UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

JOY PHILLIPS,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF SOUTH BEND and

RONALD TEACHMAN,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:15-cv-527-PPS-CAN

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

The City of South Bend (“the City”) and Ronald Teachman respond to the 

Complaint filed by Joy Phillips as follows. According to Local Rule 10-1, the 

allegations of the Complaint are repeated verbatim, with the Defendants’ answers 

immediately following.

1. Plaintiff seeks to vindicate her rights Under [sic] the Civil Rights Act 

of 1964 and under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment due 

to discrimination based on her sex.

ANSWER: The City and Teachman admit Phillips alleges discrimination 

and attempts to seek relief, but they deny she has stated a 

claim and deny she is entitled to any relief.

2. This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction of the federal 

questions presented pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1333 and § 1343. Plaintiff’s causes of 

action arise under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

ANSWER: The City and Teachman admit that Phillips’s allegations 

invoke the jurisdiction of this Court but deny the truth of her 

allegations or that she has stated a claim.

USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00527-PPS document 6 filed 12/03/15 page 1 of 7
2

3. Plaintiff timely filed charges of discrimination with the Equal 

Employment Opportunity Commission on October 23, 2014 and on December 10, 

2014. She received her Right to Sue letter on August 11, 2015.

ANSWER: The City and Teachman admit Phillips filed two charges of 

discrimination on those dates and that the EEOC issued 

dismissal and right to sue notices regarding them in August 

2015. They lack sufficient information to admit or deny the 

remaining allegations of Paragraph 3 and therefore deny them.

4. Venue is proper in the South Bend Division because the Defendant 

resides in this division and the events complained of occurred in this division.

ANSWER: The City and Teachman admit that Phillips’s allegations make 

for proper venue in this Court, but they deny the truth of those 

allegations and deny all other allegations in Paragraph 4.

5. Joy Phillips (female) is an adult citizen of the United States who 

resides in South Bend, Indiana.

ANSWER: The City and Teachman admit the allegations of Paragraph 5.

6. The City of South Bend is a government unit located in St. Joseph 

County, Indiana. It operates the South Bend Police Department.

ANSWER: The City and Teachman admit the allegations of Paragraph 6.

7. Ronald Teachman (male), is an adult citizen of the United States who 

resides in South Bend, Indiana. He is sued individually and in his capacity as Chief 

of the South Bend Police Department.

ANSWER: Teachman admits he is an adult, male U.S. citizen who resides

in South Bend, Indiana and that he was formerly chief of the 

South Bend Police Department. The allegations regarding why 

or how Phillips has sued him are legal conclusions that do not 

require a response. Likewise, the allegations of Paragraph 7 

are not directed to the City and do not require a response from 

USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00527-PPS document 6 filed 12/03/15 page 2 of 7
3

it. The City and Teachman deny all other allegations in 

Paragraph 7.

8. Joy Phillips (“Phillips”) has been employed by the South Bend Police 

Department (“SBPD”) as a sworn police officer since April 19, 1999.

ANSWER: The City and Teachman admit the allegations of Paragraph 8.

9. During this time Phillips performed exemplary police work, receiving 

numerous commondations [sic].

ANSWER: The City and Teachman deny the allegations of Paragraph 9.

10. On three instances Phillips sought promotion from the rank of 

Patrolman to Sergeant.

ANSWER: The City and Teachman admit Phillips has sought various 

promotions.

11. Most recently, Phillips sought promotion to the rank of Sergeant when 

the SBPD announced openings for three Sergeant positions.

ANSWER: The City and Teachman admit the allegations of Paragraph 11.

12. Phillips was the only female who applied.

ANSWER: The City and Teachman admit Phillips was the only female 

candidate for open sergeant positions filled in 2015.

13. Instead of Phillips, Chief of Police Ronald Teachman promoted three 

male applicants to the rank of Sergeant who had less experience than Phillips and 

had who had [sic] histories of serious disciplinary violations.

ANSWER: The City and Teachman deny the allegations of Paragraph 13.

14. Phillips has been subjected to a continuous barrage of demeaning 

remarks, sexual innuendo, and unwanted sexual advances by fellow officers and 

superiors.

USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00527-PPS document 6 filed 12/03/15 page 3 of 7
4

ANSWER: The City and Teachman deny the allegations of Paragraph 14.

15. The demeaning remarks and sexual innenuendo [sic] persisted even 

after Phillips alerted superior officers to the problem.

ANSWER: The City and Teachman deny the allegations of Paragraph 15. 

16. Phillips filed a Charge of Discrimination non [sic] October 23, 2014. 

Shortly thereafter, Teachman replaced Phillips as Commander of the Interim 

Hostage Negotiation Team and replaced her with a less qualified male.

ANSWER: The City and Teachman admit Phillips filed a charge of 

discrimination on October 23, 2014. They deny all other 

allegations in Paragraph 16.

17. When Phillips complained that she was subjected to unwanted sexual 

advances by a fellow officer the officer was not punished and Phillips was subjected 

an Internal Affairs investigation for defaming a fellow officer.

ANSWER: The City and Teachman deny the allegations of Paragraph 17.

18. At all times Teachman acted in the scope of his employment by the 

City of South Bend and under color of Indiana law.

ANSWER: The City and Teachman admit that any actions Teachman took 

concerning Phillips were within the scope of his employment 

with the City. They deny the allegations regarding “color of 

Indiana law” as a legal conclusion that presumes some sort of 

deprivation of rights—which Teachman and the City deny. 

They deny all other allegations in Paragraph 18. 

19. Teachman’s failure to promote Phillips in favor of less qualified males 

constitutes descrimination [sic] on the basis of her sex in violation of the Equal 

Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00527-PPS document 6 filed 12/03/15 page 4 of 7
5

ANSWER: Teachman denies the allegations of Paragraph 19. If any of its 

allegations could be interpreted to apply to the City, it also 

denies them.

20. Teachman’s failure to correct the barrage of demeaning remarks and 

behaviors directed by fellow police officers at Phillips due to her sex constitutions

[sic] sex discrimination in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth

Amendment.

ANSWER: Teachman denies the allegations of Paragraph 20. If any of its 

allegations could be interpreted to apply to the City, it also 

denies them.

21. The demeaning remarks and behaviors directed at Phillips because of 

her sex created a hostile work environment within the meaning of Title VII of the 

Civil Rights Act of 1964.

ANSWER: The City denies the allegations of Paragraph 21. If any of its 

allegations could be interpreted to apply to Teachman, he also 

denies them.

22. Phillips’ replacement as Commander of the Hostage Negotiation Team, 

along with other unjustified discipline and investigations, constitutes retaliation for 

protected activity under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

ANSWER: The City denies the allegations of Paragraph 22. If any of its 

allegations could be interpreted to apply to Teachman, he also 

denies them.

23. Plaintiff seeks all relief allowable by law, including back pay, front 

pay, reinstatement, and compensatory and punitive damages, and attorneys [sic]

fees.

ANSWER: The City and Teachman admit that Phillips seeks various 

forms of relief but deny she has stated a claim and deny she is 

entitled to any form of relief.

USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00527-PPS document 6 filed 12/03/15 page 5 of 7
6

Additional Defenses

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

2. Subject to further investigation and discovery, Phillips may have failed to 

reasonably mitigate her claimed damages.

3. Subject to further investigation and discovery, some of Phillips’s claims may 

be barred or limited as untimely—particularly the individual claims alleged 

against Teachman for which more discovery is needed to determine the 

timing and circumstances of alleged events.

4. Some or all of Phillips’s claims should be dismissed because they exceed the 

reasonable scope of her Charges of Discrimination.

5. To the extent Phillips has failed to exhaust any administrative remedies, her 

claims are barred.

6. Subject to further investigation and discovery, Phillips’s remedies, if any, 

may be limited by the doctrine of after-acquired evidence.

7. All of the City’s actions relating to Phillips were taken for legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons.

8. Teachman is not an “employer” to Phillips within the meaning of Title VII.

9. There is no viable claim against Teachman in his official capacity because 

such claims merely duplicate those against the City itself.

10. The City and Teachman reserve the right to assert additional defenses as 

they become known.

THEREFORE, the City and Teachman respectfully request the Court to enter 

judgment in their favor dismissing the Complaint, assessing costs against Phillips, 

and granting all other appropriate relief.

Jury Demand

The City and Teachman respectfully request trial by jury on all issues so 

triable.

USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00527-PPS document 6 filed 12/03/15 page 6 of 7
7

Respectfully submitted,

 /s/ Michael J. Hays

Michael J. Hays (#23606-71)

Elizabeth A. Klesmith (#32035-71)

TUESLEY HALL KONOPA, LLP

212 East LaSalle Avenue

South Bend, Indiana 46617

Telephone: (574) 232-3538

mhays@thklaw.com

eklesmith@thklaw.com

Counsel for Defendant

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on December 3, 2015, I electronically filed this document

with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which sent notification of the 

filing to all counsel of record.

 /s/ Michael J. Hays

USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00527-PPS document 6 filed 12/03/15 page 7 of 7