CORE/3505308.0002/142249102.1 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Carrie M. Francis (020453)

Stefan M. Palys (024752) 

Michael Vincent (029864)

STINSON LEONARD STREET LLP

1850 North Central Avenue, Suite 2100 

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4584 

Tel: (602) 279-1600 

Fax: (602) 240-6925 

Email: carrie.francis@stinson.com

 stefan.palys@stinson.com

 michael.vincent@stinson.com 

Attorneys for Defendants 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Jeremy Thacker, No. 2:18-cv-00063-DJH

DEFENDANTS’ AMENDED ANSWER 

TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED 

COMPLAINT 

(Assigned to the Hon. Diane J. Humetewa) 

(Jury Trial Demanded) 

Plaintiff,

v.

GPS Insight, LLC; Robert J. Donat, 

Individually and as Trustee of The 

Robert Donat Living Trust Dated April 

19, 2017, 

Defendants.

GPS Insight, LLC (“GPSI”), and Robert Donat, individually (“Donat”) and as Trustee 

of the Robert Donat Living Trust Dated April 19, 2017 (the “Trust,” and collectively with 

GPSI and Donat, the “Defendants”), answer Jeremy Thacker’s (“Thacker”) Complaint as 

follows: 

1. Defendants admit the allegations in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 6, and 43. 

2. Defendants deny the allegations in paragraphs 8, 9, 11, 13, 16, 20, 21, 23, 27, 29, 

38, 42, 49-53, 55, 58, 66, 69-72, 74-80, 82-90, 92-96, 98, 101-104, 106-111, and 114-116. 

3. In response to paragraphs 4 and 5, Defendants admit that jurisdiction and venue 

are proper in this Court, and that the Complaint makes allegations of conduct occurring in 

Maricopa County, Arizona, but Defendants deny the remaining allegations in those paragraphs. 

4. In response to paragraph 7, Defendants admit that Thacker received more than 

one sales award, but deny the remaining allegations in that paragraph. 

Case 2:18-cv-00063-DJH Document 105 Filed 08/31/18 Page 1 of 9
2 

CORE/3505308.0002/142249102.1 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5. In response to paragraph 10, Defendants admit that February 2017 was the top 

sales month in company history for the direct sales team, but denies the remaining allegations 

in that paragraph. 

6. In response to paragraph 12, Defendants lack sufficient information to form a 

belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegation that Thacker and Kristin Lisson (“Lisson”) 

spoke to Tyler Mortensen (“Mortensen”) and Jason Walker (“Walker”) before Thacker and 

Lisson started dating. Defendants admit that at various times relevant to the allegations in the 

Complaint that Walker and Mortensen were supervisors. Defendants admit that Thacker and 

Lisson were told that their dating would not violate any company policy or involve a conflict 

of interest. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 12. 

7. In response to paragraph 14, Defendants deny that there was an “extramarital” 

relationship as to Donat, who was divorced at that time. Defendants admit that Donat and 

Lisson had a consensual sexual relationship until November 2016. Defendants deny the 

remaining allegations in paragraph 14. 

8. In response to paragraph 15, Defendants admit that Lisson had a conversation 

with Walker in which Lisson asked Walker if Walker thought Lisson should let Donat know 

about her relationship with Thacker. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 

15. 

9. In response to paragraph 17, Defendants admit that Lisson told Donat about her 

relationship with Thacker on or about January 10, 2017, but deny the remaining allegations in 

that paragraph. 

10. In response to paragraph 18, Defendants admit that Donat stated his opinion to 

Lisson that Thacker owed the company money and had made improper purchases with the 

company credit card. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 18. 

11. In response to paragraph 19, Defendants admit that Donat stated his opinion to 

Lisson that Thacker exhibited possible symptoms of herpes. Defendants deny the remaining 

allegations in paragraph 19. 

Case 2:18-cv-00063-DJH Document 105 Filed 08/31/18 Page 2 of 9
3 

CORE/3505308.0002/142249102.1 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

12. In response to paragraph 22, Defendants admit that Lisson at one point addressed 

to Donat issues pertaining to his perceived interference in her personal relationships. 

Defendants deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 22. 

13. In response to paragraph 24, Defendants admit that Donat and Lisson had a 

meeting later in the week containing January 17, 2017 that addressed subordinate bonuses. 

Defendants deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 24. 

14. In response to paragraph 25, Defendants admit that Donat told Lisson he wanted 

to continue his consensual relationship with her, and that this conversation occurred after 

Donat told his ex-wife about his consensual relationship with Lisson. Defendants deny the 

remaining allegations in paragraph 25. 

15. In response to paragraph 26, Defendants admit that Donat told Lisson that Donat 

had told Kate Wells, who is in Donat’s Vistage group, about his consensual relationship with 

Lisson. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 26. 

16. In response to paragraph 28, Defendants admit that Donat told Lisson that her 

relationship with Thacker was one cause for a negative perception of her in the office. 

Defendants deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 28. 

17. In response to paragraph 30, Defendants admit that Mortensen told Thacker that 

he needed to be in to work earlier. Defendants lack sufficient information to form a belief as to 

the truth or falsity of whether one such conversation took place specifically on February 16, 

2017. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 30. 

18. In response to paragraph 31, Defendants deny that Donat was “upset” with 

Thacker. Donat had concerns about Thacker’s job performance and attendance. Defendants 

admit that Walker told Lisson that Walker had delayed talking to Donat to get approval for 

Thacker’s requested compensation for the Amerisure deal due to Donat’s concerns about 

Thacker’s job performance and attendance. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in 

paragraph 31. 

/// 

Case 2:18-cv-00063-DJH Document 105 Filed 08/31/18 Page 3 of 9
4 

CORE/3505308.0002/142249102.1 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

19. Defendants deny the first sentence of paragraph 32. Defendants admit the 

second sentence. 

20. In response to paragraph 33, Defendants admit that Donat called Lisson to 

discuss her job and her relationship with Thacker at Lisson’s invitation and that Donat 

expressed concern about the impact Lisson’s relationship with Thacker was having on Lisson’s 

working relationship with Walker. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 33. 

21. In response to paragraph 34, Defendants admit that Donat told Lisson that, as 

CEO, it was not his job to personally investigate a sales representative’s performance. 

Defendants deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 34. 

22. In response to paragraph 35, Defendants admit that Donat sent texts to Lisson 

containing the quoted language. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 35. 

23. In response to paragraph 36, Defendants admit that Walker told Thacker during 

the referenced meeting that they had been unable to calculate the value and determine a 

compensation proposal on the Ameriprise deal until two weeks before the meeting, but deny 

that the numbers used to do so were final. Defendants admit the remaining allegations in 

paragraph 36. 

24. In response to paragraph 37, Defendants admit that, during the meeting, Walker, 

Mortensen, and Thacker discussed their, and Donat’s, concerns about Thacker’s job 

performance and attendance. Defendants admit that Walker expressed that he did not want to 

seek approval for a special/favorable compensation arrangement for Thacker at the same time 

there were concerns about his job performance and attendance, but lack sufficient information 

to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegation that Walker used the word “messy.” 

Defendants deny that the conversation related to Thacker and Lisson’s relationship, and deny 

the remaining allegations in paragraph 37. 

25. In response to paragraph 39, Defendants deny that Donat had significant 

influence on the decision to terminate Thacker’s employment or that Thacker’s relationship 

with Lisson was a factor in that decision. Defendants admit that Donat brought information to 

Case 2:18-cv-00063-DJH Document 105 Filed 08/31/18 Page 4 of 9
5 

CORE/3505308.0002/142249102.1 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Mortensen and Walker before the March 6, 2017 meeting at which Thacker was terminated. 

Defendants deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 39. 

26. In response to paragraph 40, the fact of the severance offer and its terms are 

inadmissible per Federal Rule of Evidence, Rule 408, and therefore Defendants deny the 

allegations in paragraph 40. 

27. In response to paragraph 41, the fact of the severance offer and its rejection is 

inadmissible per Federal Rule of Evidence, Rule 408. Defendants admit that Thacker 

subjectively intended to pursue legal claims as of March 6, 2017, but deny the remaining 

allegations in paragraph 41. 

28. In response to paragraph 44, Defendants admit that Elliot Batcheller 

(“Batcheller”) sent an email with the referenced text, and that it was sent after Lisson had 

disclosed her prior consensual relationship with Donat. Defendants deny that Batcheller’s 

email concerned that consensual relationship, however, and deny the remaining allegations in 

paragraph 44. 

29. In response to paragraph 45, Defendants admit that Donat sent emails to Robert 

Dennis (“Dennis”) on August 4 and 21, 2017, but deny the remaining allegations in that 

paragraph. 

30. In response to paragraph 46, Defendants deny that Donat’s assertions in the 

August 4, 2017 email were false. Defendants admit that the email contained the statements 

referenced in paragraph 46(a)-(c). 

31. In response to paragraph 47, Defendants admit that Donat’s August 21, 2017 

email to Dennis referenced a prosecution of Thacker for felony theft. Defendants deny the 

remaining allegations in paragraph 47. 

32. In response to paragraph 48, Defendants admit that Donat received and reviewed 

an on-line database generated informational report about Thacker after Thacker was no longer 

employed by GPSI. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 48. 

/// 

Case 2:18-cv-00063-DJH Document 105 Filed 08/31/18 Page 5 of 9
6 

CORE/3505308.0002/142249102.1 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

33. In response to paragraph 54, Defendants admit that GPSI notified Thacker of his 

profit-sharing bonus within days of the referenced conversation with Lisson, and that Thacker 

was given a 7% increase over the previous year. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in 

paragraph 54. 

34. In response to paragraph 56, Defendants deny that Walker referenced 

compensation GPSI had given to others in similar circumstances, or that there were others in 

similar circumstances. Defendants admit the remaining allegations in paragraph 56. 

35. In response to paragraph 57, Defendants deny that Donat was “mad” at Thacker 

or that Walker so stated. Defendants admit that Donat would have to approve any final 

compensation payment to Thacker premised on the Amerisure deal. Defendants deny the 

remaining allegations in paragraph 57. 

36. In response to paragraph 60, Defendants lack sufficient information to form a 

belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegation “productive,” and so deny it. Defendants deny 

the remaining allegations in paragraph 60. 

37. In response to paragraph 61, Defendants admit that Walker and Mortensen had 

an extended meeting with Thacker on March 2, 2017, and that one topic was whether the 

parties could move forward with a productive employment relationship. Defendants admit that 

Donat brought additional material to Walker and Mortensen following that meeting. 

Defendants deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 61. 

38. In response to paragraph 62, Defendants admit that Donat learned of Thacker’s 

relationship with Lisson on January 10, 2017. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in 

paragraph 62. 

39. In response to paragraph 63, Defendants admit that Donat knew about Thacker’s 

employment relationship with GPSI. Defendants deny that Donat interfered with it. 

Defendants deny that Donat harbored any personal discriminatory/retaliatory motives toward 

Thacker. Defendants admit that Mortensen and Walker made the decision to terminate 

Thacker, not Donat. 

Case 2:18-cv-00063-DJH Document 105 Filed 08/31/18 Page 6 of 9
7 

CORE/3505308.0002/142249102.1 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

40. In response to paragraphs 64, 73, 81, 91, 97, 105, and 112, Defendants 

incorporate their previous answers and responses to the complaint as though fully set forth 

herein. 

41. In response to paragraph 65, Defendants admit that Thacker’s employment was 

terminated, but deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 65. 

42. In response to paragraph 67, Defendants admit that that Thacker filed a charge 

with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on November 6, 2017, asserting a Title 

VII claim. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 67. 

43. In response to paragraph 68, Defendants admit that the EEOC issued a right to 

sue letter, but lack sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the 

remaining allegations and so denies them. 

44. In response to paragraph 114, Defendants lack sufficient information to form a 

belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations in this paragraph, and so deny them. 

45. Paragraphs 99, 100, 113, and 117 contain legal contentions to which no response 

is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendants deny paragraphs 99, 100, 113, 

and 117. 

46. Any allegation not specifically admitted is denied.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

47. Thacker fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 

48. Though Defendants believe Thacker bears the burden to prove the alleged 

defamatory statements were false, in an abundance of caution, Defendants state as an 

affirmative defense that the statements were true or were Donat’s opinion. 

49. Donat cannot legally interfere with Thacker’s contractual relationship with GPSI. 

50. Thacker’s claims are barred to the extent he failed to exhaust his administrative 

remedies before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for some of the matters 

stated in the Complaint. 

/// 

Case 2:18-cv-00063-DJH Document 105 Filed 08/31/18 Page 7 of 9
8 

CORE/3505308.0002/142249102.1 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

51. Thacker’s damages, if any, were proximately caused or contributed to by his own 

acts or omissions, and not by any act or omission of Defendants. 

52. All acts taken by Defendants, if any, or anyone acting on their behalf, if any, 

with respect to Thacker were just, fair, privileged, with good cause, in good faith, without 

malice or intent to discriminate or retaliate, and for lawful and legitimate, nondiscriminatory 

reasons. 

53. Thacker failed to mitigate his damages. 

54. Thacker’s damages under Title VII are limited by any applicable statutory cap, 

including but not limited to, the statutory cap set forth in 42 U.S.C. § 1981a. 

55. Defendants exercised reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct any 

harassing, discriminatory or retaliatory behavior and Thacker unreasonably failed to take 

advantage of any preventative or corrective opportunities provided by Defendants. 

56. Defendants allege GPSI would have taken the same action regardless of whether 

Thacker engaged in any protected activity, and he did not. 

57. Thacker is not entitled to punitive damages because the alleged misconduct 

would be contrary to Defendants’ good faith efforts to comply with Title VII and other relevant 

laws. 

58. Plaintiff’s claim for damages is barred in whole or in part by the doctrine of after 

acquired evidence, as he would have been terminated for other additional offenses discovered 

after his termination on March 6, 2017. 

59. Defendants allege those affirmative defenses in Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure. 

60. Defendants reserve the right to amend their Answer to add any applicable 

defenses revealed during discovery. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

WHEREFORE, Defendants demand a jury trial on all claims and judgment against 

Plaintiff as follows: 

Case 2:18-cv-00063-DJH Document 105 Filed 08/31/18 Page 8 of 9
9 

CORE/3505308.0002/142249102.1 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

A. Judgment in Defendants’ favor, and against Thacker; 

B. For an award of Defendants’ attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses; 

C. For pre- and post-judgment interest; and 

D. Such other relief as this Court deems just and proper. 

Filed this 31st day of August, 2018. 

STINSON LEONARD STREET LLP 

By: /s/ Carrie M. Francis

Carrie Francis

Stefan Palys 

Michael Vincent

Attorneys for Defendants

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 I hereby certify that on August 31, 2018, I caused the foregoing document to be filed 

electronically with the Clerk of Court through ECF; and that ECF will send an e-notice of the 

electronic filing to: 

Kraig J. Marton 

Jeffrey A. Silence 

JABURG & WILK, P.C. 

3200 N. Central Avenue 

Suite 2000 

Phoenix, AZ 85012 

kjm@jaburgwilk.com

jxs@jaburgwilk.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Timothy B. O’Connor 

SCHNEIDER & ONOFRY, P.C. 

365 East Coronado Road 

Phoenix, Arizona 85004 

toconnor@soarizonalaw.com

Attorneys for Defendant Robert Donat 

/s/ C. Roundtree

Case 2:18-cv-00063-DJH Document 105 Filed 08/31/18 Page 9 of 9