Case 7:14-cv-00136-HL Document 46 Filed 08/17/15 Page 1 of 33 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA VALDOSTA DIVISION EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION (EEOC), ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) and ) ) ) DEREK DAVIS, ASHLEY BANKS, ) MALEAH CALDWELL, JONATHAN DANIELS, ) QUINTIN DANIELS, FIONA DAWSON, ) MONICA EDWARDS, RACHEL FLEMMING, ) WILLIE LEE FREDERICK, MARY JO FULLER, ) DERRICK GREEN, KIRA HUNTLEY, ) TEKOY HUTTO, STEPHANIE JACKSON, ) DANNY KING, NAKIA MCCRAY, ) CHARLES MOORE, DOMARNIQUE MOORE, ) JAMAR MOORE, MARCUS MOORE, ) JOSEPH PHILLIPS, TOMIKA ROBERTS, ) KASHONDA WALKER, DANA SPRADLEY, ) ASHLEY TAYLOR, ANDREA WARE, ) ) Plaintiff-Intervenors, ) ) ) J & R BAKER FARMS, LLC, ) and J & R FARMS PARTNERSHIP, ) ) Defendants. ) ) Civil Action File No.: 7:14-CV-136 DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION COME NOW J&R Baker Farms, LLC, and J&R Farms Partnership, Defendants in the above-styled action, and file this their Answer and Defenses in the above-styled case, as follows: Case 7:14-cv-00136-HL Document 46 Filed 08/17/15 Page 2 of 33 FIRST DEFENSE Defendants answer the numbered paragraphs of the Complaint in Intervention, as follows: 1. Paragraph 1 is admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that some PlaintiffIntervenors are residents of South Georgia who worked for Defendants’ farm operations in and around Colquitt County, Georgia in 2010, 2011, 2012, or 2013. It is denied that all PlaintiffIntervenors were so employed. Defendants do not have sufficient information to admit or deny Plaintiffs are residents of South Georgia. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 1 are denied. 2. Paragraph 2 is admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiff-Intervenors purport to join the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) in asserting claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, alleging that Defendants intentionally engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination against its African-American workers of American nationality (“black American workers”). It is denied that such claims have any merit. It is admitted that hiring local workers is required under the terms of the H-2A guest worker program. All other allegations in Paragraph 2 are denied. 3. Paragraph 3 is admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiff-Intervenors Ashley Banks, Jonathan Daniels, Quintin Daniels, Derek Davis, Monica Edwards, Willie Lee Frederick, Derrick Green, Kira Huntley, Tekoy Hutto, Nakia McCray, Charles Moore, Domarnique Moore, Jamar Moore, Joseph Phillips, Tomika Roberts and Ashley Taylor purport 2 Case 7:14-cv-00136-HL Document 46 Filed 08/17/15 Page 3 of 33 to assert claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. It is denied that such claims have any merit. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 3 are denied. 4. Paragraph 4 is admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiff-Intervenors Ashley Banks, Jonathan Daniels, Quintin Daniels, Monica Edwards, Willie Lee Frederick, Derrick Green, Kira Huntley, Tekoy Hutto, Nakia McCray, Charles Moore, Domarnique Moore, Jamar Moore, Joseph Phillips, Tomika Roberts, and Ashley Taylor purport to assert claims under the federal Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (“AWPA”). It is denied that such claims have any merit. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 4 are denied. 5. Paragraph 5 is admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that this Court has jurisdiction of the claims asserted in action. It is denied that Plaintiffs’ claims have any merit. All other allegations in Paragraph 5 are denied. 6. Paragraph 6 is admitted. 7. Paragraph 7 is admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiff-Intervenors Ashley Banks, Maleah Caldwell, Jonathan Daniels, Fiona Dawson, Monica Edwards, Rachel Flemming, Mary Jo Fuller, Derrick Green, Kira Huntley, Tekoy Hutto, Stephanie Jackson, Danny King, Domarnique Moore, Jamar Moorem Marcus Moore, Tomika Roberts, Kashonda Walker, Dana Spradley and Andrea Ware filed charges alleging discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). All other allegations contained in Paragraph 7 are denied. 3 Case 7:14-cv-00136-HL Document 46 Filed 08/17/15 Page 4 of 33 8. Paragraph 8 is admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiff-Intervenor Domarnique Moore filed a charge with the EEOC alleging discrimination in 2012. It is denied that the claims asserted by Plaintiff-Intervenors Quintin Daniels, Derek Davis, Willie Lee Frederick and Ashley Taylor are timely based on the filing of Moore’s charge. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 8 are denied. 9. Paragraph 9 is admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiff-Intervenor Monica Edwards filed a charge with the EEOC alleging discrimination in 2013. It is denied that the claims asserted by Plaintiff-Intervenors Jonathan Daniels, Charles Moore, Nakia McCray and Joseph Phillips are timely based on the filing of Edwards’ charge. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 9 are denied. 10. Paragraph 10 is admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that on August 15, 2013, the EEOC issued a letter of determination and notice of right to sue in response to charges filed by some Plaintiff-Intervenors. It is denied that the EEOC’s determination has merit or any probative value. All other allegations in Paragraph 10 are denied. 11. Paragraph 11 is admitted. EEOC made a pro forma attempt at conciliation by making a demand and not responding in substance to Defendants’ response thereto. 12. Paragraph 12 is admitted. 4 Case 7:14-cv-00136-HL Document 46 Filed 08/17/15 Page 5 of 33 13. Paragraph 13 is admitted in part and denied in part. They were employed by J & R Baker Farms, LLC. All other allegations are denied. 14. Paragraph 14 is admitted in part and denied in part. She was employed by J & R Baker Farms, LLC. All other allegations are denied. 15. Paragraph 15 is admitted in part and denied in part. They were employed by J & R Baker Farms, LLC. All other allegations are denied. 16. Paragraph 16 is admitted in part and denied in part. They were employed by J & R Baker Farms, LLC. All other allegations are denied. 17. Paragraph 17 is admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiff- Intervenors self-identify as African-American (“black”) and of United States national origin (“American”). All other allegations contained in Paragraph 17 are denied. 18. Paragraph 18 is admitted. 19. Paragraph 19 is denied. Defendants are J&R Baker Farms, LLC and J&R Farms Partnership not Jerod Baker and Rodney Baker. 20. Paragraph 20 is denied. 5 Case 7:14-cv-00136-HL Document 46 Filed 08/17/15 Page 6 of 33 21. Paragraph 21 is admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that at all times relevant to this action, Jerod Baker and Rodney Baker had the power to hire and fire employees. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 21 are denied. 22. Paragraph 22 is admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Jerod Baker signed the “Employer’s Certification” sections of all of the job orders. All other allegations are denied. 23. Paragraph 23 is admitted. 24. Paragraph 24 is admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Jerod Baker and Rodney Baker are general partners in Defendant J&R Baker Farms Partnership. It is denied that they are Defendants in this action. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 24 are denied. 25. Paragraph 25 is admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Jerod Baker and Rodney Baker are partners of Defendant J&R Baker Farm Partnership and held actual authority to bind J&R Baker Farms Partnership. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 25 are denied. 26. Paragraph 26 is admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Jerod Baker and Rodney Baker took actions related to the business of J&R Baker Farms Partnership. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 26 are denied. 6 Case 7:14-cv-00136-HL Document 46 Filed 08/17/15 Page 7 of 33 27. Paragraph 27 is denied. 28. Paragraph 28 is denied except as to J&R Baker Farms, LLC. 29. Paragraph 29 is denied. 30. Paragraph 30 is admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that J & R Baker Farms, LLC was an employer within the definition of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It is denied that Jerod Baker and Rodney Baker are Defendants in this action. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 30 are denied. 31. Paragraph 31 is denied except as to J & R Baker Farms, LLC. 32. Paragraph 32 is denied. 33. Paragraph 33 is admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that J & R Baker Farms, LLC was an agricultural employer as that term is defined by 29 U.S.C. § 1802(2) (AWPA). It is denied that Jerod Baker and Rodney Baker are Defendants in this action. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 33 are denied. 7 Case 7:14-cv-00136-HL Document 46 Filed 08/17/15 Page 8 of 33 34. Paragraph 34 is denied. 35. Paragraph 35 is admitted. 36. Paragraph 36 is admitted. 37. Paragraph 37 is admitted. 38. Paragraph 38 is admitted. 39. Paragraph 39 is admitted. 40. Paragraph 40 is admitted. 41. Paragraph 41 is admitted. 42. Paragraph 42 is admitted. 43. Paragraph 43 is admitted. 8 Case 7:14-cv-00136-HL Document 46 Filed 08/17/15 Page 9 of 33 44. Paragraph 44 is admitted. 45. Paragraph 45 is denied except as to J & R Baker Farms, LLC. 46. Paragraph 46 is denied except as to J & R Baker Farms, LLC. 47. Paragraph 47 is admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that some PlaintiffIntervenors were referred to Defendants’ farm by the Georgia Department of Labor (“GDOL”) under the terms of the job orders submitted by Defendants. Defendants are without knowledge as to whether this is true of all Plaintiff-Intervenors, so to that extent Paragraph 47 is denied. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 47 are denied. 48. Paragraph 48 is admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that the job orders estimated that there would be between forty (40) and forty-five (45) hours of work per week. It is specifically denied that these numbers were any sort of guarantee. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 48 are denied. 49. Paragraph 49 is denied. The job orders speak for themselves. The quotation cited is a partial quotation which is misleading. The full quotation for the pertinent sentence is as follows, “The training period for all crop activities is 2 days starting with the first day of employment to 9 Case 7:14-cv-00136-HL Document 46 Filed 08/17/15 Page 10 of 33 acclimate the worker to the physical demands of farm work and to familiarize workers with job specifications and to demonstrate proper harvest methods and other crop specific issues.” 50. Paragraph 50 is admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that the job orders stated that J & R Baker Farms, LLC would pay each worker at least the specified hourly rate, and would make up the difference if the piece rate earnings failed to meet or exceed that hourly rate. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 50 are denied. 51. Paragraph 51 is admitted. 52. Paragraph 52 is denied except as to J & R Baker Farms, LLC. 53. Paragraph 53 is admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that the Fall 2010, Spring 2011 and Fall 2012 job orders did not specify “an hourly production requirement.” It is further admitted that all workers were reasonably required to keep up with their fellow workers after they completed training. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 53 are denied. 54. Paragraph 54 is admitted. 55. Paragraph 55 is admitted. 10 Case 7:14-cv-00136-HL Document 46 Filed 08/17/15 Page 11 of 33 56. Paragraph 56 is admitted. 57. Paragraph 57 is denied. 58. Paragraph 58 is denied in part and admitted in part. It is admitted that an excerpt of a transcript is attached as Exhibit E. All other allegations are denied. 59. Paragraph 59 is admitted. 60. Paragraph 60 is admitted in part and denied in part. It is denied that Jerod Baker and Rodney Baker are Defendants. It is admitted that they have supervised Ms. Booth and Ms. Lowery. All other allegations are denied. 61. Paragraph 61 is admitted. 62. Paragraph 62 is admitted in part and denied in part. 63. Paragraph 63 is denied. 64. Paragraph 64 is denied. 11 Case 7:14-cv-00136-HL Document 46 Filed 08/17/15 Page 12 of 33 65. Defendants are without knowledge to admit or deny Paragraph 65. However, it is denied that American workers do not work in the same field as Mexican workers. Furthermore, each employee, both American and Mexican, work individually. 66. Defendants are without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny paragraph 66. 67. Paragraph 67 is admitted. 68. Defendants are without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny paragraph 68. 69. Paragraph 69 is denied. More experienced workers were required to follow behind the work done by inexperienced workers on those days. 70. Paragraph 70 is admitted. 71. Paragraph 71 is denied. 72. Paragraph 72 is admitted. 73. Paragraph 73 is admitted. 12 Case 7:14-cv-00136-HL Document 46 Filed 08/17/15 Page 13 of 33 74. Paragraph 74 is denied. 75. Paragraph 75 is denied. 76. Paragraph 76 is admitted because no worker, Mexican or American, was subject to a productivity test and no worker was terminated for picking less than nine buckets of squash on October 4, 2010. 77. Paragraph 77 is denied. 78. Paragraph 78 is admitted. Defendant further state that only a few American workers were terminated during the Fall 2010 season; however, almost all American workers quit during the Fall 2010 season. 79. Paragraph 79 is admitted. 80. Paragraph 80 is denied. 81. Paragraph 81 is denied. 13 Case 7:14-cv-00136-HL Document 46 Filed 08/17/15 Page 14 of 33 82. Paragraph 82 is denied. 83. Paragraph 83 is denied that the Mexican workers were provided better schedules than Ms. Jackson. To the extent that Ms. Jackson worked fewer hours than the Mexican workers, she did so voluntarily. 84. Paragraph 84 is denied. 85. Paragraph 84 is denied. Ms. Jackson failed to report to work as required and she was not told to wait to be contacted to return to work. 86. Paragraph 86 is denied. 87. Paragraph 87 is admitted. Defendant further states that almost all American workers quit. 88. Paragraph 88 is admitted. 89. Paragraph 89 is admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that the Fall 2012 Plaintiff-Intervenors were assigned the task of picking cucumbers in the field along with Mexican workers. All other allegations are denied. 14 Case 7:14-cv-00136-HL Document 46 Filed 08/17/15 Page 15 of 33 90. Paragraph 90 is denied. 91. Paragraph 91 is admitted because she was hired to work in the field and was needed to work in the field and there were no available positions in the packing shed at that time. 92. Paragraph 92 is denied. 93. Paragraph 93 is denied. 94. Paragraph 94 is denied. 95. Paragraph 95 is denied. 96. Paragraph 96 is admitted insofar as Americans and Mexican workers were paid individually for the buckets that they picked. The workers were allowed to work near each other. 97. Paragraph 97 is denied. 98. Paragraph 98 is admitted. 99. Defendants are without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny paragraph 99. 15 Case 7:14-cv-00136-HL Document 46 Filed 08/17/15 Page 16 of 33 100. Paragraph 100 is denied. 101. Paragraph 101 is denied. 102. Paragraph 102 is admitted. The Mexican workers did not violate the rules regarding working appropriately and did not violate the work rules. Defendants further state that few Americans workers were terminated. Almost all American workers quit. 103. Defendants’ records are currently in custody of EEOC and Defendants are unable to admit or deny Paragraph 103 until such time as the records are returned to Defendants; accordingly, this paragraph is denied. 104. Paragraph 104 is admitted. The Mexican workers were able to keep up with each other. 105. Paragraph 105 is denied. 106. Paragraph 106 is denied. 16 Case 7:14-cv-00136-HL Document 46 Filed 08/17/15 Page 17 of 33 107. Paragraph 107 is admitted in that the employees who complete their pre-employment paperwork were not paid for that time both Americans and Mexicans. All other allegations are denied. 108. Paragraph 108 is admitted. 109. Paragraph 109 is admitted. They were hired to work in the field; however, when they began there was not sufficient work in the field when they first began work. 110. Paragraph 110 is denied. 111. Paragraph 111 is admitted. 112. Paragraph 112 is admitted. 113. Paragraph 113 is admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that on or about May 17, 2013, two workers were involved in an altercation, and that fighting is against the rules. There was a dispute as to which two American workers were involved so the American workers were brought to the office to ascertain who was involved. It is further admitted that some workers subsequently were asked to sign written warnings stating that if they violated workplace rules again they would be fired. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 113 are denied. 17 Case 7:14-cv-00136-HL Document 46 Filed 08/17/15 Page 18 of 33 114. Paragraph 114 is denied. 115. Paragraph 115 is denied. The production rates were set forth in the contract and those were followed. 116. Paragraph 116 is denied. The production rates were set forth in the contract and those were followed. 117. Paragraph 117 is admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that the American workers who were still working on May 30, 2013 and not meeting the production rates set forth in the contract were told to pick up the pace of work. Some of those workers quit that day. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 117 are denied. 118. Paragraph 118 is admitted. 119. Paragraph 119 is admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Monica Edwards was called back into the office because after being reminded of the production standards, she failed to work and was simply walking around. Ms. Edwards proceeded to yell and curse at Ms. Lowery and she was terminated at that time. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 119 are denied. 18 Case 7:14-cv-00136-HL Document 46 Filed 08/17/15 Page 19 of 33 120. Paragraph 120 is admitted in part and denied in part. Defendants did check on Mr. Moore’s and the other American workers’ position and decided not to terminate Mr. Moore and the other worker. All other allegations are denied. 121. Paragraph 121 is admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that some employees who failed to meet reasonable production standards set forth in the contract were terminated from employment. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 121 are denied. 122. Paragraph 122 is admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that workers who consistently met or exceeded certain production standards were not terminated from employment. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 122 are denied. 123. The answers to Paragraphs 1 – 122 above are incorporated by reference as though set forth fully herein. 124. Paragraph 124 is admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that PlaintiffIntervenors, self-identify as members of a protected class, and purport to assert this claim in intervention against all Defendants for discrimination on the basis of national origin and/or race in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, as amended. It is specifically denied that such claims have any merit whatsoever. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 124 are denied. 19 Case 7:14-cv-00136-HL Document 46 Filed 08/17/15 Page 20 of 33 125. Paragraph 125 is denied. 126. Paragraph 126 is denied. 127. Paragraph 127 is denied. 128. Paragraph 128 is denied 129. Paragraph 129 is denied. 130. Paragraph 130 is denied. 131. Paragraph 131 is denied. 132. Paragraph 132 is denied. 133. Paragraph 133 is denied. 134. Paragraph 134 is denied. 20 Case 7:14-cv-00136-HL Document 46 Filed 08/17/15 Page 21 of 33 135. Paragraph 135 is denied. 136. Paragraph 136 is denied 137. Paragraph 137 is denied. 138. Paragraph 138 is denied. 139. Paragraph 139 is denied. 140. Paragraph 140 is denied. 141. The answers to Paragraphs 1 – 140 above are incorporated by reference as though set forth fully herein. 142. Paragraph 142 is admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that PlaintiffIntervenors purport to assert claims alleging individual discrimination in the alternative, should their claims for a pattern or practice be denied. It is specifically denied that such claims have any merit whatsoever. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 142 are denied. 21 Case 7:14-cv-00136-HL Document 46 Filed 08/17/15 Page 22 of 33 143. Paragraph 143 is admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that PlaintiffIntervenors, self-identify as members of a protected class. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 143 are denied. 144. Paragraph 144 is denied. 145. Paragraph 145 is admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that PlaintiffIntervenors, Jonathan Daniels, Rachel Flemming, Mary Jo Fuller, Danny King, Marcus Moore, Kashonda Walker, Dana Spradley and Andrea Ware self-identify as members of a protected class. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 145 are denied. 146. Paragraph 146 is denied. 147. Paragraph 147 is admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that PlaintiffIntervenor Stephanie Jackson self-identifies as a member of a protected class. allegations contained in Paragraph 147 are denied. 148. Paragraph 148 is denied. 149. Paragraph 149 is denied. 22 All other Case 7:14-cv-00136-HL Document 46 Filed 08/17/15 Page 23 of 33 150. Paragraph 150 is admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that PlaintiffIntervenors, self-identify as members of a protected class. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 150 are denied. 151. Paragraph 151 is denied. 152. Paragraph 152 is admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that PlaintiffIntervenors Ashley Banks, Quintin Daniels, Derek Davis, Willie Lee Frederick, Derrick Green, Kira Huntley, Tekoy Hutto, Domarnique Moore, Jamar Moore and Ashley Taylor self-identify as members of a protected class. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 152 are denied. 153. Paragraph 153 is denied. 154. Paragraph 154 is admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that PlaintiffIntervenors, self-identify as members of a protected class. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 154 are denied. 155. Paragraph 155 is denied. 23 Case 7:14-cv-00136-HL Document 46 Filed 08/17/15 Page 24 of 33 156. Paragraph 156 is admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that PlaintiffIntervenors, Jonathan Daniels, Monica Edwards, Charles Moore and Nakia McCray self-identify as members of a protected class. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 156 are denied. 157. Paragraph 157 is denied. 158. Paragraph 158 is denied. 159. Paragraph 159 is denied. 160. Paragraph 160 is denied. 161. The answers to Paragraphs 1 – 160 above are incorporated by reference as though set forth fully herein. 162. Paragraph 162 is admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that PlaintiffIntervenors, self-identify as members of a protected class. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 162 are denied. 163. Paragraph 163 is denied. 24 Case 7:14-cv-00136-HL Document 46 Filed 08/17/15 Page 25 of 33 164. Paragraph 164 is admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that PlaintiffIntervenors Ashley Banks, Jonathan Daniels, Quintin Daniels, Derek Davis, Monica Edwards, Willie Lee Frederick, Kira Huntley, Tekoy Hutto, Derrick Green, Charles Moore, Domarnique Moore, Jamar Moore, Nakia McCray and Ashley Taylor purport to assert claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981, as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991, against all Defendants. It is explicitly denied that any such claims have merit. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 164 are denied. 165. Paragraph 165 is denied. 166. Paragraph 166 is denied. 167. Paragraph 167 is denied. 168. Paragraph 168 is denied 169. Paragraph 169 is denied. 170. Paragraph 170 is denied. 25 Case 7:14-cv-00136-HL Document 46 Filed 08/17/15 Page 26 of 33 171. Paragraph 171 is denied. 172. Paragraph 172 is admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that PlaintiffIntervenors seek relief including back pay, declaratory and injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees and costs, compensatory and punitive damages. It is explicitly denied that they are entitled to any relief whatsoever. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 172 are denied. 173. The answers to Paragraphs 1 – 172 above are incorporated by reference as though set forth fully herein. 174. Paragraph 174 is admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that PlaintiffIntervenors purport to assert claims for money damages, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief pursuant to the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (“AWPA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1801 et seq. It is explicitly denied that they are entitled to any relief whatsoever. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 174 are denied. 175. Paragraph 175 is admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that the work orders set forth some of the rules. It is denied that they set forth all rules. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 175 are denied. 26 Case 7:14-cv-00136-HL Document 46 Filed 08/17/15 Page 27 of 33 176. Paragraph 176 is admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that PlaintiffIntervenors purport to assert claims under the AWPA. It is explicitly denied that their claims have any merit whatsoever. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 176 are denied. 177. Paragraph 177 is denied. 178. Paragraph 178 is denied. 179. Paragraph 179 is admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that PlaintiffIntervenors Ashley Banks, Quintin Daniels, Willie Lee Frederick, Derrick Green, Kira Huntley, Tekoy Hutto, Domarnique Moore, Jamar Moore and Ashley Taylor purport to assert claims under the AWPA. It is explicitly denied that these claims have any merit whatsoever. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 179 are denied. 180. Paragraph 180 is denied. 181. Paragraph 181 is admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that PlaintiffIntervenor Derek Davis purports to assert claims arising under the AWPA. It is explicitly denied that such claims have any merit whatsoever. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 181 are denied. 27 Case 7:14-cv-00136-HL Document 46 Filed 08/17/15 Page 28 of 33 182. Paragraph 182 is denied. 183. Paragraph 183 is admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that the Spring 2013 job order set forth some of the rules. It is denied that it stated all rules. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 183 are denied. 184. Paragraph 184 is admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that PlaintiffIntervenors purport to assert claims arising under the AWPA. It is explicitly denied that such claims have any merit whatsoever. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 184 are denied. 185. Paragraph 185 is denied. 186. Paragraph 186 is admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that PlaintiffIntervenors Jonathan Daniels, Monica Edwards, Charles Moore and Nakia McCray purport to assert claims arising under the AWPA. It is explicitly denied that such claims have any merit whatsoever. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 186 are denied. 187. Paragraph 187 is denied. 188. Paragraph 188 is denied. 28 Case 7:14-cv-00136-HL Document 46 Filed 08/17/15 Page 29 of 33 189. Paragraph 189 is denied. 190. Paragraph 190 is denied. PRAYER FOR RELIEF To the extent that any response to Plaintiff-Intervenors’ Prayer for Relief is required, it is denied that Plaintiff-Intervenors are entitled to any relief whatsoever. SECOND DEFENSE Plaintiffs fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. THIRD DEFENSE Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs have failed to mitigate damages or have not been damaged. FOURTH DEFENSE Defendants did not knowingly or intentionally discriminate against Plaintiffs on the basis of their race. FIFTH DEFENSE 42 U.S.C. §1981 does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of national origin or “lack of alienage” as pled by Plaintiffs. SIXTH DEFENSE Some or all of Plaintiff-Intervenors’ claims are barred by the Statute of Limitations. 29 Case 7:14-cv-00136-HL Document 46 Filed 08/17/15 Page 30 of 33 SEVENTH DEFENSE Some or all of Plaintiff-Intervenors’ claims are barred because Plaintiff-Intervenors failed to exhaust administrative remedies. EIGHTH DEFENSE Some of Plaintiff-Intervenors’ claims are barred by collateral estoppel pursuant to the prior rulings of this Court. NINTH DEFENSE Some of Plaintiff-Intervenors’ claims are brought in bad faith and have no factual or legal basis and Defendants are entitled to attorney fees for defending such claims. JURY DEMAND Defendants hereby demand a jury on all issues triable to a jury. WHEREFORE, Defendants pray for judgment from this Court as follows: a. That Plaintiffs take nothing by this action; b. That the Complaint be dismissed with prejudice and that judgment be entered against Plaintiffs and in favor of Defendants on each cause of action; c. That Defendants be awarded their costs and attorneys’ fees to the extent permitted by applicable law; d. Any further relief that this Court deems just and proper. 30 Case 7:14-cv-00136-HL Document 46 Filed 08/17/15 Page 31 of 33 Respectfully submitted this 17th day of August, 2015. /s/ J. Larry Stine J. Larry Stine GA Bar No. 682555 Ray Perez GA Bar No. 142466 Attorneys for Defendants WIMBERLY, LAWSON, STECKEL, SCHNEIDER & STINE, P.C. Suite 400, Lenox Towers 3400 Peachtree Road, N.E. Atlanta, Georgia 30326 Phone (404)365-0900 jls@wimlaw.com rp@wimlaw.com 31 Case 7:14-cv-00136-HL Document 46 Filed 08/17/15 Page 32 of 33 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA VALDOSTA DIVISION EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION (EEOC), Plaintiff, and DEREK DAVIS, et al. Plaintiff-Intervenors, J & R BAKER FARMS, LLC, and J & R FARMS PARTNERSHIP, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action File No.: 7:14-CV-136 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on August 17, 2015, I electronically filed the foregoing Defendants’ Answer To Complaint In Intervention with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to the following: Robert K. Dawkins Regional Attorney Ottrell Ferrell Edwards Supervisory Trial Attorney Sairalina Montesino Trial Attorney U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 100 Alabama St Suite 4R-30 Atlanta, Ga 30303 Dawson Morton Lisa J. Krisher Georgia Legal Services 104 Marietta Street NW, Suite 250 Atlanta, GA 30303 Case 7:14-cv-00136-HL Document 46 Filed 08/17/15 Page 33 of 33 WIMBERLY, LAWSON, STECKEL, SCHNEIDER & STINE, P.C. Suite 400, Lenox Towers 3400 Peachtree Road, N.E. Atlanta, Georgia 30326 Phone (404)365-0900 jls@wimlaw.com rp@wimlaw.com /s/ J. Larry Stine J. Larry Stine GA Bar No. 682555 Ray Perez GA Bar No. 142466 Counsel for Defendants 2