2:13-cv-02160 #38

8/11/2019 2:13-cv-02160 #38

1/21

BNSFS ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - 1

[Cause No. 2:13-cv-02160-RSM]

MONTGOMERY SCARP, PLLC1218 Third Avenue, Suite 2500

Seattle, Washington 98101Telephone (206) 625-1801Facsimile (206)625-1807

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

HONORABLE RICARDO S. MARTINEZ

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE

MICHAEL HALL, and ELIJAH UBER a/k/a

Elijah Hall, and their marital community; and

AMIE GARRAND and CAROL GARRAND

and their marital community,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY, a Delaware

Corporation,

Defendant.

))))))))))))))))))))))

No.: 2:13-cv-02160-RSM

DEFENDANTS ANSWER TO FIRST

AMENDED INDIVIDUAL AND

COLLECTIVE COMPLAINT

JURY DEMAND

Defendant BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) hereby answers the First Amended

Individual and Collective Complaint [Docket No. 8] (First Amended Complaint) filed by

Plaintiffs Michael Hall et al., (Plaintiffs)in the above-captioned matter as follows:

First Defense

BNSF denies all of the allegations of the First Amended Complaint unless expressly

admitted herein. BNSF answers the allegations in the like-numbered paragraphs of the First

Amended Complaint as follows:

Case 2:13-cv-02160-RSM Document 38 Filed 10/03/14 Page 1 of 21

8/11/2019 2:13-cv-02160 #38

2/21





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

1. This paragraph is a characterization of the First Amended Complaint as to which

no response is required. To the extent that an answer may be deemed required, BNSF denies the

allegations of Paragraph 1, and further avers that as of January 1, 2014, the relevant multi-

employer health care plans (the Plans) do provide dependent coverage to covered railroad

employees same-sex spouses. BNSF specifically denies that any limitations in spousal coverage

were due to or based on gender, as opposed to sexual orientation,. Moreover, BNSF specifically

denies that it made any decision to deny coverage, and avers that all coverage decisions were

made by the Plan administrators applying the bargained-for Plan terms (terms which BNSF has

never been able to unilaterally alter or amend). BNSF further denies that the Plaintiffs are

entitled to any relief under any of the causes of action stated.

2. BNSF denies the allegations of Paragraph 2 of the First Amended Complaint.

3. BNSF admits that Plaintiffs are making the claims stated and seeking various

forms of relief, denies that Plaintiffs are entitled to any such relief, and otherwise denies the

allegations of Paragraph 3 of the First Amended Complaint.

4.

BNSF denies that any eligible, covered employees in lawful same-sex marriages

are denied spousal health care benefits. BNSF otherwise lacks sufficient knowledge or

information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations of Paragraph 4 of the First

Amended Complaint.

5. BNSF reasserts and incorporates herein its answers to all other the allegations set

forth in the First Amended Complaint.

6. BNSF admits that this Court has federal question jurisdiction and otherwise

denies the allegations of Paragraph 6 of the First Amended Complaint.


8/11/2019 2:13-cv-02160 #38

3/21





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

7. BNSF admits that Michael Hall and Amie Garrand are BNSF employees and

otherwise lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of

the allegations in Paragraph 7 of the First Amended Complaint.

8. BNSF admits that it does business in Washington and is subject to personal

jurisdiction in this Court, and further admits that it maintains offices and operations in Seattle.

BNSF otherwise denies the allegations of Paragraph 8 of the First Amended Complaint.




11. BNSF admits the allegations of Paragraph 11 of the First Amended Complaint.

12. Paragraph 12 of the First Amended Complaint states conclusions of law as to

which no response is required. To the extent that any response may be required, BNSF denies

the allegations of Paragraph 12 of the First Amended Complaint.


14.

BNSF admits the allegations of Paragraph 14 of the First Amended Complaint.


16. BNSF admits that some managers of NW Division employees are located in the

offices identified in Paragraph 16 of the First Amended Complaint, and further admits that it

maintains offices and operations in Seattle and denies any other allegations.

17. BNSF admits that its headquarters are in Fort Worth, Texas and otherwise denies


18. BNSF admits that Michael Hall began employment in 2010 and was working as a

locomotive engineer in 2013. BNSF lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief


8/11/2019 2:13-cv-02160 #38

4/21





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

as to the truth or falsity of the remaining allegations of Paragraph 18 of the First Amended

Complaint.

19. BNSF admits the allegations of Paragraph 19 of the First Amended Complaint

and avers that Michael Halls employment is primarily in the Tacoma area.


21. BNSF admits that some of its employees are lawfully married, and otherwise

lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the


22.

BNSF admits the allegations of Paragraph 22 of the First Amended Complaint,

and avers that the Plans in which its unionized employees participate also provide dependent

coverage to covered employees with same-sex spouses. Moreover, BNSF specifically denies all

suggestions that BNSF made any decision to deny coverage, and avers that all coverage

decisions were made by the Plan administrators applying the bargained-for Plan terms (terms

which BNSF has never been able to unilaterally alter or amend).

23.

BNSF admits the allegations of Paragraph 23 of the First Amended Complaint.

24. BNSF denies that it required documentation of marriage and otherwise lacks

sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegation that

Michael Hall provided documentation to United Healthcare regarding his marriage in connection

with his demand for dependent coverage for same-sex spouses.

25. BNSF denies the allegations of Paragraph 25 of the First Amended Complaint. .

Moreover, BNSF specifically denies all suggestions that BNSF made any decision to deny

coverage and avers that all coverage decisions were made by the Plan administrators applying

the bargained-for Plan terms (terms which BNSF has never been able to unilaterally alter or

amend).


8/11/2019 2:13-cv-02160 #38

5/21





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


27. BNSF admits that the relevant Plans provide dependant coverage for covered

employees who are lawfully married to opposite-sex spouses, avers that the Plans also provide

dependant coverage for covered employees who are lawfully married to same-sex spouses, and

otherwise denies the allegations of Paragraph 27 of the First Amended Complaint. Moreover,

BNSF specifically denies all suggestions that BNSF made any decision to deny coverage and

avers that all coverage decisions were made by the Plan administrators applying the bargained-

for Plan terms (terms which BNSF has never been able to unilaterally alter or amend).

28.

BNSF admits that the relevant Plans provide dependant coverage for covered

employees who are lawfully married to opposite-sex spouses, avers that the Plans also provide

dependant coverage for covered employees who are lawfully married to same-sex spouses, and

otherwise denies the allegations of Paragraph 28 of the First Amended Complaint. Moreover,

BNSF specifically denies all suggestions that BNSF made any decision to deny coverage, and

avers that all coverage decisions were made by the Plan administrators applying the bargained-

for Plan terms (terms which BNSF has never been able to unilaterally alter or amend).

29. BNSF admits that prior to a change in Plan terms announced in December 2013

and effective January 1, 2014, the relevant Plan did not provide coverage for Mr. Halls same-

sex spouse, and otherwise denies the allegations of Paragraph 29 of the First Amended

Complaint. Moreover, BNSF specifically denies all suggestions that BNSF made any decision to

deny coverage, and avers that all coverage decisions were made by the Plan administrators

applying the bargained-for Plan terms (terms which BNSF has never been able to unilaterally

alter or amend).



8/11/2019 2:13-cv-02160 #38

6/21





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

31. BNSF lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth or

falsity of the allegation that Michael Hall provided documentation to United Healthcare

regarding his marriage in connection with his demand for dependent coverage for same-sex

spouses and otherwise denies the allegations of Paragraph 31 of the First Amended Complaint.

32. BNSF admits the allegations of Paragraph 32 of the First Amended Complaint

and further avers that United Healthcare manages the relevant portions of the Plans for all of the

participating employers, and that BNSF cannot unilaterally alter or amend any terms of the

Plans.

33.

BNSF admits United Healthcare addresses dependent coverage questions and

further avers that United Healthcare manages the relevant portions of the Plans for all of the

participating employers.



which no response is required. To the extent a response may be deemed required, BNSF admits

that the Supreme Court issued a decision in the case United States v. Windsorand avers that the

decision speaks for itself.

36. BNSF admits that Michael Hall repeated his demand for dependent coverage for

same-sex spouses after the Supreme Court decision in Windsor, and otherwise lacks sufficient

knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations of Paragraph

36 of the First Amended Complaint.

37. BNSF lacks information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph




8/11/2019 2:13-cv-02160 #38

7/21





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

39. BNSF admits that Elijah Hall repeatedly contacted the law department at BNSF

seeking dependent coverage for same-sex spouses under the relevant Plan and otherwise denies



falsity of the allegations of Paragraph 40 of the First Amended Complaint.

41. BNSF denies the allegations of Paragraph 41 of the First Amended Complaint and

avers that the document attached as Exhibit A to the First Amended Complaint is a partial copy

of a Summary Plan Description, not one of the Plans.

42.

BNSF lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth or




44. BNSF admits that Michael Hall repeatedly contacted BNSF seeking dependent

coverage for same-sex spouses under the relevant Plan, avers that BNSFs human resources

department is not responsible for making decisions about health care coverage issues for

dependents of unionized employees, and otherwise denies the allegations of Paragraph 44 of the

First Amended Complaint.



47. BNSF admits that Paragraph 47 of the First Amended Complaint quotes from

Exhibit B and denies the substance of the quoted language.


Exhibit B. BNSF lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth or

falsity of the quoted language.


8/11/2019 2:13-cv-02160 #38

8/21





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



50. BNSF admits that no direct response to the email was provided with respect to the

allegations of Paragraph 50 of the First Amended Complaint, but avers that Plaintiffs were

informed about the Plan changes in December 2013.





53. BNSF admits that Michael and Elijah Hall called a BNSF representative on or

about July 10, 2013 to demand dependent coverage for same-sex spouses and denies that the

allegations of Paragraph 53 of the First Amended Complaint accurately characterize their

conversation with BNSF representatives.

54. BNSF admits that Michael and Elijah Hall called a BNSF representative on or

about July 10, 2013 to demand dependent coverage for same-sex spouses and denies that the

allegations of Paragraph 54 of the First Amended Complaint accurately characterize their

conversation with BNSF representatives.


Exhibit C and denies the substance of the quoted language.


Exhibit C and denies the substance of the quoted language.

57. Paragraph 57 of the First Amended Complaint states an argument or conclusions

of law as to which no response is required. To the extent that any response may be deemed

required, BNSF denies that it has ever asserted that is above the law.


8/11/2019 2:13-cv-02160 #38

9/21





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

58. BNSF admits that Michael Hall called a BNSF representative on or about July

10, 2013 to demand dependent coverage for same-sex spouses and denies that the allegations of

Paragraph 58 of the First Amended Complaint accurately characterize his conversation with

BNSF representatives.



falsity of the allegation that Michael and Elijah Hall felt intimidated, admits that they

continued to demand dependent coverage for same-sex spouses, and otherwise denies the


61. BNSF admits that Michael Hall repeatedly contacted BNSF representatives

seeking dependent coverage under the relevant Plan.

62. BNSF admits that a BNSF representative spoke to Michael Hall about his

demands for dependant coverage for same-sex spouses and denies that the allegations of

Paragraph 62 of the First Amended Complaint accurately characterize his conversation with




64. BNSF admits that as of July 2013, the Plan did not provide dependant coverage

for employees with same-sex spouses, and avers that the document attached as Exhibit A to the

First Amended Complaint is a partial copy of a Summary Plan Description, not one of the Plans,

further avers that Plaintiffs ignore other relevant provisions of the Summary Plan Description.


avers that as of January 1, 2014, Michael Hall is eligible, under the terms of the relevant Plan, for

dependent coverage for his same-sex spouse. Moreover, BNSF specifically denies all


8/11/2019 2:13-cv-02160 #38

10/21





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

suggestions that BNSF made any decision to deny coverage, and avers that all coverage

decisions were made by the Plan administrators applying the bargained-for Plan terms (terms

which BNSF has never been able to unilaterally alter or amend).

66. BNSF admits that Michael Hall filed an appeal with United Healthcare, avers that

he failed to properly perfect that appeal, and otherwise denies the allegations of Paragraph 66 of

the First Amended Complaint. Moreover, BNSF specifically denies all suggestions that BNSF

made any decision to deny coverage, and avers that all coverage decisions were made by the

Plan administrators applying the bargained-for Plan terms (terms which BNSF has never been

able to unilaterally alter or amend).




69. BNSF denies that it had any prior specific knowledge of Elijah Halls health

conditions or status.

70.

BNSF lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth

or falsity of the allegations of Paragraph 70 of the First Amended Complaint.


avers that in Elijah Halls email correspondence to BNSF (attached to the First Amended

Complaint as Exhibit B), he represented that his medical costs were covered by insurance

provided by the state of Washington. Moreover, BNSF specifically denies all suggestions that

BNSF made any decision to deny coverage, and avers that all coverage decisions were made by

the Plan administrators applying the bargained-for Plan terms (terms which BNSF has never

been able to unilaterally alter or amend).


8/11/2019 2:13-cv-02160 #38

11/21





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

72. BNSF denies that it has engaged in any gender-based discrimination and

otherwise lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of


73. BNSF denies that the NW Division is operated out of Seattle and otherwise

admits the allegations of Paragraph 73 of the First Amended Complaint.

74. BNSF admits that Amie Garrand requested dependent coverage for her same-sex

spouse in 2013, further admits that the relevant Plans did not provide dependent coverage to

covered railroad employees same-sex spouses prior to January 1, 2014, and otherwise denies the

allegations of Paragraph 74 of the First Amended Complaint. Moreover, BNSF specifically

denies all suggestions that BNSF made any decision to deny coverage, and avers that all

coverage decisions were made by the Plan administrators applying the bargained-for Plan terms

(terms which BNSF has never been able to unilaterally alter or amend).


76. BNSF admits that Amie Garrand contacted BNSF seeking dependent coverage

under the relevant Plans, further admits that the relevant Plans by their bargained-for terms

did not provide dependent coverage to covered railroad employees same-sex spouses prior to

January 1, 2014, and otherwise denies the allegations of Paragraph 76 of the First Amended

Complaint. Moreover, BNSF specifically denies all suggestions that BNSF made any decision to

deny coverage, and avers that all coverage decisions were made by the Plan administrators

applying the bargained-for Plan terms (terms which BNSF has never been able to unilaterally

alter or amend).

77. BNSF admits that a BNSF representative spoke to Amie Garrand about her



8/11/2019 2:13-cv-02160 #38

12/21





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

Paragraph 77 of the First Amended Complaint accurately characterize her conversation with




79. BNSF admits that a BNSF representative spoke to Amie Garrand about her




80.

BNSF admits that Amie Garrand contacted United Healthcare about her demands

for dependant coverage for same-sex spouses and otherwise lacks sufficient knowledge or

information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations of Paragraph 80 of the

First Amended Complaint


avers that the document attached as Exhibit A to the First Amended Complaint is a partial copy

of a Summary Plan Description, not one of the Plans.

82. BNSF admits that Amie Garrand contacted United Healthcare about her demands




83. BNSF admits that Amie Garrand contacted BNSF representatives about her

demands for dependent coverage for same-sex spouses and denies that the allegations of


8/11/2019 2:13-cv-02160 #38

13/21





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


BNSF representatives.1 BNSF admits that it could not unilaterally alter or amend Plan terms.






for dependant coverage for same-sex spouses, admits that the relevant Plan did not provide

dependent coverage for same-sex spouses in August 2013, and otherwise lacks sufficient













dependent coverage for same-sex spouses in September 2013, and otherwise lacks sufficient

1There are two paragraphs numbered 83 in the First Amended Complaint. This paragraph responds to

both.


8/11/2019 2:13-cv-02160 #38

14/21





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





dependent coverage for same-sex spouses in September or November 2013, and otherwise lacks

sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations of

Paragraph 89 of the First Amended Complaint.


falsity of the allegations of Paragraph 90 of the First Amended Complaint and avers that the

quoted language is derived from the Summary Plan Description, not the relevant Plan, and

further avers that Plaintiffs ignore other relevant provisions of the Summary Plan Description.


92. BNSF denies that it told Amie Garrand that a collective bargaining agreement

forces the railroad to deny dependent coverage for same-sex spouses, and further denies that the

terms of the Plan prior to January 1, 2014 discriminated against employees on the basis of

gender. BNSF further avers that the quoted language is derived from the Summary Plan

Description, not the relevant Plan, and that Plaintiffs ignore other relevant provisions of the

Summary Plan Description.

92.1 BNSF admits that on or about December 4, 2013, the administrators of the

relevant Plans announced that the Plans would be amended, effective January 1, 2014, to

provide dependant coverage for same-sex spouses of eligible employees. BNSF further admits

that Paragraph 92.1 quotes from a document that was subsequently distributed to covered

railroad employees, and avers that this change was made effective for all of the multi-employer


8/11/2019 2:13-cv-02160 #38

15/21





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

Plans that cover unionized railroad employees, not just the Railroad Employees National Health

and Welfare Plan.

92.2 BNSF admits the allegations of Paragraph 92.2 of the First Amended Complaint.

92.3 BNSF lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth or

falsity of the allegations of Paragraph 92.3 of the First Amended Complaint.

92.4 BNSF denies the allegations of Paragraph 92.4 of the First Amended Complaint

and avers that decisions regarding coverage terms under the relevant Plans can be made only by

the Joint Plan Committee or Governing Committee of each Plan.

92.5 BNSF admits that the relevant Plans began providing dependent coverage for

same-sex spouses of eligible employees on January 1, 2014, admits that such coverage was not

provided prior to January 1, 2014, further admits that the Plan is not required to provide

dependent coverage for same-sex spouses as a matter of law, and otherwise denies the

allegations of Paragraph 92.5 of the First Amended Complaint. Moreover, BNSF specifically

denies all suggestions that BNSF made any decision to deny coverage, and avers that all

coverage decisions were made by the Plan administrators applying the bargained-for Plan terms

(terms which BNSF has never been able to unilaterally alter or amend).

92.6 BNSF admits that the relevant Plans began providing dependent coverage for

same-sex spouses of eligible employees on January 1, 2014, admits that such coverage was not

provided prior to January 1, 2014, and otherwise denies the allegations of Paragraph 92.6 of the

First Amended Complaint. Moreover, BNSF specifically denies all suggestions that BNSF

made any decision to deny coverage, and avers that all coverage decisions were made by the

Plan administrators applying the bargained-for Plan terms (terms which BNSF has never been

able to unilaterally alter or amend).


8/11/2019 2:13-cv-02160 #38

16/21





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

92.7 Paragraph 92.7 of the First Amended Complaint states conclusions of law as to

which no response is required. To the extent a response may be deemed required, BNSF denies

the allegations of Paragraph 92.7 of the First Amended Complaint.

92.8 BNSF lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth or

falsity of the allegations of Paragraph 92.8 of the First Amended Complaint.

92.9 The allegations regarding ripeness and timeliness in Paragraph 92.9 of the First

Amended Complaint state conclusions of law as to which no response is required. To the extent

a response may be deemed required, BNSF denies such allegations of Paragraph 92.9.










101. BNSF admits that it employs thousands of individuals as engineers and/or

conductors and otherwise denies the allegations of Paragraph 101 of the First Amended

Complaint.



104. BNSF denies that Plaintiffs have suffered any legally cognizable harm and

otherwise denies the allegations of Paragraph 104 of the First Amended Complaint.


8/11/2019 2:13-cv-02160 #38

17/21





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


which no response is required. To the extent a response may be deemed required, BNSF denies










113. BNSF admits that jurisdiction is proper in this Court but denies that venue is

proper with respect to Plaintiffs action under Title VII, admits that it is an employer for

purposes of Title VII, and otherwise denies the allegations of Paragraph 113 of the First

Amended Complaint.

114. The first sentence of Paragraph 114 of the First Amended Complaint states

conclusions of law as to which no response is required. To the extent a response may be

deemed required, BNSF admits that Paragraph 114 of the First Amended Complaint quotes

from Title VII. BNSF otherwise denies the allegations of Paragraph 114 of the First Amended

Complaint.






8/11/2019 2:13-cv-02160 #38

18/21





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





that Paragraph 120 quotes certain provisions of Washington state law.







that Paragraph 120 quotes or refers to certain provisions of the Employee Retirement Income

Security Act.


126. BNSF admits that the relevant Plans are separate legal entities and otherwise

denies the allegations of Paragraph 126 of the First Amended Complaint.

127. BNSF admits that jurisdiction is proper but denies that venue is proper in this

Court and otherwise denies the allegations of Paragraph 127 of the First Amended Complaint.


129. There is no Paragraph 129 in the First Amended Complaint.



132. Prayer for Relief: BNSF denies that Plaintiffs are entitled to any relief.


8/11/2019 2:13-cv-02160 #38

19/21





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

Second Defense

The First Amended Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

Third Defense

Plaintiffs Title VII claims are barred to the extent that they failed to file timely charges

on which this action is based with the EEOC.

Fourth Defense

Plaintiffs Title VII claims are barred to the extent that they seek relief as to any alleged

unlawful employment practice that occurred more than 300 days prior to filing of EEOC charges

on which this action is based.

Fifth Defense

Plaintiffs Title VII claims are barred to the extent that the claims alleged in the First

Amended Complaint are broader than the allegations in any charge filed with the EEOC.

Sixth Defense

Plaintiffs claims are barred to the extent that they failed to exhaust administrative

remedies.

Seventh Defense

Plaintiffs state law claims are preempted by federal law.

Eighth Defense

Plaintiffs claims are moot.

Ninth Defense

Plaintiffs claims are barred by the doctrine of accord and satisfaction.

Tenth Defense

Plaintiffs failed to mitigate their alleged damages.


8/11/2019 2:13-cv-02160 #38

20/21





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

Eleventh Defense

BNSF expressly reserves the right to raise additional affirmative defenses.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Defendant BNSF respectfully request that this Court dismiss the First

Amended Complaint and grant such other and further relief to BNSF, including costs and

attorneys fees, as may be deemed just and appropriate.

DATED this 3rd

day of October, 2014.

JONES DAY MONTGOMERY SCARP, PLLC

_s/ Donald J. Munro ________ __s/ Bradley Scarp__________

Donald J. Munro (admittedpro hac vice) Bradley Scarp, WSBA No. 21453

51 Louisiana Avenue, N.W. 1218 Third Avenue, Suite 2500

Washington, D.C. 20001 Seattle, WA 98101

Telephone: (202) 879-3939 Telephone: (206) 625-1801Facsimile: (202) 626-1700 Facsimile: (206) 625-1807

E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected]

Attorneys for Defendant BNSF Attorneys for Defendant BNSF


8/11/2019 2:13-cv-02160 #38

21/21

BNSFS ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 21 MONTGOMERY SCARP PLLC

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

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that true and complete copies of DEFENDANTS ANSWER TO FIRST

AMENDED INDIVIDUAL AND COLLECTIVE COMPLAINT has been filed with the UnitedStates District Court via the ECF system which gives automatic notification to the following

interested parties:

Cleveland Stockmeyer

Cleveland Stockmeyer, PLLC

8056 Sunnyside Avenue North

Seattle, Washington 98103

Telephone: (206) 419-4385

E-mail: [email protected]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Duncan C. Turner

Badgley Mullins Turner, PLLC

701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4750


Telephone: (206) 621-6566


Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Jennifer C. PizerLambda Legal Defense & Education Fund, Inc.

4221 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 280

Los Angeles, California 90010 730

Telephone: (213) 382-7600


Attorneys for Amicus Curiae

Tara L. BorelliGregory R. Nevins

Lambda Legal Defense & Education Fund, Inc

Peachtree Street NE, Suite 1070

Atlanta, Georgia 30308

Telephone: (404) 897-1880




Jennifer S. Divine

Miller Nash LLP

601 Union Street, Suite 4400


Telephone: (206) 622-8484



DATED this 3rd

day of October, 2014, at Seattle, Washington.

s/ Allison Whitney__________Allison Whitney, Paralegal


2:13-cv-02160 #38

Documents

Transcript of 2:13-cv-02160 #38