading, and negative 

references and statements. 

 ANSWER: The allegations contained in Paragraph 20 of Plaintiff’s Complaint are 

denied. 

 21. Walton is therefore blackballed and red flagged by US STEEL via that which is 

listed in detail in "State of Legal Claim" 

 ANSWER: The allegations contained in Paragraph 21 of Plaintiff’s Complaint are 

denied. 

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

All of the allegations contained in the Complaint that are not specifically admitted are 

denied. 

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

The Complaint fails to state any claims upon which relief can be granted. 
 10

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Defendant has at all times acted in good faith and have not violated any rights that may 

be available to Plaintiff under any applicable law, rule or regulation. 

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the doctrine of latches, waiver and/or estoppel. 

FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Plaintiff failed to exhaust the administrative and/or contractual remedies available to him. 

SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

 Defendant maintains and enforces policies prohibiting discrimination and retaliation, and 

Plaintiff unreasonably failed to take advantage of the complaint procedures and preventative and 

corrective opportunities contained therein. 

SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

 Plaintiff cannot recover the damages he is seeking under any of his claims. 

EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

 The Plaintiff failed to exhaust the administrative remedies and prerequisites to suit. 

NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

 Plaintiff has failed to reasonably mitigate any damages to which he might otherwise be 

entitled. 

TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

 Plaintiff cannot demonstrate a prima facie case of race discrimination, disability 

discrimination, defamation, or retaliation. 
 11

ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

 Defendant’s actions were based upon legitimate, non-discriminatory and non-retaliatory 

reasons. 

TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

 Defendant at all times acted in good faith and without malice or reckless indifference to 

Plaintiff's protected rights and, therefore, Plaintiff cannot recover punitive damages. 

THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

 Defendant provided no statements or information to prospective employers concerning 

Plaintiff, and any requests for information from prospective employers or outside entities to 

U. S. Steel concerning U. S. Steel employees or former employees are handled by a third party. 

RESERVATION OF DEFENSES

 Defendant reserves the right to amend its Answer to assert additional affirmative defenses 

based upon any additional information obtained during pretrial discovery. 

WHEREFORE, Defendant United States Steel Corporation respectfully requests that 

judgment be entered in its favor, and against the Plaintiff, and that all relief requested by Plaintiff 

be denied. 

Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Rodney M. Torbic

 Rodney M. Torbic 

May 21, 2015 PA I.D. No. 66089 

 United States Steel Corporation 

 600 Grant Street, Room 1500 

 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 

 412-433-2990 

 
 12

 Terence M. Austgen (#2484-49) 

 Elizabeth M. Bezak (#16648-64) 

 Burke Costanza & Carberry LLP 

 9191 Broadway 

 Merrillville, IN 46410 

 (219) 769-1313 

 

 Attorneys for Defendant, 

 UNITED STATES STEEL 

 CORPORATION 

 

 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on May 21, 2015, service of a true and complete copy of the foregoing 

Answer to Complaint was made upon the following counsel and/or parties of record by 

depositing same in the United States Mail in envelopes properly addressed to them and with 

sufficient first-class postage affixed: 

 Eric R. Walton

 4021 East 13th Avenue 

 Gary, Indiana 46403 

Pro Se Plaintiff 

 

 By: /s/Rodney M. Torbic