Answer in Lewandowski v. Cheektowaga

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

STEPHANIE LEWANDOWSKI,

Plaintiff,

v. Civil No. 15-CV-00530

TOWN OF CHEEKTOWAGA and HON. PAUL S. PIOTROWSKI, in his official and individual capacity,

Defendants.

ANSWER

Defendants, Town of Cheektowaga (the “Town”) and Hon. Paul S. Piotrowski

(collectively, “Defendants”), by their attorneys, Hodgson Russ LLP, for their Answer to

plaintiff’s complaint, state as follows:

NATURE OF THE CLAIMS

No response is necessary to the allegations in this un-numbered paragraph, as it

merely states a legal conclusion, but to the extent a response is necessary, Defendants deny the

allegations in this paragraph.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. No response is necessary to the allegations in paragraph 1, as it merely

states a legal conclusion, but to the extent a response is necessary, Defendants deny the

allegations in paragraph 1.

Case 1:15-cv-00530-EAW-HBS Document 4 Filed 07/15/15 of 16

- 2 -




THE PARTIES

3. Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth

of the allegations of paragraph 3, and therefore deny those allegations.

4. Admit the allegations in paragraph 4.



7. Admit that Judge Piotrowski was one of plaintiff’s supervisors, and deny

the remaining allegations in paragraph 7.

8. No response is necessary to paragraph 8, as it contains no allegations, but

to the extent a response is necessary, Defendants deny any allegations in paragraph 8.

EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

9. No response is necessary to the allegations in paragraph 9, as they merely

state a legal conclusion, but to the extent a response is necessary, Defendants deny the


10. Deny the allegations in paragraph 10.


- 3 -


of the allegations in paragraph 11, and therefore deny those allegations.



FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS



14. Admit that plaintiff was appointed to the full-time position of Clerk to the

Town Justice (Exempt) in the Justice Court in 1999, and deny the remaining allegations of

paragraph 14.










- 4 -




















- 5 -






39. Admit that plaintiff submitted a complaint letter dated August 31, 2012, to

Mr. Anthony Romano, and deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 39.












- 6 -






54. Admit that Judge Piotrowski sent plaintiff a letter dated April 19, 2013,

further admit that the contents of the letter speak for themselves, and deny the remaining




of the allegation of paragraph 56, and therefore deny those allegations.









- 7 -






66. Admit that Judge Piotrowski swore Councilmember Diane Benczkowski

in with her oath of office, along with two other new councilmembers, on December 30, 2013,

and deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 66.









73. Admit that the Town Board has the authority to eliminate a position from

its budget, and deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 73.


- 8 -

74. No response is necessary to the allegations in paragraph 74, as they merely

state a legal conclusion, but to the extent a response is necessary, Defendants deny the




77. Admit that the Town eliminated the referenced Administrative Assistant

position in or around the same time it eliminated plaintiff’s position, and deny the remaining




79. Admit the allegations of paragraph 79.










- 9 -




















- 10 -




of the allegations of paragraph 98, and therefore deny those allegations,















- 11 -

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(Retaliation in Violation of Title VII of the Civil Rigths Act of 1964, as Amended, 42 U.S.C § 2000(e), Against the Town of Cheektowaga)


repeats and realleges prior allegations, but to the extent a response is necessary, Defendants deny

the allegations in paragraph 108.








SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(Retaliation in Violation of New York State Human Rights Law (Executive Law, Article 15), § 296(y), Against the Town of Cheektowaga and Judge Paul S. Piotrowski,

individually, as an Aider and Abettor)





- 12 -





THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

(Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Deprivation of Fourth Amendment Right to Be Free From Unlawful Seizure, Against Judge Paul S. Piotrowski)
















- 13 -


INJURY AND DAMAGES


DENIAL

125. Defendants deny each and every other allegation not expressly admitted,

denied, or otherwise controverted herein.

FIRST DEFENSE

126. Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be

granted.

SECOND DEFENSE

127. Any action taken towards plaintiff was taken in good faith and without

malice in keeping with Defendants’ supervisory authority over plaintiff.

THIRD DEFENSE

128. Any employment action taken towards plaintiff was taken for legitimate

non-discriminatory and non-retaliatory business reasons, and was in proper exercise of

management discretion and judgment.

FOURTH DEFENSE

129. The Town does not condone or approve of unlawful discrimination,

harassment, or retaliation and did not ratify any acts of unlawful discrimination, harassment, or

retaliation.


- 14 -

FIFTH DEFENSE

130. Some or all of the acts alleged fall outside the applicable statutes of

limitations and filing periods.

SIXTH DEFENSE

131. Plaintiff’s damages, if any, were caused by her own failure to take

reasonable actions to avoid or mitigate her alleged damages.

SEVENTH DEFENSE

132. Any alleged harassment based on sex was neither severe nor pervasive.

EIGHTH DEFENSE

133. Plaintiff unreasonably failed to take advantage of the Town’s complaint

procedure, such that no notice was given by plaintiff of her alleged harassment or discrimination

so as to enable the Town to commence an investigation and to address her alleged complaints.

NINTH DEFENSE

134. The Town fulfilled its obligation under federal and state law and exercised

reasonable care to prevent and correct unlawful discrimination, harassment, and retaliation by

promoting policies and procedures against discrimination and harassment and to provide a user-

friendly avenue for which an employee could complain. Plaintiff unreasonably failed to utilize

such mechanisms thereby negating liability, if any.

TENTH DEFENSE

135. Any alleged deprivation or violation of constitutional rights is not

attributable to the enforcement of an unconstitutional Town policy, practice, or custom or the

Town’s deliberate indifference.


- 15 -

ELEVENTH DEFENSE

136. Any alleged unconstitutional Town policy, practice, or custom is not

attributable to a Town policymaker with final authority.

TWELFTH DEFENSE

137. Judge Piotrowski’s actions were privileged, discretionary determinations

and made within the scope of his duties, such that he is absolutely and otherwise immune from

suit and liability.

THIRTEENTH DEFENSE

138. Judge Piotrowski acted in the reasonable belief that his actions were in

accordance with the U.S. Constitution and all other applicable law such that he enjoys qualified

immunity from suit and liability.

FOURTEENTH DEFENSE

139. Judge Piotrowski was not personally involved in the acts complained of—

namely, the Town Board’s elimination of plaintiff’s position as Clerk to the Town Justice

(Exempt) in the Justice Court.

FIFTEENTH DEFENSE

140. The Court lacks jurisdiction over some or all of plaintiff’s claims, as she

did not submit them to the EEOC and/or the NYSDHR, or because these agencies never

completed their investigation of such claims.

SIXTEENTH DEFENSE

141. Plaintiff’s state law claims fall under the election of remedies doctrine.


- 16 -

SEVENTEENTH DEFENSE

142. Plaintiff’s state law claims are barred due to her failure to file a notice of

claim in accordance with General Municipal Law and/or Town Law.

WHEREFORE, Defendants demand judgment dismissing plaintiff’s complaint

in its entirety, together with reasonable costs and attorney’s fees, and such other and further

relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Dated: Buffalo, New York July 15, 2015

HODGSON RUSS LLP Attorneys for Defendants

By: s/ Ryan J. Lucinski Ryan J. Lucinski The Guaranty Building 140 Pearl Street, Suite 100 Buffalo, New York 14202 Telephone: (716) 856-4000 Email: [email protected]

TO: LAW OFFICE OF LINDY KORN, PLLC Attorneys for Plaintiff Lindy Korn, Esq., of Counsel 535 Washington Street, 9th Floor Buffalo, New York 14203 Telephone: (716) 856-5676 Email: [email protected]

073052.00005 Business 14032650v1


Answer in Lewandowski v. Cheektowaga

Documents

Transcript of Answer in Lewandowski v. Cheektowaga