La Vergne Response

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE, NASHVILLE DIVISION
APRIL L. LAWRENCE, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) CASE NO. 3:19-cv-00217
v. )
) TRAUGER/NEWBERN
THE CITY OF LA VERGNE, and )
JASON COLE, MAYOR, ) JURY DEMAND
)
Defendants. )
ANSWER
Defendants, City of La Vergne and Jason Cole, by and through undersigned counsel, hereby answer
April L. Lawrence’s Complaint as follows:
PARTIES
1. Based on knowledge and information these Defendants admit the allegations contained in
Paragraph 1.
2. These Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 2.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
4. These Defendants admit that in this action, Plaintiff is pursuing the claims referenced in Paragraph
4, pursuant to these statutes referenced therein, but denies that Plaintiff has suffered any deprivation
of rights secured by those statutes.
5. These Defendants admit this Court has jurisdiction and that venue is proper.
FACTS
8. These Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 8.
{FB631130 / PEP 6280 }

Case 3:19-cv-00217 Document 8 Filed 04/04/19 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 27
9. These Defendants admit the allegations contained within the first sentence of Paragraph 9. These
Defendants deny the remaining allegations contained within Paragraph 9.
10. These Defendants admit that the Plaintiff met with Cheryl Lewis-Smith on or around November
28, 2018. However, these Defendants lack sufficient information and knowledge to admit or deny
the substance of that conversation as alleged in Paragraph 10.
12. These Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 12, except that the Defendants
would like to clarify that the contents of the Plaintiff’s grievance were alleged claims.
13. This paragraph contains Plaintiff’s statement of the case and legal arguments to which no response
by these Defendants is required.
15. These Defendants lack sufficient information and knowledge at this time to admit or deny the
allegations contained in Paragraph 15.
16. These Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 16. Further, this allegation should
refer to Ms. Lawrence and not “Ms. Lee.”
20. These Defendants admit the allegations contained in the first and second sentence of Paragraph 20.
These Defendants lack sufficient information and knowledge at this time to admit or deny the
allegation in the last sentence in Paragraph 20.
{FB631130 / PEP 6280 } 2

22. These Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 22, except to clarify that the
Plaintiff is on paid administrative leave.
Plaintiff is on paid administrative leave.
Plaintiff has not fully cooperated with the request of the investigator.
26. These Defendants admit to the allegations contained in Paragraph 26, except to clarify that the
Plaintiff emailed Defendant Jason Cole on February 25, 2019 and requested to be returned to work.
Plaintiff was to remain on paid administrative leave until the investigation concluded.
Count I
Against City of La Vergne and Jason Cole
Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983/First Amendment Retaliation
34. These Defendants restate and incorporate by reference its response to the foregoing paragraphs.
36. This paragraph contains Plaintiff’s statement of the case and legal arguments to which no
response by these Defendants is required.
{FB631130 / PEP 6280 } 3

38. These Defendants deny the allegations contained within Paragraph 38 and further state that the
Plaintiff has been placed on paid administrative leave and has not suffered an adverse employment
action.
39. These Defendants deny the allegations contained within Paragraph 39 and further state that the
Plaintiff has not suffered an adverse employment action.
40. These Defendants deny the allegations contained within Paragraph 40.
Count II
Against the City of La Vergne, Tennessee
Violation of PEPFA
43. These Defendants restate and incorporate by reference its response to the foregoing paragraphs.
44. Defendant, City of La Vergne, denies the allegations contained within Paragraph 44.
Count III – Retaliation

THRA against Both Defendants
48. These Defendants restate and incorporate by reference its responses to the foregoing paragraphs.
49. This paragraph states a legal conclusion to which no response by these Defendants is required.
{FB631130 / PEP 6280 } 4

52. These Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 52 and further state these Defendants
have taken no adverse employment action against the Plaintiff.
53. These Defendants deny the allegation that they committed unlawful acts. As to the remaining
allegations contained in Paragraph 53, these Defendants lack sufficient information and knowledge
to either admit or deny these allegations.
Count IV
Equal Pay Act
Count V
Fair Labor Standards Act
61. Defendant, City of La Vergne, admits the allegation contained within Paragraph 61.
63. Defendant, City of La Vergne, denies the allegation contained within Paragraph 63.
RELIEF REQUESTED
Defendants deny that Plaintiff is entitled to any relief requested in her Relief Requested or any
relief otherwise requested in her complaint. Defendants deny any and all allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint
not specifically admitted to herein.
{FB631130 / PEP 6280 } 5

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
1. These Defendants assert that Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted.
2. These Defendants assert that no action or inaction on its behalf was the actual or proximate cause
of any deprivation of any right or interest afforded to the Plaintiff by the Constitution of the United
States, the Constitution of the State of Tennessee, or other applicable federal or state statute or law.
3. These Defendants assert the Plaintiff has not been subjected to any form of discrimination or
retaliation in violation of any federal or state law.
4. These Defendants assert that Plaintiff was never disciplined or denied any tangible job benefits or
promotions for discriminatory reasons.
5. Plaintiff’s claims against these Defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the First Amendment
to the U.S. Constitution must be dismissed as these Defendants took no adverse action affecting
Plaintiff.
6. Defendant, Jason Cole, is entitled to qualified immunity in his individual capacity because he did
not violate any of the Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.
7. These Defendants assert that Plaintiff’s speech was not protected under the First Amendment as
the speech was not a matter of public concern.
8. Defendant, City of La Vergne, asserts that to the extent that the Plaintiff’s wage was less than that
of any similarly-situated-male employee the Defendant, the difference was because of: (i) a
seniority system; (ii) a merit system; (iii) a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality
of production; and/or (iv) any other factor other than sex, pursuant to the Equal Pay Act.
9. Any claims arising outside of the applicable statute(s) of limitations must be dismissed.
10. These Defendants request attorney’s fees as well as costs and expenses pursuant to the provisions
of 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and as otherwise provided by law.
11. These Defendants specifically requests a jury of twelve (12) to hear this matter.
{FB631130 / PEP 6280 } 6

12. These Defendants specifically reserve the right to amend this pleading and plead further, and assert
additional affirmative defenses as additional facts become available through further investigation
or discovery.
Having answered the Complaint and asserted their affirmative defenses, these Defendants pray
that the Complaint be dismissed with the costs taxed to Plaintiff.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ William N. Bates

William N. Bates, BPR # 003578
FARRAR & BATES, L.L.P.
211 Seventh Avenue North, Suite 500
Nashville, TN 37219
(615) 254-3060
bill.bates@farrar-bates.com
Attorney for Defendants
{FB631130 / PEP 6280 } 7

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that on this the 4th of April, 2019, a true and correct copy
of the foregoing has been forwarded to the following via electronic mail and/or the court’s
electronic filing system:
Heather Moore Collins

Anne Hunter
Paige M. Lyle
COLLINS & HUNTER, PLLC
7000 Executive Center Dr., Ste. 320
Brentwood, TN 37027
(615) 724-1996
heather@collinshunter.com
anne@collinshunter.com
paige@collinshunter.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
/s/ William N. Bates

William N. Bates
{FB631130 / PEP 6280 } 8

La Vergne Response

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

La Vergne Response

Uploaded by

Copyright:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE, NASHVILLE DIVISION

April L. Lawrence’s Complaint as follows:

2. These Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 2.

3. These Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 3.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

of rights secured by those statutes.

6. These Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 6.

7. These Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 7.

8. These Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 8.

{FB631130 / PEP 6280 }

Defendants deny the remaining allegations contained within Paragraph 9.

the substance of that conversation as alleged in Paragraph 10.

11. These Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 11.

by these Defendants is required.

by these Defendants is required.

allegations contained in Paragraph 15.

refer to Ms. Lawrence and not “Ms. Lee.”

allegations contained in Paragraph 17.

allegations contained in Paragraph 18.

allegations contained in Paragraph 19.

allegation in the last sentence in Paragraph 20.

{FB631130 / PEP 6280 } 2

Case 3:19-cv-00217 Document 8 Filed 04/04/19 Page 2 of 8 PageID #: 28

allegations contained in Paragraph 21.

Plaintiff is on paid administrative leave.

Plaintiff is on paid administrative leave.

25. These Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 25.

28. These Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 28.

29. These Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 29.

30. These Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 30.

31. These Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 31.

32. These Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 32.

33. These Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 33.

35. These Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 35.

response by these Defendants is required.

{FB631130 / PEP 6280 } 3

Case 3:19-cv-00217 Document 8 Filed 04/04/19 Page 3 of 8 PageID #: 29

by these Defendants is required.

Plaintiff has not suffered an adverse employment action.

Count III – Retaliation

by these Defendants is required.

51. These Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 51.

{FB631130 / PEP 6280 } 4

Case 3:19-cv-00217 Document 8 Filed 04/04/19 Page 4 of 8 PageID #: 30

have taken no adverse employment action against the Plaintiff.

to either admit or deny these allegations.

by these Defendants is required.

not specifically admitted to herein.

{FB631130 / PEP 6280 } 5

Case 3:19-cv-00217 Document 8 Filed 04/04/19 Page 5 of 8 PageID #: 31

retaliation in violation of any federal or state law.

promotions for discriminatory reasons.

not violate any of the Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

the speech was not a matter of public concern.

of 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and as otherwise provided by law.

{FB631130 / PEP 6280 } 6

Case 3:19-cv-00217 Document 8 Filed 04/04/19 Page 6 of 8 PageID #: 32

that the Complaint be dismissed with the costs taxed to Plaintiff.

/s/ William N. Bates

{FB631130 / PEP 6280 } 7

Case 3:19-cv-00217 Document 8 Filed 04/04/19 Page 7 of 8 PageID #: 33

Heather Moore Collins

/s/ William N. Bates

{FB631130 / PEP 6280 } 8

Case 3:19-cv-00217 Document 8 Filed 04/04/19 Page 8 of 8 PageID #: 34

You might also like