WHEREFORE, defendant, BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF COMMUNITY
COLLEGE DISTRICT NO. 508 (d/b/a the City Colleges of Chicago) , prays this
Honorable Court strike plaintiff's complaint and dismiss any cause of action stated
therein and further award its costs incurred herein.

Respectfully Submitted

Yolande M. Bourgeois

General Counsel

City Colleges of Chica;
ty y) BES a cs

& ’

KWAME RAOUL
Staff Counsel
ARDC # 06217240

Yolande Bourgeois

General Counsel

City Colleges of Chicago

Office of the General Counsel

226 West Jackson Boulevard, 14" Floor
Chicago, Illinois 60606

(312) 553-2920


9. Defendant’s discriminatory conduct as aforesaid, was done with malice and/or
reckless indifference to Plaintiff's civil rights. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to punitive damages
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981a.

ANSWER: _ Plaintiff denies the allegations in paragraph No. 9 of plaintiff's complaint.

WHEREFORE, defendant, BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF COMMUNITY
COLLEGE DISTRICT NO. 508 (d/b/a the City Colleges of Chicago) , prays this
Honorable Court strike plaintiff's complaint and dismiss any cause of action stated
therein and further award its costs incurred herein.

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Performance Did Not Meet Defendant’s Reasonable Expectations)

1, That in order to prove a burden a prima facie case of discrimination pursuant to
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 200e et seq., the plaintiff must establish : (1)
he was a member of a protected class, (2) that his job performance was sufficient to meet his
employer’s legitimate expectations, (3) he was discharged and (4) that his employer sought a
replacement for him. Weiss v. Coca-Cola Bottling Company of Chicago, 99 F3d 333, 336 (7"
Cir, 1993),

2. That plaintiff's performance while employed with the City Colleges of Chicago
was not sufficient to meet defendant’s legitimate expectations.

WHEREFORE, defendant, BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF COMMUNITY
COLLEGE DISTRICT NO. 508 (d/b/a the City Colleges of Chicago) , prays this
Honorable Court strike plaintiff's complaint and dismiss any cause of action stated
therein and further award its costs incurred herein.

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Legitimate Reason for Discharge)

1. Defendant can rebut a prima facie case of discrimination if it can produce a
legitimate non-discriminatory reason for discharge. Kirk vy. Federal Property Management
Corporation, 22 F3d 135, 138 (7" Cir. 1994)

2. Defendant had legitimate non-discriminatory reasons for why plaintiff was
discharged.


FILED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT >
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 2002 FEB 29 by 5,
EASTERN DIVISION 2:42

US, pisitk

CECIL R. TALIAFERRO, ) STRICT Court
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. 02 0514
)
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF ) Ho LATAMAN
COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT )
NO. 508 )
Defendant. )
NOTICE OF FILING
To:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on the i) wn day of ébwecy_,
2002, we filed with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
Eastern Division, the attached DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S

COMPLAINT AT LAW.

7

KWAME RAOUL
Staff Counsel
ARDC # 06217240
City Colleges of Chicago
Office of the General Counsel
226 West Jackson Boulevard, 14" Floor
Chicago, Illinois 60606
(312) 553-2920
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

L Kisewe feo l , certify that I served a copy of this notice by mailing

a copy of same to the above listed person at the above listed address by depositing same
in the U.S. Mail at 226 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, Illinois on _ February 20 , 2002

at 5:00 p.m.
Lo Lo

a



FILED

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 2002 FEB 20 PH 2+ 42

EASTERN DIVISION CLERK
GLEN
CECIL R. TALIAFERRO, ) U.S. DISTRICT COURT
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. 02 C 0514
)
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF )
COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT }
NO. 508 )
Defendant. )

ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFE’S COMPLAINT AT LAW

NOW COMES Defendant, Board of Trustees of Community College District No. 508,
County of Cook and State of Illinois, City Colleges of Chicago, by and through its attorneys,
Yolande Bourgeois, General Counsel, and Kwame Raoul, Staff Attorney, for its answer to the
complaint herein states as follows:

COUNT I= TITLE Vii

1. Plaintiff brings this cause pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as
amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. and the Civil Rights Act of 1991. Jurisdiction also arises
pursuant to 28 U.S.C, § 1343(4).

ANSWER: _ Defendant admits only that the statutes cited in paragraph No. 1 of

plaintiff's complaint exist and they speak for themselves. Defendant
admits to know conclusions of law cited in paragraph No. 1.

2. Plaintiff has filed this cause subsequent to the timely filing of a Charge of
Discrimination based on his sex (male); with the Illinois Department of Human Rights and the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto
as Exhibit A. .

ANSWER: _ Defendant admits the allegations in paragraph No. 2 of plaintiff's
complaint.


3. Plaintiff has filed this cause pursuant to a Notice of Right to Sue issued by the
United States Department of Justice within the statutory time requirements, a true and correct
copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B.

ANSWER: Defendant admits the allegations in paragraph No. 3 of plaintiff's
complaint. .

4. Plaintiff, at all times pertinent hereto, was a person protected by the provision of
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(b).

ANSWER: Defendant admits that the statute cited in paragraph No. 4 of plaintiff's
complaint exists and it speaks for itself. Defendant admits to no
conclusions of law contained in paragraph No. 4.

5. Defendant, at all times pertinent hereto, operated and did business within the
__ jurisdiction of this judicial circuit and is an employer as defined by 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b).

ANSWER: _ Defendant admits that it operated and did business within the jurisdiction.
Defendant admits to no conclusions of law contained in paragraph No. 5.

6. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as Vice-President of Harold Washington
College from February 14, 2000 until he was terminated September 29, 2000.

ANSWER: Defendant admits that Plaintiff was employed as Vice-President beginning
on February 14, 2000. Defendant admits that he was given notice of a
recommendation to terminate him on September 29, 2000, but his
termination did not become effective until November 2, 2000.

7. In direct violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended 42
U.S.C. § 2000¢ et seq., Defendant, by its agents and employees, engaged in the discriminatory
acts described in the attached Charge of Discrimination, attached hereto as Exhibit A and
incorporated herein by reference.

ANSWER: _ Plaintiff denies the allegations in paragraph No. 7 of plaintiff's complaint.

8. As aresult of Defendant’s discriminatory conduct as aforesaid, Plaintiff has
suffered injury to his career as well as emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish
and loss of enjoyment of life, and other non-pecuniary losses for which he is entitle to
compensatory damages to 42 U.S.C. § 1981 a.

ANSWER: _ Plaintiff denies the allegations in paragraph No. 8 of plaintiffs complaint.