United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
June 8, 2005.
IVORY GHEE, Plaintiff,
LUSTER PRODUCTS, et al., Defendants.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: MILTON SHADUR, Senior District Judge
Luster Products ("Luster"), Roosevelt Lester and Elizabeth
Jenkins have filed their Answer and Affirmative Defenses ("ADs")
to the employment discrimination action brought against them by
Luster's ex-employee Ivory Ghee ("Ghee"). This memorandum order
is issued sua sponte to address two problematic items in that
To begin with, Answer ¶ 2 does not conform to the disclaimer
requirements clearly established by Fed.R.Civ.P. ("Rule")
8(b)'s second sentence see App. ¶ 1 to State Farm Mut. Auto.
Ins. Co. v. Riley, 199 F.R.D. 276, 278 (N.D. Ill. 2001). That
paragraph of the Answer is accordingly stricken, with defendants
being given the option (1) to file a proper Amended Answer ¶ 2 on
or before June 20, 2005, or (2) in the absence of such a filing,
to be deemed to have admitted the allegations of Complaint ¶ 2
(which, given the nature of those allegations, would appear the
simpler and nonprejudicial course of action).
As for the ADs, Rule 8(c) and the caselaw applying it make clear that any proper AD must accept a complaint's allegations as
gospel, but may then explain some basis for nonliability or
lesser liability see App. ¶ 5 to State Farm. In those terms:
1. AD 2 is directly at odds with the allegations of
Complaint ¶ 14 that the alleged discrimination
against Ghee was knowing, intentional and wilful.
Hence AD 2 is stricken without leave to replead.
2. AD 4 is insufficient to satisfy the federal
concept of notice pleading, for it informs neither
Ghee nor this Court of just what claims by Ghee are
assertedly barred by limitations. AD 4 is also
stricken, but this time with leave being granted to
file a proper amended AD 4 on or before June 20,
© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.