00523241.1

Page 1 – SAGE SOFTWARE, INC.’S ANSWER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT

BARRAN LIEBMAN LLP

601 SW SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 2300

PORTLAND, OR 97204-3159

PHONE (503) 228-0500 FAX (503) 274-1212

Paula A. Barran, OSB No. 803974

pbarran@barran.com

Iris K. Tilley, OSB No. 101991

itilley@barran.com

Shayda Zaerpoor Le, OSB No. 121547

sle@barran.com

BARRAN LIEBMAN LLP

601 SW Second Ave., Suite 2300

Portland, Oregon 97204-3159

Telephone: (503) 228-0500

Facsimile No.: (503) 274-1212

Attorneys for Sage Software, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF OREGON

Portland

Defendant Sage Software, Inc. (“Sage”), for answer to plaintiff’s amended complaint, 

admits, denies, and alleges as follows:

1.

Answering paragraph 1, Sage admits that Sage is a former employer of plaintiff and that 

she has alleged that Sage engaged in unlawful employment practices based on plaintiff’s exercise 

of her alleged rights under FMLA and OFLA. While Sage and Matrix Absence Management 

MARY MCINTIRE,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAGE SOFTWARE, INC., a foreign business 

corporation, and MATRIX ABSENCE 

MANAGEMENT, INC., a foreign business 

corporation,

Defendants.

3:15-cv-00769-JE

SAGE SOFTWARE, INC.’S 

ANSWER TO AMENDED 

COMPLAINT
00523241.1

Page 2 – SAGE SOFTWARE, INC.’S ANSWER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT

BARRAN LIEBMAN LLP

601 SW SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 2300

PORTLAND, OR 97204-3159

PHONE (503) 228-0500 FAX (503) 274-1212

(“Matrix”) do not share counsel, Matrix acted at arm’s length, and Sage lacks information upon 

which to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth against Matrix. Sage admits that 

plaintiff’s amended complaint includes a claim against Matrix for tortious interference of 

plaintiff’s economic relationship with Sage. Sage admits that plaintiff has brought a common 

law claim of wrongful discharge against Sage. Sage also admits that this Court has jurisdiction 

of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and supplemental jurisdiction over the state law 

claims. Sage expressly denies any allegation or implication that it discriminated or retaliated 

against anyone or acted wrongfully or that any wrongful acts occurred. Insomuch as they relate 

to Sage, Sage denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 1. Sage does not respond on behalf

of Matrix. 

2.

Sage admits paragraph 2 of plaintiff’s amended complaint. 

3.

Answering paragraph 3, Sage admits that this Court has supplemental jurisdiction over 

the state law claims, that plaintiff was employed with Sage in the District of Oregon and that, at 

all relevant times, Sage did business in the State of Oregon. Sage does not admit that any 

specific actions alleged by plaintiff in fact occurred.

4.

Answering paragraph 4, Sage admits that Sage employed plaintiff as a Senior Customer 

Support Analyst from March 6, 2006 to October 14, 2013. Sage lacks information upon which 

to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation that plaintiff is and was a resident and citizen of 

Oregon and on that basis denies that allegation. Sage admits that plaintiff worked in Oregon 

while employed by Sage. Except as expressly admitted, Sage denies the remaining allegations 

contained in paragraph 4. 
00523241.1

Page 3 – SAGE SOFTWARE, INC.’S ANSWER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT

BARRAN LIEBMAN LLP

601 SW SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 2300

PORTLAND, OR 97204-3159

PHONE (503) 228-0500 FAX (503) 274-1212

5.

Answering paragraph 5, Sage admits that, at all material times, it employed plaintiff and 

had greater than 50 employees. Sage expressly denies any allegation or implication that any of 

its agents or employees discriminated against anyone or acted wrongfully or that any wrongful 

acts or discrimination were or are within the course and scope of employment of any of Sage’s 

employees. Sage lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the remainder 

of the allegations set forth in paragraph 5 and on that basis denies each and every remaining 

allegation in paragraph 5. 

6.

Answering paragraph 6, Sage admits that Matrix was Sage’s third-party leave 

administrator. Sage lacks information upon which to form a belief as to the truth of the 

remaining allegations set forth in paragraph 6 and on that basis denies each and every remaining 

allegation in paragraph 6. 

7.

Answering paragraph 7, Sage admits that plaintiff filed a complaint against Sage with 

Oregon’s BOLI in July 2014 and further admits that this action was filed within the requisite 90-

day limit set out in the notice of right to sue. Sage denies that the specific filing date referenced 

by plaintiff is correct. Sage lacks information upon which to form a belief as to the truth of the 

remaining allegations set forth in paragraph 7 and on that basis denies each and every remaining 

allegation in paragraph 7. 

8.

Sage admits paragraph 8 of plaintiff’s amended complaint but notes that Sage’s business 

is not limited to the State of Oregon. 

9.

Answering paragraph 9, Sage admits that it hired plaintiff as a Senior Customer Support 
00523241.1

Page 4 – SAGE SOFTWARE, INC.’S ANSWER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT

BARRAN LIEBMAN LLP

601 SW SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 2300

PORTLAND, OR 97204-3159

PHONE (503) 228-0500 FAX (503) 274-1212

Analyst. Except as expressly admitted, Sage denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 9.

10.

Answering paragraph 10, Sage admits that plaintiff was at times on approved OFLA and 

FMLA leave for her asserted condition of irritable bowel syndrome and that she completed a 

medical certification for OFLA/FMLA leave in 2012. Sage states that plaintiff’s medical 

certification speaks for itself. Sage lacks information upon which to form a belief as to the truth 

of the remaining allegations set forth in paragraph 10 and on that basis denies each and every 

remaining allegation in paragraph 10. 

11.

Answering paragraph 11, Sage admits that plaintiff was off work intermittently from 

November 2012 through her date of termination on October 14, 2013. Except as expressly 

admitted, Sage denies the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 11. 

12.

Sage denies the allegations in paragraph 12 of plaintiff’s amended complaint. 

13.

Answering paragraph 13, Sage admits that it terminated plaintiff’s employment on 

October 14, 2013. Except as expressly admitted, Sage denies the remaining allegations 

contained in paragraph 13. 

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Oregon Family Leave Act Discrimination)

(Against Sage Only)

14.

Answering paragraph 14, Sage incorporates its answers contained in paragraphs 1 

through 13 as if fully stated herein.
00523241.1

Page 5 – SAGE SOFTWARE, INC.’S ANSWER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT

BARRAN LIEBMAN LLP

601 SW SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 2300

PORTLAND, OR 97204-3159

PHONE (503) 228-0500 FAX (503) 274-1212

15.

Answering paragraph 15, Sage admits that at the time of her termination, plaintiff was 

approved for intermittent OFLA leave. Sage also admits that at various times during plaintiff’s 

employment with Sage, she was approved for and took leave approved under OFLA. Sage 

denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 15 and expressly denies that all leave taken by 

plaintiff was approved under OFLA.

16.

Sage admits paragraph 16.

17.

Answering paragraph 17, Sage admits that plaintiff took time off from work for her 

asserted medical condition. Sage denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 17.

18.

Answering paragraph 18, Sage admits that Matrix determined that the certification 

plaintiff submitted entitled plaintiff to certain OFLA-covered leave for her medical condition. 

Except as expressly admitted, Sage denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 18.

19.

Sage denies the allegations in paragraphs 19 through 23 of plaintiff’s amended complaint. 

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Family Medical Leave Act)

(Against Sage Only)

20.

Answering paragraph 24, Sage incorporates its answers contained in paragraphs 1 

through 19 as if fully stated herein.

21.

Answering paragraph 25, Sage admits that at the time of her termination, plaintiff was 
00523241.1

Page 6 – SAGE SOFTWARE, INC.’S ANSWER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT

BARRAN LIEBMAN LLP

601 SW SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 2300

PORTLAND, OR 97204-3159

PHONE (503) 228-0500 FAX (503) 274-1212

approved for intermittent FMLA leave. Sage also admits that at various times during plaintiff’s 

employment with Sage, she was approved for and took leave approved under FMLA. Sage 

denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 25 and expressly denies that all leave taken by 

plaintiff was approved under FMLA.

22.

Sage admits paragraph 26 of plaintiff’s amended complaint. 

23.

Sage denies the allegations in paragraphs 27 through 31 of plaintiff’s amended complaint. 

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Wrongful Discharge)

(Against Sage Only)

24.

Answering paragraph 32, Sage incorporates its answers contained in paragraphs 1 

through 23 as if fully stated herein.

25.

Sage denies the allegations in paragraphs 33 through 37 of plaintiff’s amended complaint. 

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Interference with Economic Relationship)

(Against Matrix Only)

26.

Paragraphs 38 through 43 fail to allege any facts against Sage; however, to the extent the 

allegations contained in paragraphs 38 through 43 relate to Sage, Sage incorporates its answers 

previously stated in response to plaintiff’s allegations.

27.

Answering plaintiff’s demand for jury trial, Sage denies that plaintiff is entitled to a jury 
00523241.1

Page 7 – SAGE SOFTWARE, INC.’S ANSWER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT

BARRAN LIEBMAN LLP

601 SW SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 2300

PORTLAND, OR 97204-3159

PHONE (503) 228-0500 FAX (503) 274-1212

trial on all of her claims for relief as, pursuant to Oregon law, a jury trial is not available for 

claims under OFLA.

28.

Sage denies each and every allegation not specifically admitted herein.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

Without assuming plaintiff’s burden of proof, Sage states the following separate 

additional defenses.

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Failure to State a Claim for Relief)

29.

Plaintiff has failed to state facts sufficient to state a claim for relief.

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Mitigation of Damages)

30.

On information and belief, plaintiff has failed or refused to seek other employment or 

accept and maintain other gainful employment or otherwise failed to make a good-faith effort to 

mitigate damages; accordingly, plaintiff is barred from relief for failing to mitigate her damages, 

if any.

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Estoppel)

31.

Some or all of plaintiff’s claims are barred because of plaintiff’s own acts or omissions of 

failing to maintain adequate attendance.
00523241.1

Page 8 – SAGE SOFTWARE, INC.’S ANSWER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT

BARRAN LIEBMAN LLP

601 SW SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 2300

PORTLAND, OR 97204-3159

PHONE (503) 228-0500 FAX (503) 274-1212

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(No Entitlement to Liquidated Damages Under FMLA)

32.

All of Sage’s actions were taken in good faith and Sage had reasonable grounds for 

believing that its acts (and/or omissions) did not violate the statute. Accordingly, plaintiff is not 

entitled to liquidated damages under FMLA.

FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(At-Will Employment)

33.

Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part because she was an at-will employee.

SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Good Faith/Legitimate Business Motives)

34.

All actions taken with respect to plaintiff’s employment were taken in good faith and in 

full compliance with all federal and state laws, were nondiscriminatory, were taken for good 

cause and in the good faith exercise of reasonable business judgment, and were based on 

legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons.

SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Same Decision Absent Protected Conduct)

35.

Plaintiff’s claims for damages, fees and costs are barred in whole or in part because Sage

would have made the same employment decisions regarding plaintiff in the absence of any 

alleged impermissible motivating factor, the presence of which is denied. 
00523241.1

Page 9 – SAGE SOFTWARE, INC.’S ANSWER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT

BARRAN LIEBMAN LLP

601 SW SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 2300

PORTLAND, OR 97204-3159

PHONE (503) 228-0500 FAX (503) 274-1212

EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Judicial Estoppel)

36.

Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part by her Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceeding 

and discharge, and Plaintiff is judicially estopped from asserting any claim not listed as an asset 

in her bankruptcy proceeding. 

37.

On January 5, 2012, Plaintiff filed a petition for voluntary bankruptcy under Chapter 13 

of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C.A. § Ch. 13, et seq., which included a schedule of her assets 

and liabilities. Following her October 14, 2013 termination of employment from Sage, on 

February 14, 2014, Plaintiff amended her bankruptcy plan to reflect her unemployment 

compensation, but she did not disclose any alleged claims against Sage. Then, on July 30, 2014, 

alleging facts against Sage substantively identical to the facts alleged against Sage in this 

lawsuit, plaintiff filed a complaint with the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries 

(BOLI). Plaintiff’s bankruptcy was still active at the time of her BOLI complaint, yet at no time 

prior to or after filing with BOLI did Plaintiff advise the bankruptcy court of the existence of her 

alleged claims against Sage.

38.

On March 27, 2015, without notice of the claims Plaintiff alleged against Sage in this 

lawsuit, the bankruptcy court issued an order discharging Plaintiff’s debts, pursuant to her 

Chapter 13 bankruptcy filing.

NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Attorneys’ Fees)

39.

Plaintiff’s amended complaint is frivolous, unreasonable, and without foundation and has 
00523241.1

Page 10 – SAGE SOFTWARE, INC.’S ANSWER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT

BARRAN LIEBMAN LLP

601 SW SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 2300

PORTLAND, OR 97204-3159

PHONE (503) 228-0500 FAX (503) 274-1212

been pursued by plaintiff after she became aware of such status, and Sage is entitled to 

reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in this matter. 

WHEREFORE, Sage prays for judgment as follows:

(1) That plaintiff’s claims be dismissed with prejudice;

(2) That judgment be entered in favor of Sage on all of plaintiff’s claims and that 

plaintiff recover nothing;

(3) That Sage be awarded reasonable attorneys’ fees and reasonable expert witness 

fees pursuant to ORS 659A.885(1) and ORS 20.105;

(4) That Sage be awarded its costs, disbursements, and expenses pursuant to ORS 

659A.885(1) and ORS 20.190; and 

(5) That Sage be awarded such other relief as the Court may deem just and equitable.

DATED this 20th day of July 2015.

BARRAN LIEBMAN LLP

By s/Iris K. Tilley

Paula A. Barran, OSB No. 803974

pbarran@barran.com

Iris K. Tilley, OSB No. 101991

itilley@barran.com

Shayda Zaerpoor Le, OSB No. 121547

sle@barran.com

Attorneys for defendant Sage Software, Inc.
00523241.1

Page 11 – SAGE SOFTWARE, INC.’S ANSWER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT

BARRAN LIEBMAN LLP

601 SW SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 2300

PORTLAND, OR 97204-3159

PHONE (503) 228-0500 FAX (503) 274-1212

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the 20th day of June, 2015, I served the foregoing SAGE 

SOFTWARE, INC.’S ANSWER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT on the following parties at 

the following addresses:

Benjamin Rosenthal

benrose@europa.com

1023 SW Yamhill St., Suite 200

Portland, OR 97205

Attorney for Plaintiff

Arnanda Bolliger Crespo

amanda.crespo@ogletreedeakins.com

Kelly S. Riggs

kelly.riggs@ogletreedeakins.com

Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C

The KOIN Center

222 SW Columbia Street, Suite 1500

Portland, OR 97201

Attorneys for Defendant Matrix Absence 

Management, Inc.

by the following indicated method(s) set forth below:

 Electronic Filing Using the Court’s ECF System

 Email

 First-class mail, postage prepaid

 Hand-delivery

s/Iris K. Tilley

Iris K. Tilley