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

1138 NORTH ALMA SCHOOL ROAD, SUITE 101

MESA, ARIZONA 85201

Telephone: 480.461.5300 | Fax: 480.833.9392

David R. Schwartz - #009264

das@udallshumway.com

Kimberly R. Davis - # 030210

krd@udallshumway.com

Attorneys for Defendant Maricopa County

Community College District

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

CINDI TANNER, an individual,

Plaintiff,

v.

MARICOPA COUNTY COMMUNITY 

COLLEGE DISTRICT, a political 

subdivision of Arizona; MARIA WISE, an 

individual and in her official capacity; 

VIVIAN MIRANDA-STRAWBRIDGE, 

an individual and in her official capacity,

Defendants.

NO. CV-18-00377-PHX-SPL

DEFENDANT MARICOPA COUNTY 

COMMUNITY COLLEGE 

DISTRICT’S AMENDED ANSWER

AND JURY DEMAND

Defendant Maricopa County Community College District (“District”) hereby 

admits, denies and alleges in response to the allegations of the Complaint as follows:

1. The District admits that Cynthia Tanner, aka Cindi Tanner, is a resident of 

Maricopa County, Arizona.

2. The District admits the allegations of ¶ 2 of the Complaint.

3. The District admits that Maria Wise (“Dr. Wise”), Ed.D, has since April 23, 

2016 served as the Vice President of Academic and Student Affairs and Title IX 

Case 2:18-cv-00377-SPL Document 7 Filed 02/22/18 Page 1 of 15
2

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

Coordinator at GateWay Community College (“GateWay”). The remaining allegations 

of ¶ 3 of the Complaint are denied.

4. The District admits that since September 12, 2016 Vivian MirandaWendelken (who was formerly known as Vivian Miranda-Strawbridge) (hereinafter “Dr. 

Miranda”) served as GateWay’s Dean of Student Success and Retention. The remaining 

allegations of ¶ 4 of the Complaint are denied.

5. The District admits that the Maricopa County Superior Court had 

jurisdiction over the subject matter alleged in the Complaint. The remaining allegations 

of ¶ 5 of the Complaint are denied. The District affirmatively alleges that this federal 

court has jurisdiction over the federal law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343 

and jurisdiction over the state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. The District 

further alleges that this action was timely and properly removed from the Maricopa 

County Superior Court to this federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441-1442, 1446.

6. The District admits that Maricopa County was the proper venue in State 

Court as the Plaintiff and the named Defendants resided in and/or conducted business 

within that County. The District affirmatively alleges that venue is proper in this federal 

District Court.

7. The District admits that Plaintiff became a part-time employee of the 

District during the Spring of 2015 and she served as a full-time employee from January 

3, 2017 until her termination on June 15, 2017.

8. The District admits that from January 3, 2017 until her termination on June 

15, 2017 Plaintiff served as the Office Coordinator II who worked in the Disability 

Resources and Services (“DRS”) office located at GateWay’s Washington campus.

9. The District denies the allegations of ¶ 9 of the Complaint.

10. The District admits that from January 3, 2017 until her termination on June 

15, 2017 Plaintiff served as the Office Coordinator II who worked in the DRS office 

located at GateWay’s Washington campus. The remaining allegations of ¶ 10 of the 

Complaint are denied.

Case 2:18-cv-00377-SPL Document 7 Filed 02/22/18 Page 2 of 15
3

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

11. The District denies the allegations of ¶ 11 of the Complaint.

12. The District denies the allegations of ¶ 12 of the Complaint.

13. The District denies the allegations of ¶ 13 of the Complaint.

14. The District denies the allegations of ¶ 14 of the Complaint.

15. The District denies the allegations of ¶ 15 of the Complaint.

16. The District denies the allegations of ¶ 16 of the Complaint.

17. The District denies the allegations of ¶ 17 of the Complaint.

18. The District denies the allegations of ¶ 18 of the Complaint.

19. The District denies the allegations of ¶ 19 of the Complaint.

20. The District denies the allegations of ¶ 20 of the Complaint.

21. The District denies the allegations of ¶ 21 of the Complaint.

22. The District lacks sufficient information as to the truth of the allegations of 

¶ 22 of the Complaint and, therefore, denies such allegations.

23. The District lacks sufficient information as to the truth of the allegations of 

¶ 23 of the Complaint and, therefore, denies such allegations.

24. The District denies the allegations of ¶ 24 of the Complaint.

25. The District denies the allegations of ¶ 25 of the Complaint.

26. The District denies the allegations of ¶ 26 of the Complaint

27. The District denies the allegations of ¶ 27 of the Complaint.

28. The District denies the allegations of ¶ 28 of the Complaint.

29. The District admits that Dr. Miranda, the acting DRS Manager in the 

absence of James Rogers, asked Plaintiff to provide via campus e-mail, addressed to Dr. 

Miranda, disability records for one or more students who Dr. Miranda had to meet with 

to assess them for determinations regarding eligibility and/or reasonable 

accommodations. The District denies the remaining allegations of ¶ 29 of the Complaint.

30. The District denies the allegations of ¶ 30 of the Complaint. 

Case 2:18-cv-00377-SPL Document 7 Filed 02/22/18 Page 3 of 15
4

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

31. The District admits that Dr. Miranda sought and obtained direct access to 

GateWay’s disability database on or about February 16, 2017. The District denies the 

remaining allegations of ¶ 31 of the Complaint. 

32. The District admits that in a May 28, 2017 letter from Plaintiff to Dr. 

Miranda it refers to alleged FERPA violations. The District admits that Plaintiff was 

terminated on June 15, 2017, but affirmatively alleges that the process for termination 

was begun prior to May 28, 2017. The District affirmatively alleges that the transmittal 

via the District’s secure e-mail system to Dr. Miranda would and did not violate FERPA, 

20 U.S.C. § 1232g, and Plaintiff was or should have been aware prior to that time that 

James Rogers, the DRS Manager, had transmitted student disability records via campus 

email to Dr. Miranda when appropriate for her to see them so she could perform her job 

duties. 

33. Upon information and belief, the District admits that Plaintiff did contact 

Eugene (“Gene”) Heppard, the DRS Manager for DRS at Phoenix College, another 

college operated by the District. The District denies the remaining allegations of ¶ 33 of 

the Complaint. 

34. Upon information and belief, on or about February 9, 2017 Plaintiff sent a 

text to Gene Heppard. The District lacks sufficient information as to the truth of the 

remaining allegations of ¶ 34 of the Complaint and, therefore, denies such allegations. 

The District affirmatively alleges that the text contained inappropriate criticisms of or 

disparaging statements by Plaintiff regarding GateWay’s administration including Dr. 

Wise and Dr. Miranda.

35. The District denies the allegations of ¶ 35 of the Complaint. The District 

affirmatively alleges that Gene Heppard shared the fact of the inappropriate criticisms or 

disparaging statements by Plaintiff with Phoenix College’s Interim Vice President of 

Student Affairs. That Vice President shared with Dr. Wise only the fact of the 

inappropriate criticisms or disparaging statements by Plaintiff.

Case 2:18-cv-00377-SPL Document 7 Filed 02/22/18 Page 4 of 15
5

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

36. The District denies the allegations of ¶ 36 of the Complaint. The District 

affirmatively alleges that Plaintiff was advised that the sharing of inappropriate criticisms

or disparaging statements with persons employed by the District at other colleges 

regarding perceived problems with her supervisors at GateWay was inappropriate. 

37. The District denies the allegations of ¶ 37 of the Complaint.

38. The District denies the allegations of ¶ 38 of the Complaint.

39. The District lacks any information regarding the allegations of ¶ 39 and, 

therefore, denies such allegations.

40. The District lacks any information regarding the allegations of ¶ 40 and, 

therefore, denies such allegations.

41. The District lacks any information regarding the allegations of ¶ 41 and, 

therefore, denies such allegations.

42. The District lacks any information regarding the allegations of ¶ 42 and, 

therefore, denies such allegations.

43. The District lacks any information regarding the allegations of ¶ 43 and, 

therefore, denies such allegations.

44. The District lacks any information regarding the allegations of ¶ 44 and, 

therefore, denies such allegations.

45. The District lacks any information regarding the allegations of ¶ 45 and, 

therefore, denies such allegations.

46. The District lacks any information regarding the allegations of ¶ 46 and, 

therefore, denies such allegations.

47. The District lacks any information regarding the allegations of ¶ 47 and, 

therefore, denies such allegations.

48. The District lacks any information regarding the allegations of ¶ 48 and, 

therefore, denies such allegations. The District affirmatively alleges that it was not

notified that Plaintiff filed a complaint with US Department of Education’s Office of Civil 

Rights.

Case 2:18-cv-00377-SPL Document 7 Filed 02/22/18 Page 5 of 15
6

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

49. The District lacks any information regarding the allegations of ¶ 49 and, 

therefore, denies such allegations.

50. The District admits that on May 28, 2017 Plaintiff delivered to Dr. Miranda 

a letter alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), regulations 

based on the ADA, FERPA, Title IX set forth in 20 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., and practices 

recommended by a private organization known as AHEAD. The letter speaks for itself 

as to what was alleged. The District denies the remaining allegations of ¶ 50 of the 

Complaint. The District denies that it violated any applicable laws.

51. The District denies the allegations of ¶ 51 of the Complaint.

52. The District admits that on February 27, 2017 Dr. Miranda, as acting DRS 

Manager, met with Plaintiff to go over Dr. Miranda’s workplace expectations for Plaintiff 

to properly perform her duties in the Office Coordinator II position; that Dr. Miranda 

explained to Plaintiff that she, like all full-time employees, was required to accurately and 

fully enter information and complete her time card using the District’s Human Capital 

Management system; that Dr. Miranda also explained that she was responsible for 

entering information and submitting invoices for the payment of various persons or 

companies who provided services such as note-taking and interpreting using the District’s 

financial system; that scheduling services and submitting for the payment for such 

services represented a major aspect of up to 30% of the essential duties of an Office 

Coordinator II; and Dr. Miranda indicated Plaintiff should obtain training to fulfill these 

duties. The District denies the remaining allegations of ¶ 52 of the Complaint.

53. The District denies the allegations of ¶ 53 of the Complaint.

54. The District admits that at some time Dr. Miranda advised Plaintiff that she 

was inappropriately entering information in DRS case notes for an individual student. 

The District denies the remaining allegations of ¶ 54 of the Complaint. 

55. The District denies the allegations of ¶ 55 of the Complaint.

56. The District denies the allegations of ¶ 56 of the Complaint.

57. The District denies the allegations of ¶ 57 of the Complaint.

Case 2:18-cv-00377-SPL Document 7 Filed 02/22/18 Page 6 of 15
7

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

58. The District denies the allegations of ¶ 58 of the Complaint.

59. The District does have records including the Workplace Expectations 

document, various e-mails, and other documents regarding the duties for which Plaintiff 

was responsible. The District denies the remaining allegations of ¶ 59 of the Complaint. 

60. The District admits that Plaintiff had to be told on several occasions that 

her duties were to provide general procedural information to students, staff and faulty, 

and it was not her role as the Office Coordinator II in DRS to make substantive 

assessments or determinations. The District denies the remaining allegations of ¶ 60 of 

the Complaint.

61. The District denies the allegations of ¶ 61 of the Complaint.

62. The District denies the allegations of ¶ 62 of the Complaint.

63. The District admits that on May 3, 2017 Dr. Miranda sent an e-mail to 

Plaintiff and affirmatively alleges that such e-mail speaks for itself. The District denies 

the remaining allegations of ¶ 63 of the Complaint.

64. The District denies the allegations of ¶ 64 of the Complaint.

65. The District admits that Plaintiff stated that her son had tried to commit 

suicide and that as a result she was unavailable to work for a period of time. The District 

further admits and/or alleges that Spring Break in the Spring 2017 semester at GateWay 

was March 13-19, 2017 and the entire college at all campuses was closed March 16-19, 

2017. The District denies the remaining allegations of ¶ 65 of the Complaint.

66. The District admits that Dr. Miranda was informed of Plaintiff’s situation 

regarding her son. The District denies the remaining allegations of ¶ 66 of the Complaint.

67. The District denies the allegations of ¶ 67 of the Complaint. 

68. The District denies the allegations of ¶ 68 of the Complaint.

69. The District denies the allegations of ¶ 69 of the Complaint.

70. The District denies the allegations of ¶ 70 of the Complaint.

71. The District admits that due to Plaintiff’s failure to obtain the training which 

she was directed to get by Dr. Miranda, Plaintiff was aware that she failed to take the 

Case 2:18-cv-00377-SPL Document 7 Filed 02/22/18 Page 7 of 15
8

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

necessary steps to get vendors timely and properly paid. The District denies the remaining 

allegations of ¶ 71 of the Complaint.

72. The District admits that on June 15, 2017 Plaintiff was notified by letter 

that she was terminated as of that date and this date was before the end of her probationary 

period. The District affirmatively alleges it had the sole right to terminate Plaintiff’s 

employment at any time.

73. The District admits the allegations of ¶ 73 of the Complaint.

74. The District admits that Plaintiff on April 24, 2017 provided to Alyssa 

Brown, a HR Business Partner with the District’s HR Solutions Center, a letter from 

Surge Points. The letter speaks for itself as to its contents. The District denies the 

remaining allegations of ¶ 74 of the Complaint. 

75. The District admits that on May 1 or 2, 2017, Plaintiff submitted a Request 

for Reasonable ADA Accommodations form to the District’s HR Solutions Center which 

alleged Plaintiff suffered from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. The document speaks for 

itself as to its content. The District denies the remaining allegations of ¶ 75 of the 

Complaint. The District affirmatively alleges that although provided with the proper 

form, Plaintiff failed to submit the other form necessary for the District to process a 

request for accommodation.

76. The District admits that the quoted language appears in a portion of the 

Request for Reasonable ADA Accommodations form submitted by Plaintiff. The District 

denies that the statement is accurate.

77. The District admits that such language appears in a portion of the Request 

for Reasonable ADA Accommodations form submitted by Plaintiff. The District denies 

that the statement is accurate or requests a reasonable accommodation for a disability 

under District policy, the ADA or the Rehabilitation Act.

78. The District denies the allegations of ¶ 78 of the Complaint.

79. The District denies the allegations of ¶ 79 of the Complaint.

Case 2:18-cv-00377-SPL Document 7 Filed 02/22/18 Page 8 of 15
9

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

80. The District lacks sufficient information as to the truth of the allegations in 

¶ 80 of the Complaint and, therefore, denies such allegations. The District affirmatively 

alleges that Plaintiff represented and/or ratified her time cards which are inconsistent with 

such claim.

81. The District denies the allegations of ¶ 81 of the Complaint.

82. The District admits that Plaintiff’s hourly rate for pay in 2017 was $16.80 

per hour. The District denies the remaining allegations of ¶ 82 of the Complaint.

83. The District lacks sufficient information as to the truth of the allegations in 

¶ 83 of the Complaint and, therefore, denies such allegations. The District affirmatively 

alleges that Plaintiff represented and/or ratified her time cards which are inconsistent with 

such claim.

84. The District paid Plaintiff for all time reported by and for her in 2016 and 

2017. The District denies the remaining allegations of ¶ 84 of the Complaint.

85. The District denies the allegations of ¶ 85 of the Complaint.

86. The District denies the allegations of ¶ 86 of the Complaint.

87. The District denies the allegations in ¶ 87 of the Complaint. 

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

88. In response to the allegations of ¶ 88 of the Complaint, the District 

incorporates its admission, denials and other responses set forth above or below.

89. The allegations of ¶ 89 of the Complaint do not seem to call for any 

admission or denial. The District acknowledges 42 U.S.C. § 12203(a), which is part of 

the ADA, and such statute speaks for itself, and must be interpreted in conjunction with 

other statutes, regulations and case law. The District denies that it violated such statute.

90. The allegations of ¶ 90 of the Complaint do not seem to call for any 

admission or denial. The District acknowledges 42 U.S.C. § 12203(b), which is part of 

the ADA, and such statute speaks for itself, and must be interpreted in conjunction with 

other statutes, regulations and case law. The District denies that it violated such statute.

91. The District denies the allegations of ¶ 91 of the Complaint.

Case 2:18-cv-00377-SPL Document 7 Filed 02/22/18 Page 9 of 15
10

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

92. The District admits that Plaintiff delivered a letter on May 28, 2017 to Dr. 

Miranda and that Plaintiff was terminated on June 15, 2017. The District denies those 

events are in any way related.

93. The allegations of ¶ 93 of the Complaint do not seem to call for any 

admission or denial. The District acknowledges the Rehabilitation Act and such statute 

speaks for itself, and must be interpreted in conjunction with other statutes, regulations 

and case law. The District denies that it violated such statute.

94. The District admits that Plaintiff delivered on or about May 1 or 2, 2017 a 

form requesting a reasonable accommodation and that Plaintiff was terminated on June 

15, 2017. The District denies those events are in any way related.

95. The District denies the allegations of ¶ 95 of the Complaint.

96. Except to the extent expressly admitted herein, the District denies every 

allegation of the First Claim for Relief and ¶ 1 through 95 of the Complaint, whether 

viewed singly or in combination.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

97. In response to the allegations of ¶ 96 of the Complaint, the District 

incorporates its admission, denials and other responses set forth above or below.

98. The allegations of ¶ 97 of the Complaint do not seem to call for any 

admission or denial. The District acknowledges A.R.S. § 38-532 and such statute speaks 

for itself, and must be interpreted in conjunction with other statutes, regulations and case 

law. The District denies that it violated such statute.

99. The allegations of ¶ 98 and 99 of the Complaint do not seem to call for any 

admission or denial. The District acknowledges A.R.S. § 23-1501(3)(c)(ii) and such 

statute speaks for itself, and must be interpreted in conjunction with other statutes, 

regulations and case law. The District denies that it violated such statute.

100. The District admits that on May 28, 2017 Plaintiff delivered to Dr. Miranda 

a letter regarding alleged violations as set forth in the letter. The District denies the 

Case 2:18-cv-00377-SPL Document 7 Filed 02/22/18 Page 10 of 15
11

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

remaining allegations of ¶ 100 of the Complaint. The District denies it violated any 

applicable law or retaliated for any disclosure protected by law.

101. The District denies the allegations of ¶ 101 of the Complaint.

102. The allegations of ¶ 102 of the Complaint do not seem to call for any 

admission or denial. The District acknowledges A.R.S. § 23-1501(3)(c)(i) and such 

statute speaks for itself, and must be interpreted in conjunction with other statutes, 

regulations and case law. The District denies that it violated such statute.

103. The District denies the allegations of ¶ 103 of the Complaint.

104. Except to the extent expressly admitted herein, the District denies every 

allegation of the Second Claim for Relief and ¶ 1 through 103 of the Complaint, whether 

viewed singly or in combination.

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

105. In response to the allegations of ¶ 104 of the Complaint, the District 

incorporates its admission, denials and other responses set forth above or below.

106. The allegations of ¶ 105 of the Complaint do not seem to call for any 

admission or denial. The elements of the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress 

are set forth in case law. The District denies that it committed this tort.

107. The District denies the allegations of ¶ 106 of the Complaint.

108. The District denies the allegations of ¶ 107 of the Complaint.

109. The District denies the allegations of ¶ 108 of the Complaint.

110. The District denies the allegations of ¶ 109 of the Complaint.

111. The allegations of ¶ 110 of the Complaint do not seem to call for any 

admission or denial. The doctrine of respondeat superior is as set forth in case law.

112. The District admits that the acts and omissions of Dr. Wise and Dr. Miranda 

were done in the course of their employment, and the District would be liable under the 

common law respondeat superior doctrine for this state law claim for their actions and 

omissions.

113. The District denies the allegations of ¶ 112 of the Complaint.

Case 2:18-cv-00377-SPL Document 7 Filed 02/22/18 Page 11 of 15
12

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

114. The District denies the allegations of ¶ 113 of the Complaint.

115. The District denies the allegations of ¶ 114 of the Complaint.

116. The District denies the allegations of ¶ 115 of the Complaint.

117. Except to the extent expressly admitted herein, the District denies every 

allegation of the Third Claim for Relief and ¶ 1 through 115 of the Complaint, whether 

viewed singly or in combination.

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

118. In response to the allegations of ¶ 116 of the Complaint, the District 

incorporates its admission, denials and other responses set forth above or below.

119. The District admits the allegations of ¶ 117 of the Complaint.

120. The District denies the allegations of ¶ 118 of the Complaint.

121. The District denies the allegations of ¶ 119 of the Complaint.

122. Except to the extent expressly admitted herein, the District denies every 

allegation of the Fourth Claim for Relief and ¶ 1 through 119 of the Complaint, whether 

viewed singly or in combination.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

123. The District alleges the Complaint and each claim for relief fails to state a 

valid claim upon which relief can be granted.

124. The District affirmatively alleges that Plaintiff’s state law claims may be 

barred in part for the failure to timely comply with the notice of claim statute, A.R.S. § 

12-821.01, having filed her notice on August 1, 2017 making any claim which accrued 

on or before February 2, 2017 barred.

125. The District affirmatively alleges that Plaintiff’s state law claims may be 

barred in part for the failure to timely file this action pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-541, A.R.S. 

§ 12-821, and/or A.R.S. § 23-356 so that any state law claims accruing before January 9, 

2017 would be barred.

126. The District affirmatively alleges that any claim for punitive damages under 

is barred pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-820.04 and/or 42 U.S.C. § 1981a.

Case 2:18-cv-00377-SPL Document 7 Filed 02/22/18 Page 12 of 15
13

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

127. The District affirmatively alleges that any claim for damages or equitable 

relief under the ADA or the Rehabilitation Act is subject to the limitations set forth in 42 

U.S.C. § 1981a.

128. The District affirmatively alleges that it has a good faith reason for not 

having paid any wages which might be due for alleged overtime.

129. The District affirmatively alleges that Plaintiff is estopped to claim she 

worked hours more than what she reported, recorded and/or ratified on her electronic time 

cards.

130. The District affirmatively alleges that Plaintiff waived her state law wage 

claim for hours worked which she did not report to the District in a timely manner.

131. The District affirmatively alleges Plaintiff’s claim for equitable relief 

should be barred or limited by her knowing and intentional violation of FERPA by 

disclosing the names of students with disabilities in her Complaint filed in open court.

132. The District affirmatively alleges that it would have taken the same action 

towards Plaintiff without regard to any alleged unlawful criteria or protected activity.

133. The District affirmatively alleges that the District exercised care in 

preventing and correcting promptly any alleged discrimination, and Plaintiff’s claims 

may be barred or limited due to her failure to utilize the policies and procedures offered 

by the District for dealing internally with alleged discriminatory acts, hostile working 

environments, and retaliation.

134. The District affirmatively alleges that it had legitimate non-discriminatory 

and non-retaliatory reasons for all decisions and actions regarding Plaintiff.

135. The District affirmatively alleges that the Plaintiff has and/or may have 

failed to mitigate or avoid her damages.

136. The District affirmatively alleges that, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 260, it acted 

in good faith and that it had reasonable grounds for believing any act or omission alleged 

was not a violation of the FLSA and this Court has discretion not to award liquidated 

damages or any amount which exceeds the amount set forth in 29 U.S.C. § 216.

Case 2:18-cv-00377-SPL Document 7 Filed 02/22/18 Page 13 of 15
14

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

137. The District affirmatively alleges unclean hands and/or in pari delicto by 

Plaintiff bars and/or limits her recovery.

138. The District affirmatively alleges Plaintiff’s wage claims are barred and/or 

limited due to laches.

139. The District reserves the right to make a claim under A.R.S. § 38-532(M) 

against Plaintiff for knowingly making a false claim.

140. The District affirmatively alleges that it may be entitled to recover their 

reasonable attorney’s fees, expert witness fees and/or expenses pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-

341.01 and/or 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

141. The District affirmatively alleges that it may be entitled to recover its 

taxable costs incurred in this action.

DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL

The District hereby requests a jury trial on all issues triable to a jury.

Wherefore, the District having answered the allegations of the Complaint, pray 

that this action be dismissed with prejudice and Plaintiff taking nothing; that this Court 

deny any request for injunctive relief; award the District their reasonable attorney’s fees 

incurred in defending this action as permitted under A.R.S. § 12-341.01 and/or 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1988; award the District their taxable costs incurred in defending this action; and for 

such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

DATED: February 22, 2018.

UDALL SHUMWAY PLC

/s/ David R. Schwartz 

David R. Schwartz 

1138 North Alma School Road

Suite 101

Mesa, AZ 85201

Attorneys for Defendant Maricopa County

Community College District

Case 2:18-cv-00377-SPL Document 7 Filed 02/22/18 Page 14 of 15
15

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

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on February 22, 2018, I electronically filed the attached 

document using ECF for filing and transmitted the document through ECF to the 

following registered ECF users:

Israel G. Torres

James E. Barton, II

Saman Golestan

TORRES LAW GROUP, PLLC

2239 W. Baseline Rd.

Tempe, AZ 85283

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

/s/ Kimberly Kershner

5110622.1

109883.022

Case 2:18-cv-00377-SPL Document 7 Filed 02/22/18 Page 15 of 15