IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ST. LOUIS COUNTY STATE OF MISSOURI KATIE MOTHERSHED, AND GINA JAKSETIC, . Cause No. 17SL-cco3242 Pla1nt1ffs, Division No. 4 vs. FOUNDATION CARE, LLC, ET AL., Defendants. NOTICE OF RECEIPT OF RIGHT TO SUE COME NOW Plaintiffs Katie Mothershed and Gina aksetic, by and through their attorneys, and provide to this Court Notices of Right to Sue that Plaintiffs have obtained from the Missouri Commission on Human Rights. See attached Exhibits 1, 2, 3, and 4. Respectfully submitted, DOBSON, GOLDBERG, BERNS RICH, LLP By /s/Nicole A. Matlock Jerome J. Dobson, #32099 Nicole A. Matlock, #66894 5017 Washington Place, Third Floor St. Louis, MO 63108 (314) 621-8363 idobson?ldobson?oldbergeom nmatlockr?r?dobsongoldhel'gcom Attorneys for Plaintiff WV 81731.1. LLOZ Jaqweoeq AIUHOC) syn0? 18 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned certi?es that on December 18, 2017, the foregoing document was ?led electronically with the Clerk of Court to be served by operation of the Court?s electronic ?ling system and/or by regular mail, postage prepaid, upon the following: Susan Bassford Wilson Robert Ortbals CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH PROPHETE, LLP 7733 Blvd., Suite 1325 St. Louis, MO 63105 swilsnn@constangy.com ls/Nicole A. Matlock wv 917: LL - .LLOZ Jeqweoea - Munoz) S!n0?l 13 - PBIH ?neowonoela MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS .Hir?lr 111231;; MISSOURI COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS I R. GREITENS ANNA S. HUI SARA NELL LAMPE ALISA WARREN, PH.D. GOVERNOR ACTING DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR COMMISSION CHAIRFERSON EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR December 1, 2017 '11 Katie Mothershed a I'll'l 78 Julie Drive 3; 93 Glen Carbon, IL 62034 . RE: Mothershed vs. Foundation Care, LLC et al 8 560-2017-01411 01 The Missouri Commission on Human Rights (MCHR) is terminating its proceedings and issuing this notice of your right to sue under the Missouri Human Rights Act because you have requested a notice of your right to sue. This letter indicates your right to bring a civil action within 90 days of this notice against the respondent(s) named in the complaint. Such an action may be brought in any circuit court in any county in which the unlawful discriminatory practice is alleged to have occurred but it must be brought no later than two years after the alleged cause occurred or its reasonable discovery. Upon issuance of this notice, the MCHR is terminating all proceedings relating to the complaint. No person may file or reinstate a complaint with the MCHR after the issuance of a notice of right to sue relating to the same practice or act. You are hereby notified of your right to sue the Respondent(s) named in your complaint in state circuit court. THIS MUST BE DONE WITHIN 90 DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS NOTICE OR YOUR RIGHT TO SUE IS LOST. You are also notified that the Executive Director is hereby administratively closing this case and terminating all MCHR proceedings relating to it. This notice Of right to sue has no effect on the suit- filing period for any federal claims. This notice of right to sue is being issued as required by Section 213.1 11.1, RSMO, because it has been requested in writing 180 days afterfiling of the complaint. This complaint was being initially processed by the EEOC and MCHR has not been notified of their determination. Please note that administrative processing of this complaint, including determinations of jurisdiction, has not been completed. EXHIBIT (continued on next page) El [3 >4 El 3315 W. TRUMAN BLVD. 111 N. 7TH STREET. SUITE 903 1410 GENESSEE. SUITE 260 108 ARTHUR STREET PO. Box 1129 ST. MO 63101~2100 OZARK. MO 65721-1300 KANSAS CITY. MO 64102 SUITE JEFFERSON CITY. MO 65102-1129 PHONE: 314-340-7590 FAX: 417-485-6024 FAX: 816-889-3582 SIKESTON. MO 63801-5454 PHONE: 573-751-3325 FAX: 314?340-7238 573-472-5321 FAX: 573-751-2905 Missouri Commission rm Human Rights is an equal opportunity employer/program. Auxiliary aides and services rm: (Iwriiabia uprm request to individuals with disabilities. 1-800-735-2966 (TDD) Relay Missouri: 711 E-Mall: wv EVIL - Jeqweoec - ?iunoo is - pend KIIBOIuonoeia RE: Mothersned vs. Foundation Care, LLC at al Respectfully, . a "fi at Alisa Warren' Executive Direclor Foundation Care, LLC Michael Schullz' Daniel Blakeley Inspen'ly' Inc. 545 E. John Carpenter Hwy, Ste. 1200 Irving, TX 75062 Centenne Corp.Centene Plaza AcariaHealth Solutions 7700 Blvd. #800 Si. Louis, MO 63105 Nicole A. Maliock 5017Washington Flace' Third Floor St. Louis. MO 63108 Via email Kenya Leonard Susan Eassford Wilson 7733 Blvd., Suile 1325 St Louis' MO 63105 Via email YnquN Elm a Box 172? mm Shamans um swims sv Lauu' MO gamma mus awuwsso mm ms 550-2017-01411 moms; mm cw. Mo sum file-M04!" an so. was can. no ammuo "mum maumun smzu SW: wow M0 Mum-5454 sva-num Mum: mum Nun" mm a enwmmum mum, almanlumm "mm m. <MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS . I Iii? ISSOURI OMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS 31.47517? ERIC R. GREITENs ANNA s. HUI SARA NELL LAMPE ALISA WARREN, PH.D. GOVERNOR ACTING DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR COMMISSION CHAIRPERSON EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR December 1, 2017 Gina Jaksetic 445 N. Harrison Ave. Kirkwood, MO 63122 RE: Jaksetic vs. Foundation Care, LLC et al 560-2017-01412 62913-111993 The Missouri Commission on Human Rights (MCHR) is terminating its proceedings and issuing this notice of your right to sue under the Missouri Human Rights Act because you have requested a notice of your right to sue. This letter indicates your right to bring a civil action within 90 days of this notice against the respondent(s) named in the complaint. Such an action may be brought in any circuit court in any county in which the unlawful discriminatory practice is alleged to have occurred but it must be brought no later than two years after the alleged cause occurred or its reasonable discovery. Upon issuance of this notice, the MCHR is terminating all proceedings relating to the complaint. No person may file or reinstate a complaint with the MCHR after the issuance of a notice of right to sue relating to the same practice or act. You are hereby notified of your right to sue the Respondent(s) named in your complaint in state circuit court. THIS MUST BE DONE WITHIN 90 DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS NOTICE OR YOUR RIGHT TO SUE IS LOST. You are also notified that the Executive Director is hereby administratively closing this case and terminating all MCHR proceedings relating to it. This notice of right to sue has no effect on the suit- filing period for any federal claims. This notice of right to sue is being issued as required by Section 213.11 1.1, because it has been requested in writing 180 days after filing of the complaint. This complaint was being initially processed by the EEOC and MCHR has not been notified of their determination. Please note that administrative processing of this complaint, including determinations of jurisdiction, has not been completed. EXHIBIT (continued on next page) i? 3315 W. TRUMAN BLVD. 111 7TH STREET. SUITE 903 PO. Box 1300 1410 GENESSEE, SUITE 260 106 ARTHUR STREET PO. Box 1129 ST, LOUIS. MO 63101-2100 OZARK. MO 65721-1300 KANSAS CITY. MO 64102 SUITE JEFFERSON CITY, MO 65102-1129 PHONE: 314-340-7590 417-485-6024 FAX: 816-889-3582 SIKESTON. MO 63801?5454 PHONE: 573-751-3325 314-340-7238 FM: 573-472-5321 FAX: 573-751-2905 Mia's-our! Commission on Human Rights iv an equal Opportunity empinyar/pmgram. Auxiliary aides and services are avaiiabic upim requexr individuuix with TDDITTY: 1-800-735-2966 (TDD) Relay Missouri: 711 E-Mail: mchr@labor.mo.gov WV 917: Li - LL03 ?91 Jeqweoeo - Riunoo 9100118 - pelts fiIIBOIuonoeIa RE: Jaksetic vs. Foundation Care, LLC et al 56072017701412 Respeotlu lly. (4 ,Mfi/ Alisa Warren, Executlve Dlrector Foundation Care, LLC Mlchael Schullz Danlel Blakeley Insperity, Inc 545 E. John Carpenter Frwy' Ste. 1200 75062 wv :v u. A 1102 '91 Jeqwaaecl A Munoz) 5mm IS A Valli fillealumwala Centenne Corp Centene Plaza AcariaHealth Solutions 7700 Blvd. #300 St. Louis' MO 63105 Nicole A Matlock 5017 Washington Place, Third Floor St Louis, MO 63108 Vl'a email Kenya Leonard Susan Basslord Wilson 7733 Blvd, Suite 1325 St' Louls, MO 63105 View emal'l EMSW TMAMBIW Bax unn 5mm mum. sum at 5r mu. mow-12 ma JEwElstl'v Maosmzma ani :u-uwinu a. .masmu aluamsbz mamwuaums; mm: smmus alumna Manama-25 "may 0mm" p. ml." mm mm Wm" Mm", Illa ".1.th mum: m. mum" woman an. mm" momv moms-ms mm) Wavy Mluwn mchrolabavmacw ,y?gg, MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS I. 1555 r' MISSOURI COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS will" R. GREITENS ANNA S. HUI SARA NELL LAMPE ALISA GOVERNOR DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR COMMISSION CI-IAIRPERSON EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR December 1, 2017 TI Katie Mothershed 3 Fl? 78 Julie Drive 3: 93 Glen Carbon, IL 62034 :1 in RE: Mothershed vs. lnsperity, Inc. et al 9 [?33 560-2017?01417 O) The Missouri Commission on Human Rights (MCHR) is terminating its proceedings and issuing this notice of your right to sue under the Missouri Human Rights Act because you have requested a notice of your right to sue. This letter indicates your right to bring a civil action within 90 days of this notice against the respondent(s) named in the complaint. Such an action may be brought in any circuit court in any county in which the unlawful discriminatory practice is alleged to have occurred but it must be brought no later than two years after the alleged cause occurred or its reasonable discovery. Upon issuance Of this notice, the MCHR is terminating all proceedings relating to the complaint. No person may file or reinstate a complaint with the MCHR after the issuance of a notice of right to sue relating to the same practice or act. You are hereby notified of your right to sue the Respondent(s) named in your complaint in state circuit court. THIS MUST BE DONE WITHIN 90 DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS NOTICE OR YOUR RIGHT TO SUE IS LOST. You are also notified that the Executive Director is hereby administratively closing this case and terminating all MCHR proceedings relating to it. This notice of right to sue has no effect on the suit- filing period for any federal claims. This notice of right to sue is being issued as required by Section 213.11 1.1, RSMO, because it has been requested in writing 180 days afterfiling of the complaint. This complaint was being initially processed by the EEOC and MCHR has not been notified of their determination. Please note that administrative processing of this complaint, including determinations ofjurisdiction, has not been completed. EXHIBIT (continued on next page) 3315 W. TRUMAN BLVD. 111 N. 7TH STREET, SUITE 903 P.O. Box 1300 1410 GENESSEE, SUITE 260 106 ARTHUR STREET O. Box 1129 ST. MO 63101-2100 OZARK. MO 55721-1300 KANSAS CITY. MO 64102 SUITE JEFFERSON CITY. MO 65102-1129 PHONE: 314-340-7590 FAX: 417-485-6024 816-339-3582 SIKESTON. MO 63801-5454 PHONE: 573-751-3325 FAX: 314-340-7238 FAX: 573-472-5321 FAX: 573-751-2905 Commission on Humrm Rights is an equal appormnloi Auxiilrinv aides and services arr: available upon rcqu est to individuals with disabilities. 1-800-735-2966 (TDD) Relay Missouri: 711 E-Mail: gov wv 21m - zaoz Jeqweoeo - Munoz) Is - pens Mothershed vs lnspenty, Inc, etal Respectfully, (4 Alisa Warren. Executwe Director Insperity, Inc. 545 E, John Carpenter Frwy, Ste. 1200 Irving, TX 75062 Foundalion Care, LLC Mlchael Schultz' Daniel Blakeley Centenne Corp.Cenlene Plaza AcariaHealm Solutions 7700 Blvd, #500 St. Louis, MO 63105 Nicole A, Mallock 5017 Place, Third Flaor SI Louis, MO 63108 Via email :msw lawman/D 'mswfiv swan: uo sum 5: um Moaamr-imn MO 55102-112: WE alumna FMDNE mum" swarm 29125 560-2017-01417 v.0 Bax mu quGEuusEE Gum M0 ssmunn Km." cum M08115: <MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS J15 Nb. 1 111 MISSOURI COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS $132; 13:" ERIC R. GREITENS ANNA 5. HUI SARA NELL LAMPE ALISA WARREN, PH.D. GOVERNOR ACTING DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR COMMISSION CHAIRPERSON EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR December 1, 2017 Gina Jaksetic a 445 N. Harrison Ave. Kirkwood, MO 63122 1. 1 RE: Jaksetic vs. Insperity, Inc. et al a 560-2017-01420 The Missouri Commission on Human Rights (MCHR) is terminating its proceedings and issuing this notice of your right to sue under the Missouri Human Rights Act because you have requested a notice of your right to sue. This letter indicates your right to bring a civil action within 90 days of this notice against the respondent(s) named in the complaint. Such an action may be brought in any circuit court in any county in which the unlawful discriminatory practice is alleged to have occurred but it must be brought no later than two years after the alleged cause occurred or its reasonable discovery. Upon issuance of this notice, the MCHR is terminating all proceedings relating to the complaint. No person may file or reinstate a complaint with the MCHR after the issuance of a notice of right to sue relating to the same practice or act. You are hereby notified of your right to sue the Respondent(s) named in your complaint in state circuit court. THIS MUST BE DONE WITHIN 90 DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS NOTICE OR YOUR RIGHT TO SUE IS LOST. You are also notified that the Executive Director is hereby administratively closing this case and terminating all MCHR proceedings relating to it. This notice of right to sue has no effect on the suit- filing period for any federal claims. This notice of right to sue is being issued as required by Section 213.11 1.1, RSMO, because it has been requested in writing 180 days after filing of the complaint. This complaint was being initially processed by the EEOC and MCHR has not been notified of their determination. Please note that administrative processing of this complaint, including determinations ofjurisdiction, has not been completed. EXHIBIT (continued on next page) 3315 W. TRUMAN BLVD. 111 N. 7TH STREET. SUITE 903 PO Box 1300 1410 GENESSEE. SUITE 260 106 ARTHUR STREET PO Box 1129 ST, LOUIS. MO 63101-2100 OZARK. MO 65721-1300 KANSAS CITY. MO 64102 SUITE JEFFERSON CITY. MO 65102-1129 PHONE: 314-340-7590 FAX: 417-485-6024 FAX1815-589-3582 SIKESTON, MD 63801-5454 PHONE: 573?751-3325 FAX: 314-340-7238 FAX: 573-472-5321 FAX: 573-751-2905 Mia-sour! rm Human Rights an aqua! apparrunlry Auxfliary ar'dea' am! are available upon request In lm?w?dur?n' with dfrabi?lfrr'es TDDITTY: 1-800~735-2966 (TDD) Relay Missouri: 711 E-Mail: mchr@labor.mo.gov 099121 WV .LLOZ ?91. Jeqweoeq MUHOO 5!n0'118 Pelid AIIBOIUOJDGEI RE: Jakselicvsl Respectfully' v. Alisa Warrem Executive Direclor lnsperily, Inc. 545 John Carpenter Frwy' Sle, 1200 lrving' TX 75062 Foundatlon Care, il'ii iihuli 08 i Blakeley Centenne Corp.Centene Plaza AcariaHeallh Snlutlons 7700 #800 St Lau'ls, MO 63105 Nicole A. Matlock 5017 Washington Place, Floor St Louls,MO 63108 Via email WW am 111 swam: po an: 5v Lumuoemmuu owl M055 Won: mama: um alumna! 51: mm: nspemy' Inc. at al 560-2017-01420 wv 2v ll - use Jsamauaa A Munoo 5M1 IS A new: Augmummela um; um 2m mumm sum mum: 5mm mu umusaz mum "new"; 57:572532' Mmuwl m. Hum" Wm", .uu "human: mum mun!" mlwm; Mm mum. momv momma ww Innmle L'Inm new Mum. 5 Mill "mm-m mun-w IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ST. LOUIS COUNTY STATE OF MISSOURI KATIE MOTHERSHED, AND GINA JAKSETIC, Plaintiffs, Cause No. 17 VS. FOUNDATION CARE, LLC, MICHAEL SCHULTZ, DANIEL BLAKELEY, AND INSPERITY, Defendants. DEFENDANT ANSWER TO PETITION COMES NOW Defendant Insperity PEO Services, L.P. (?Defendant?), by and through the undersigned counsel, Constangy, Brooks, Smith Prophete, LLP, and for its Answer to Plaintiffs? Petition states as follows: COUNT 1: Sexual Harassment and Hostile Work Environment in Violation of the Missouri Human Rights Act 1 . Defendant admits that Mothershed is female. Defendant further admits Mothershed worked for Foundation Care and, upon information and belief, resided in Illinois. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 1 are denied. 2. Defendant admits that aksetic is female. Defendant further admits aksetic worked for Foundation Care and, upon information and belief, resided in Missouri. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 2 are denied. 3. Upon information and belief, Defendant admits that Foundation Care is a Missouri corporation that does business in St. Louis County, Missouri. Page 1 of 15 4839080v.l 4873722v.1 we agree - no: 'iL Jeqwenow - ?lunoo 3,8 pens ?na?wmwaia 4. Defendant admits it is a limited partnership formed under the laws of Texas that does business in St. Louis County, Missouri. Defendant further admits that Insperity was Plaintiffs? co-employer for a portion of Plaintiffs? employment with Foundation Care. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 4 are denied. 5. Defendant admits Michael Schultz is male. Upon information and belief, Defendant further admits that Schultz resided in Missouri and was a partial owner of Foundation Care. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 5 are denied. 6. Defendant admits Daniel Blakeley is male. Upon information and belief, Defendant further admits that Blakeley resided in Missouri and was a partial owner of Foundation Care. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 6 are denied. 7. The allegations contained in Paragraph 7 constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required; but to the extent a response is required, Defendant denies the same. 8. Upon information and belief, Foundation Care employs more than six individuals within the State of Missouri. The remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 8 constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required; but to the extent a response is required, Defendant denies the same. 9. Defendant admits it co-employs more than six individuals with Foundation Care within the State of Missouri. The remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 9 constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required; but to the extent a response is required, Defendant denies the same. 10. The allegations contained in Paragraph 10 constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required; but to the extent a response is required, Defendant denies the same. Page 2 of 15 4839080v.l 4873722v.1 Wd 993170 AEOZ JeqwerN MUHOO Sine-I IS Delhi AEIBSEUOJIOBIH 1 1. The allegations contained in Paragraph 1 1 constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required; but to the extent a response is required, Defendant denies the same. 12. Upon information and belief, Defendant admits that Foundation Care hired Mothershed in May 2012, and that Mothershed worked for Foundation Care until April 17, 2017. Defendant further admits that during her employment, the positions Mothershed held included director of pharmacy and the senior director of pharmacy and clinical operations. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 12 are denied. 13. The allegations contained in Paragraph 13 constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required; but to the extent a response is required, Defendant denies the same. 14. Defendant admits that during her employment, Mothershed was supervised by Blakeley. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 14 are denied. 15. Upon information and belief, Defendant admits that Foundation Care hired aksetic in June 2004, and that Jaksetic worked for Foundation Care until April 17, 2017. Defendant further admits that during her employment, the positions Jaksetic held included senior director of healthcare client and consumer relations and the director of reimbursement. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 15 are denied. 16. The allegations contained in Paragraph 16 constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required; but to the extent a response is required, Defendant denies the same. 17. Defendant admits that during her employment, aksetic was supervised by Blakeley. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 17 are denied. 18. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 18. 19. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 19. 20. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 20. Page 3 of 15 4839080v.1 4873722v.1 wa 992170 - ALOZ 9(1me - Kiunoo Stno'l IS - PelH Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 21. 22. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 22. 23. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 23. 24. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 24. 25. Defendant lacks suf?cient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 25, and therefore denies the same. 26. Defendant lacks suf?cient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 26, and therefore denies the same. 27. Defendant lacks suf?cient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 27, and therefore denies the same. 28. Defendant lacks suf?cient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 28, and therefore denies the same. 29. Defendant lacks suf?cient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 29, and therefore denies the same. 30. Defendant lacks suf?cient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 30 and therefore denies the same. 31. Defendant lacks suf?cient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 31, and therefore denies the same. 32. Defendant lacks suf?cient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 32, and therefore denies the same. 33. Defendant lacks suf?cient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 33, and therefore denies the same. Page 4 of 15 4839080v.1 4873722v.l Wd 992170 - 1.103 It JeqweAON - Aiunoo 8mm 18 - PSIH 34. Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 34, and therefore denies the same. 35. Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 35, and therefore denies the same. 36. Defendant lacks suf?cient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 36, and therefore denies the same. 37. Defendant admits that both Plaintiffs worked on February 22 and 23, 2017. Defendant further admits that both Plaintiffs were granted leave until April 17, 2017. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 37 are denied. 38. Defendant admits that Plaintiffs? counsel noti?ed Foundation Care that Plaintiffs alleged they had been constructively discharged in April 2017. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 38 are denied. 39. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 39. 40. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 40. 41. Upon information and belief, Defendant admits that on June 2, 2017, Mothershed filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Missouri Commission on Human Rights that alleged sex discrimination. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 41 are denied. 42. Defendant admits that the attached document speaks for itself. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 42 are denied. 43. Upon information and belief, Defendant admits that on June 2, 2017, Jaksetic filed a Charge of Discrimination with the MCHR that alleged sex discrimination. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 43 are denied. Page 5 of 15 4839080v.1 4873722v.l [Nd 993170 7.1. JeqLuerN Sin0? 13 Pelt! AEIBQWOJIQQEJ 44. Defendant admits that the attached document speaks for itself. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 44 are denied. 45. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 45. 46. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 46. 47. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 47. 48. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 48, including the prayer for relief. COUNT II: Wrongful Discharge in Violation of Public Policy 49. Defendant incorporates its responses and denials to Paragraphs fully restated herein. 50. The allegations contained in Paragraph 50 constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required; but to the extent a response is required, Defendant denies the same. 51. Defendant lacks suf?cient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 51, and therefore denies the same. 52. Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 52, and therefore denies the same. 53. Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 53, and therefore denies the same. 54. Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 54, and therefore denies the same. 55. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 55. 56. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 56. Page 6 of 15 4839080v.l 4873722v.l 99370 - AEOZ JeqweAON - Munoz) lS - pens Alleviuonoela 57. Defendant lacks suf?cient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 57, and therefore denies the same. 58. Defendant lacks suf?cient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 58, and therefore denies the same. 59. 60. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 59. Defendant lacks suf?cient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 60, and therefore denies the same. Defendant lacks suf?cient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 61, and therefore denies the same. 62. 63. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 62. Defendant lacks suf?cient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 63, and therefore denies the same. 64. Defendant lacks suf?cient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 64, and therefore denies the same. 65. 66. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 65. Defendant lacks suf?cient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 66, and therefore denies the same. 67. Defendant lacks suf?cient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 67, and therefore denies the same. 68. Defendant lacks suf?cient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 68, and therefore denies the same. 69. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 69. Page 7 of 15 4839080v.1 4873722v.l Nd 993170 ALOZ MUUOO S?n0? IS Pelizl KEIBOEUO-EDSIEI 70. Defendant lacks suf?cient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 70, and therefore denies the same. 71. Defendant lacks suf?cient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 71, and therefore denies the same. 72. 73. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 72. Defendant lacks suf?cient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 73, and therefore denies the same. 74. Defendant lacks suf?cient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 74, and therefore denies the same. 75. 76. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 75. Defendant lacks suf?cient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 76, and therefore denies the same. 77. Defendant lacks suf?cient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 77, and therefore denies the same. 78. 79. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 78. Defendant lacks suf?cient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 79, and therefore denies the same. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 80. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 81. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 82. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 83. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 84. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 85. Page 8 of 15 4839080v.l 4873722v.] Wd 99770 ALOZ Jeqwe?oN All-?100 Slim?I 18 Peli? A113045011393 86. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 86. 87. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 87. 88. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 88, including the prayer for relief. COUNT False Imprisonment 89. 100. Count 111 (Paragraphs 89 100) is not directed to Defendant Insperity, and therefore no response is required; but to the extent a response is required, Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraphs 89 100, including the prayer for relief. COUNT IV: Assault 101. 110. Count IV (Paragraphs 101 110) is not directed to Defendant Insperity, and therefore no response is required; but to the extent a response is required, Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraphs 101 110, including the prayer for relief. COUNT V: Sex Discrimination in Violation of the Missouri Human Rights Act 111. Defendant incorporates its responses and denials to Paragraphs 1 40 as if fully restated herein. 112. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 112. 113. Defendant lacks suf?cient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 113, and therefore denies the same. 114. Defendant lacks suf?cient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 114, and therefore denies the same. Page 9 of 15 4839080v.1 4873722v.1 wa 99sz LLOZ JeqweAON - ?iunoo Sincn 18 - pens A?leowonoera 115. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 115. 116. Upon information and belief, Defendant admits that on June 2, 2017, Jaksetic ?led a Charge of Discrimination with the MCHR that alleged sex discrimination. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 1 16 are denied. 1 17. Defendant admits that the attached document speaks for itself. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 117 are denied. 118. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 118. 1 19. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 119. 120. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 120. 121. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 121, including the prayer for relief. Defendant denies each and every allegation of fact, conclusion of law, or other matter contained in the Petition that has not been expressly admitted herein, including the prayers for relief. DEFENSES 1. Some or all of Plaintiff?s Petition fails to state a claim against Defendant upon which relief can be granted by this Court. 2. All events which occurred more than 180 days prior to the ?ling of Plaintiffs? charges of employment discrimination with the MCHR are untimely and not properly assertable in this action; nor are the Plaintiffs entitled to relief in this action for any events which occurred more than 180 days prior to the filing of their respective charges of discrimination. 3. As explained in Defendants? Partial Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiffs? claims under the MHRA are barred as Plaintiffs have failed to exhaust their administrative Page 10 of 15 4839080v.1 4873722v.1 mad 992170 - 2.502 JeqweAON - munoo 3310118 - Dena Asleowmnela remedies and have not received a Notice of Right to Sue. Accordingly, Plaintiffs? claims are barred to the extent that this Court lacks subject matter and/or other jurisdiction over all or portions of Plaintiffs? Petition. 4. Defendant asserts that Plaintiffs were at-will employees and, therefore, Plaintiffs were subject to discharge at any time, with or without cause, so long as said discharge was not for an unlawful reason. 5. Plaintiffs have not suffered any legally cognizable damage. 6. Plaintiffs failed to state a claim for the recovery of punitive damages upon which relief may be granted. Further, their claims for punitive damages are unconstitutional. 7. To the extent that Plaintiffs were involved in any improper activities during their employment, or failed to properly notice and act upon any such activities, Plaintiffs are estopped from recovering for their claims. 8. Plaintiffs are estopped from claiming damages associated with the termination of their employment because both employees voluntarily resigned. 9. Any amount which Plaintiffs claim are due and owing to Plaintiffs for lost wages and other employment benefits must be mitigated and reduced by the amount of wages and bene?ts Plaintiffs earned (including unemployment compensation benefits), or through the exercise of reasonable diligence could have earned, during the period for which lost wages and benefits are sought by Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs further must mitigate all damages and to the extent Plaintiffs have failed to do so, Plaintiffs? damage claims must be reduced. 10. Defendant is entitled to recover its costs of court and attorneys? fees for the defense of Plaintiffs? action because portions of this action are frivolous and without foundation in law or in fact. Page 11 oflS 4839080v.l 4873722v.1 Wd 993170 ALOZ JeqwerN Aiunoo 18 pellzl 11. To the extent Defendant discovers during the course of this action that Plaintiffs engaged in any conduct which would warrant or would have warranted discharge under Foundation Care?s policy, Plaintiffs? right to recover damages beyond the date of such discovery will be cut off. See McKennon v. Nashville Banner Publishing Company, 513 US. 352, 115 S. Ct. 879 (1995). 12. Defendant?s conduct and actions were at all times undertaken in good faith, and without malice or ill-will toward the Plaintiffs. 13. Any and all actions taken by Defendant affecting Plaintiffs were taken for reasons other than Plaintiffs? sex, refusal to perform an illegal act, and/or reporting of an illegal act. 14. Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate severe and pervasive conduct altered the conditions of their employment. Further, although Defendant denies that Plaintiffs were exposed to a hostile work environment, Defendant asserts that reasonable care was exercised to prevent and correct any harassing behavior, and that Plaintiffs unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunity provided or to avoid harm otherwise. See Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 US. 742, 761-63 (1998); Faragher v. City ofBoca Raton, 524 US. 775, 790, 807 (1998). 15. To the extent Plaintiffs complained to Defendant about alleged unlawful treatment or conduct, immediate and adequate steps were taken to investigate Plaintiffs? complaints. 16. To the extent Plaintiff Jaksetic?s wages were less than those of Defendant?s employees of the opposite sex for equal work and functions, such reduced wage was the result of a seniority system, a merit system, a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production, hours worked, and/or a pay differential based on factors other than sex. Page 12 of 15 4839080v.1 4873722v.l Wd 993170 Munoz) Slno'l 13 Delhi 17. At all times relevant hereto, Foundation Care and Insperity had speci?c policies against unlawful discrimination and harassment in the work place and such polices were well- known to employees. 18. Plaintiffs consented (either expressly or implicitly) to any and all actions by Defendant, which are made the basis for Plaintiffs? lawsuit, if any such actions are found to have taken place. 19. Plaintiffs cannot maintain an action for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy where they are provided a statutory remedy for the specific wrong alleged. The MHRA is the exclusive remedy for all claims of unlawful employment practices. 20. To the extent Plaintiffs? MHRA claims exceed the amounts permissible under the MHRA, all such claims are subject to the limitations of applicable statutory caps existing at law. 21. Plaintiff? 5 claims are subject to all amendments to the MHRA that went into effect on August 28, 2017. 22. Because no discovery has yet occurred in this action, Defendant reserves the right to assert further defenses as appropriate. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully prays that the Court enter a judgment providing that: 1. Plaintiffs? claims in this action be dismissed in their entirety, with prejudice; 2. Defendant be awarded the costs incurred in the defense of Plaintiffs? claims, including its reasonable attorneys? fees; 3. Defendant be awarded such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. Respectfully submitted this 17th day of November, 2017. Page 13 oflS 4839080v.1 4873722v.1 992170 - 2102 '21 JeqweAON - Aiunoo sum 18 - Aneowonoela 4839080v.1 4873722v.1 CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH PROPHETE, LLP /sAS?11.san Bassford Wilson Susan Bassford Wilson, #60621 7733 Blvd., Suite 1325 St. Louis, MO 63105 T: (314) 338-3740 F: (314) 727-1978 swilson@constangy.com Attorneys for Defendants Page 14 of 15 Wd 992m - ALOZ ?u JaqweAON - Munoo sum 13 - pend Kneowomela CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certi?es that on this the 17th day of November, 2017, the foregoing was electronically filed with the Clerk of Court using the system, which will automatically send email notification of such ?ling to the following attorney of record: Jerome J. Dobson Nicole A. Matlock 5017 Washington Place, Third Floor St. Louis, MO 63108 (314) 621-8363 jdobson@dobsongoldberg.com nmatlock@dobsongoldberg.com Attorney for Plaintiff 1?57 Susan Wilson Attorney for Defendant Page 15 of15 4839080v.l 4873722v.l INcl 993170 ZLOZ ILL JaqulerN MUHOO Slim-l 18 Pellzl IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ST. LOUIS COUNTY STATE OF MISSOURI KATIE MOTHERSHED, AND GINA JAKSETIC, Plaintiffs, Cause No. 17SL-CC03242 VS. FOUNDATION CARE, LLC, MICHAEL SCHULTZ, DANIEL BLAKELEY, AND INSPERITY, Defendants. DEFENDANT ANSWER TO PETITION COMES NOW Defendant Daniel Blakeley (?Defendant?), by and through the undersigned counsel, Constangy, Brooks, Smith Prophete, LLP, and for his Answer to Plaintiffs? Petition states as follows: COUNT 1: Sexual Harassment and Hostile Work Environment in Violation of the Missouri Human Rights Act 1. Defendant admits that Mothershed is female and formerly worked for Foundation Care, LLC (?Foundation Care?). Upon information and belief, Defendant further admits Mothershed resides in Illinois. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 1 are denied. 2. Defendant admits that aksetic is female and formerly worked for Foundation Care. Upon information and belief, Defendant further admits that Jaksetic resides in Missouri. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 2 are denied. 3. Defendant admits that Foundation Care is a Missouri corporation doing business in St. Louis County, Missouri. Page 1 of 12 4844142v. [Nd 91731.0 MGZ '90 JeqweAON Alunoi') Sine"! lS Peilz? AEIEGFUOJDBE 4. Defendant lacks suf?cient information to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 4, and therefore denies the same. 5. Defendant admits Michael Schultz (?Schultz?) is a male citizen of the United States who resides in Missouri. Defendant further admits that Schultz was a partial owner of Foundation Care during Plaintiffs? employment with Foundation Care. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 5 are denied. 6. Defendant admits he is a male who resides in St. Louis County, Missouri. Defendant further admits that he was a partial owner of Foundation Care during Plaintiffs? employment with Foundation Care. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 6 are denied. 7. The allegations contained in Paragraph 7 constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required; but to the extent a response is required, Defendant denies the same. 8. Defendant admits that Foundation Care currently employs more than six individuals within the State of Missouri. The remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 8 constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required; but to the extent a response is required, Defendant denies the same. 9. Defendant lacks suf?cient information to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 9, and therefore denies the same. 10. The allegations contained in Paragraph 10 constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required; but to the extent a response is required, Defendant denies the same. 11. The allegations contained in Paragraph 11 constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required; but to the extent a response is required, Defendant denies the same. 12. Defendant admits that Foundation Care hired Mothershed in May 2012, and that Mothershed worked for Foundation Care until April 17, 2017. Defendant further admits that Page 2 of 12 4844142v.1 9173 L0 '90 MUHOO Slno'l IS PQIH during her employment, the positions Mothershed held included director of pharmacy and the senior director of pharmacy and clinical operations. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 12 are denied. 13. The allegations contained in Paragraph 13 constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required; but to the extent a response is required, Defendant denies the same. 14. Defendant admits that during her employment, Mothershed was supervised by Blakeley. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 14 are denied. 15. Defendant admits that Foundation Care hired Jaksetic in June 2004, and that Jaksetic worked for Foundation Care until April 17, 2017. Defendant further admits that during her employment, the positions Jaksetic held included senior director of healthcare client and consumer relations and the director of reimbursement. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 15 are denied. 16. The allegations contained in Paragraph 16 constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required; but to the extent a response is required, Defendant denies the same. 17. Defendant admits that during her employment, Jaksetic was supervised by Blakeley. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 17 are denied. 18. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 18. 19. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 19. 20. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 20. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 21. 22. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 22. 23. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 23. Page 3 of 12 4844142v.1 Wd 9173 L0 502 ?90 JeqweAON MUHOO 35001 IS Pel!:l AEIBOEUOJIOQIE 24. Except the deny that any hostile behavior occurred, Defendant lacks suf?cient information to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 24, and therefore denies the same. 25. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 25. 26. Defendant denies that he carried a ?rearm to work without authorization. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 26 are denied. 27. Upon information and belief, Defendant admits that Schultz, Blakeley, Jaksetic, and Mothershed met in aksetic?s of?ce on February 21, 2017. Defendant further admits that both Mothershed and Schultz spoke loudly during this meeting. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 27 are denied. 28. Except to admit the February 21, 2017 meeting concerned employee personnel files, Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 28. 29. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 29. 30. Except to admit that Mothershed was upset during this meeting, Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 30. 31. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 31. 32. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 32. 33. Except to admit that Mothershed was upset during this meeting, Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 33. 34. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 34. 35. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 35. 36. Except to admit that Defendant spoke to Mothershed following the February 21, 2017 meeting, Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 36. Page 4 of 12 4844142v.1 INcl 91730 ALOZ ?90 JeqwerN MUHOO S?n0? 18 PSIH 37. Defendant admits that both Plaintiffs worked on February 22 and 23, 2017. Defendant further admits that both Plaintiffs were granted leave until April 17, 2017. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 37 are denied. 38. Defendant admits that Plaintiffs? counsel notified Foundation Care that Plaintiffs alleged they had been constructively discharged in April 2017. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 38 are denied. 39. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 39. 40. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 40. 41. Upon information and belief, Defendant admits that on June 2, 2017, Mothershed ?led a Charge of Discrimination with the Missouri Commission on Human Rights that alleged sex discrimination. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 41 are denied. 42. Defendant admits that the attached document speaks for itself. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 42 are denied. 43. Upon information and belief, Defendant admits that on June 2, 2017, aksetic ?led a Charge of Discrimination with the MCHR that alleged sex discrimination. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 43 are denied. 44. Defendant admits that the attached document speaks for itself. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 44 are denied. 45. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 45. 46. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 46. 47. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 47. 48. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 48, including the prayer for relief. Page 5 of 12 4844142v.l wa svzto - ALOZ '90 Jeqwenow - Munoo sane-i 13 - pelts Knemuonoeia COUNT II: Wrongful Discharge in Violation of Public Policy 49. 88. Count II (Paragraphs 49 88) is not directed to Defendant Blakeley, and therefore no response is required; but to the extent a response is required, Defendant denies the same, including the prayer for relief. COUNT False Imprisonment 89. Defendant incorporates his responses and denials to Paragraphs fully restated herein. 90. The allegations contained in Paragraph 90 constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required; but to the extent a response is required, Defendant denies the same. 91. Except to admit that Schultz, Blakeley, Jaksetic, and Mothershed met in aksetic?s of?ce on February 21, 2017, Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 91. 92. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 92. 93. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 93. 94. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 94. 95. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 95. 96. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 96. 97. Except to admit that February 21, 2017, and the date when this action was ?led are less than two years apart, Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 97. 98. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 98. 99. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 99. 100. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 100, including the prayer for relief. COUNT IV: Assault Page 6 of 12 4844142v.1 sero - ALOZ '90 JeqwerN - Aiunoo 3mm 13 - pens Anestuomeia 101. 1 10. Count IV (Paragraphs 100 1 10) is not directed to Defendant Blakeley, and therefore no response is required; but to the extent a response is required, Defendant denies the same, including the prayer for relief. COUNT V: Sex Discrimination in Violation of the Missouri Human Rights Act 11 1. Defendant incorporates his responses and denials to Paragraphs 1 40 as if fully restated herein. 112. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 112. 113. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 113. 1 14. Defendant lacks suf?cient information to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 1 14, and therefore denies the same. 1 15. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 115. 116. Upon information and belief, Defendant admits that on June 2, 2017, Jaksetic ?led a Charge of Discrimination with the MCHR that alleged sex discrimination. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 116 are denied. 1 17. Defendant admits that the attached document speaks for itself. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 117 are denied. 118. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 118. 119. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 119. 120. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 120. 121. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 121, including the prayer for relief. Page 7 of 12 4844142v.1 9171M) - .3021 ?90 JeqweAON - Aiunoo sum 18 - pens Anemuomela Defendant denies each and every allegation of fact, conclusion of law, or other matter contained in the Petition that has not been expressly admitted herein, including the prayers for relief. DEFENSES 1. Some or all of Plaintiff?s Petition fails to state a claim against Defendant upon which relief can be granted by this Court. 2. All events which occurred more than 180 days prior to the filing of Plaintiffs? charges of employment discrimination with the MCHR are untimely and not properly assertable in this action; nor are the Plaintiffs entitled to relief in this action for any events which occurred more than 180 days prior to the filing of their respective charges of discrimination. 3. As explained in Defendants? Partial Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiffs? claims under the MHRA are barred as Plaintiffs have failed to exhaust their administrative remedies and have not received a Notice of Right to Sue. Accordingly, Plaintiffs? claims are barred to the extent that this Court lacks subject matter and/or other jurisdiction over all or portions of Plaintiffs? Petition. 4. Defendant asserts that Plaintiff was an at-will employee and, therefore, Plaintiff was subject to discharge at any time, with or without cause, so long as said discharge was not for an unlawful reason. 5. Plaintiffs have not suffered any legally cognizable damage. 6. Plaintiffs failed to state a claim for the recovery of punitive damages upon which relief may be granted. Further, their claims for punitive damages are unconstitutional. Page 8 of 12 4844142v.l QVILO ?90 5111900 SWOT 18 Pelld 7. To the extent that Plaintiffs were involved in any improper activities during their employment, or failed to properly notice and act upon any such activities, Plaintiffs are estopped from recovering for their claims. 8. Plaintiffs are estopped from claiming damages associated with the termination of their employment because both employees voluntarily resigned. 9. Any amount which Plaintiffs claim are due and owing to Plaintiffs for lost wages and other employment bene?ts must be mitigated and reduced by the amount of wages and bene?ts Plaintiffs earned (including unemployment compensation bene?ts), or through the exercise of reasonable diligence could have earned, during the period for which lost wages and bene?ts are sought by Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs further must mitigate all damages and to the extent Plaintiffs have failed to do so, Plaintiffs? damage claims must be reduced. 10. Defendant is entitled to recover its costs of court and attorneys? fees for the defense of Plaintiffs? action because portions of this action are frivolous and without foundation in law or in fact. 11. To the extent Defendant discovers during the course of this action that Plaintiffs engaged in any conduct which would warrant or would have warranted discharge under Company policy, Plaintiffs? right to recover damages beyond the date of such discovery will be cut off. See McKennon v. Nashville Banner Publishing Company, 513 US. 352, 115 S. Ct. 879 (1995). 12. Defendant?s conduct and actions were at all times undertaken in good faith, and without malice or ill-will toward the Plaintiffs. 13. Any and all actions taken by Defendant affecting Plaintiffs were taken for reasons other than Plaintiffs? sex, refusal to perform an illegal act, or reporting of an illegal act. Page 9 of 12 4844142v.1 Wd 9173 L0 ALOZ '90 sgn01 18 pelld AHBOguonoegg 14. Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate severe and pervasive conduct altered the conditions of their employment. Further, although Defendant denies that Plaintiffs were exposed to a hostile work environment, Defendant asserts that reasonable care was exercised to prevent and correct any harassing behavior, and that Plaintiffs unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunity provided or to avoid harm otherwise. See Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742, 761?63 (1998); Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 790, 807 (1998). 15. To the extent Plaintiffs complained to Defendant about alleged unlawful treatment, immediate and adequate steps were taken to investigate Plaintiffs? complaints. 16. To the extent Plaintiff Jaksetic?s wages were less than those of Defendant?s employees of the opposite sex for equal work and functions, such reduced wage was the result of a seniority system, a merit system, a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production, hours worked, and/or a pay differential based on factors other than sex. 17. At all times relevant hereto, Foundation Care and Insperity had speci?c policies against unlawful discrimination and harassment in the work place and such polices were well- known to employees. 18. Plaintiffs consented (either expressly or implicitly) to any and all actions by Defendant, which are made the basis for Plaintiffs? lawsuit, if any such actions are found to have taken place. 19. The MHRA is the exclusive remedy for all claims of unlawful employment practices. 20. To the extent Plaintiffs? MHRA claims exceed the amounts permissible under the MHRA, all such claims are subject to the limitations of applicable statutory caps existing at law. Page 10 of 12 4844142v.l Wd 91731.0 ALOZ ?90 JeqwerN 9En01 IS PQIH 21. Plaintiffs were not employees of Defendant under the MHRA as amended, and to the extent that any claim asserted by Plaintiffs is predicated upon the existence of an employer- employee relationship between Plaintiffs and Defendant, the same should be dismissed. 22. Plaintiff? 3 claims are subject to all amendments to the Missouri Human Rights Act that went into effect on August 28, 2017. 23. Because no discovery has yet occurred in this action, Defendant reserves the right to assert further defenses as appropriate. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully prays the Court enter a judgment providing that: 1. Plaintiffs? claims in this action be dismissed in their entirety, with prejudice; 2. Defendant be awarded the costs incurred in the defense of Plaintiffs? claims, including his reasonable attorneys? fees; 3. Defendant be awarded such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. Respectfully submitted this 6th day of November, 2017. CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH PROPHETE, LLP Bassford Wilson Susan Bassford Wilson, #60621 7733 Blvd., Suite 1325 St. Louis, MO 63105 T: (314) 338-3740 F: (314) 727-1978 swilsom??lconstanuvcom Robert Ortbals, #56540 7733 Blvd, Suite 1325 St. Louis, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 338-3740 Facsimile: (314) 727-1978 tottbals@constangv.com Attorneys for Defendants Page 11 of 12 4844142v.l wa 917: L0 - ALOZ ?90 JeqweAON - Munoz) Sin01 18 - pens Alleowomela CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certi?es that on November 6, 2017, the foregoing was electronically ?led with the Clerk of Court using the system, which will automatically send email noti?cation of such ?ling to the following attorney of record: 4844142v.l Jerome J. Dobson Nicole A. Matlock 5017 Washington Place, Third Floor St. Louis, MO 63108 (314) 621-8363 idobson?idobsongoldbergcom nmatlock@dobsongoldberg.com Attorney for Plaintiff Susan Bass?ird l-Vr'ison Attorney for Defendant Page 12 of 12 917:1,0 - LLOZ ?90 JeqweAON - Alunoo sum 18 - IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ST. LOUIS COUNTY STATE OF MISSOURI KATIE MOTHERSHED, AND GINA JAKSETIC, Plaintiffs, Cause No. 17SL-CC03242 VS. FOUNDATION CARE, LLC, MICHAEL SCHULTZ, DANIEL BLAKELEY, AND IN SPERITY, Defendants. DEFENDANT ANSWER TO PETITION COMES NOW Defendant Michael Schultz (?Defendant?), by and through the undersigned counsel, Constangy, Brooks, Smith Prophete, LLP, and for his Answer to Plaintiffs? Petition states as follows: COUNT 1: Sexual Harassment and Hostile Work Environment in Violation of the Missouri Human Rights Act 1. Defendant admits that Mothershed is female and formerly worked for Foundation Care, LLC (?Foundation Care?). Upon information and belief, Defendant further admits Mothershed resides in Illinois. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 1 are denied. 2. Defendant admits that Jaksetic is female and formerly worked for Foundation Care. Upon information and belief, Defendant further admits that Jaksetic resides in Missouri. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 2 are denied. 3. Defendant admits that Foundation Care is a Missouri corporation doing business in St. Louis County, Missouri. Page 1 of 12 4842774v.l 317330 LL02 '90 JeqwerN Munog S?n0' 18 Pellzi 4. Defendant lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 4, and therefore denies the same. 5. Defendant admits he is a male citizen of the United States who resides in Missouri. Defendant further admits that he was a partial owner of Foundation Care during Plaintiffs? employment with Foundation Care. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 5 are denied. 6. Defendant admits Daniel Blakeley (?Blakeley?) is male who resides in St. Louis County, Missouri. Defendant further admits that Blakeley was a partial owner of Foundation Care during Plaintiffs? employment with Foundation Care. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 6 are denied. 7. The allegations contained in Paragraph 7 constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required; but to the extent a response is required, Defendant denies the same. 8. Defendant admits that Foundation Care currently employs more than six individuals within the State of Missouri. The remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 8 constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required; but to the extent a response is required, Defendant denies the same. 9. Defendant lacks suf?cient information to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 9, and therefore denies the same. 10. The allegations contained in Paragraph 10 constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required; but to the extent a response is required, Defendant denies the same. 11. The allegations contained in Paragraph 11 constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required; but to the extent a response is required, Defendant denies the same. 12. Defendant admits that Foundation Care hired Mothershed in May 2012, and that Mothershed worked for Foundation Care until April 17, 2017. Defendant further admits that Page 2 of 12 4842774v.1 Wd 817320 LLOZ ?90 MUHOO $11101 18 1331!;1 during her employment, the positions Mothershed held included director of pharmacy and the senior director of pharmacy and clinical operations. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 12 are denied. 13. The allegations contained in Paragraph 13 constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required; but to the extent a response is required, Defendant denies the same. 14. Defendant admits that during her employment, Mothershed was supervised by Blakeley. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 14 are denied. 15. Defendant admits that Foundation Care hired Jaksetic in June 2004, and that Jaksetic worked for Foundation Care until April 17, 2017. Defendant further admits that during her employment, the positions Jaksetic held included senior director of healthcare client and consumer relations and the director of reimbursement. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 15 are denied. 16. The allegations contained in Paragraph 16 constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required; but to the extent a response is required, Defendant denies the same. 17. Defendant admits that during her employment, Jaksetic was supervised by Blakeley. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 17 are denied. 18. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 18. 19. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 19. 20. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 20. 21. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 21. 22. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 22. 23. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 23. Page 3 of 12 4842774v.l 217330 LLOZ ?90 Atunoo 18 Pelli AEIBOEUOJWQIE 24. Except the deny that any hostile behavior occurred, Defendant lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 24, and therefore denies the same. 25. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 25. 26. Defendant denies that he carried a firearm to work without authorization. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 26 are denied. 27. Upon information and belief, Defendant admits that Schultz, Blakeley, aksetic and Mothershed met in Jaksetic?s office on February 21, 2017. Defendant further admits that both Mothershed and Schultz spoke loudly during this meeting. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 27 are denied. 28. Except to admit the February 21, 2017, concerned employee personnel ?les, Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 28. 29. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 29. 30. Except to admit that Mothershed began crying during this meeting, Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 30. 31. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 31. 32. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 32. 33. Except to admit that Mothershed began crying during this meeting, Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 33. 34. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 34. 35. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 35. 36. Defendant lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 36, and therefore denies the same. Page 4 of 12 4842774v.1 Wd zvrzo - no: '90 JeqweAON - Munoo 8mm 18 - new Aileowomela 37. Defendant admits that both Plaintiffs worked on February 22 and 23, 2017. Defendant further admits that both Plaintiffs were granted leave until April 17, 2017. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 37 are denied. 38. Defendant admits that Plaintiffs? counsel notified Foundation Care that Plaintiffs alleged they had been constructively discharged in April 2017. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 38 are denied. 39. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 39. 40. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 40. 41. Upon information and belief, Defendant admits that on June 2, 2017, Mothershed filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Missouri Commission on Human Rights that alleged sex discrimination. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 41 are denied. 42. Defendant admits that the attached document speaks for itself. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 42 are denied. 43. Upon information and belief, Defendant admits that on June 2, 2017, Jaksetic ?led a Charge of Discrimination with the MCHR that alleged sex discrimination. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 43 are denied. 44. Defendant admits that the attached document speaks for itself. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 44 are denied. 45. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 45. 46. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 46. 47. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 47. 48. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 48, including the prayer for relief. Page 5 of 12 4842774v.1 lNci ALOZ ?90 JeqLuerN 41111103 300'] 18 p915 COUNT II: Wrongful Discharge in Violation of Public Policy 49. 88. Count II (Paragraphs 49 88) is not directed to Defendant Schultz, and therefore no response is required; but to the extent a response is required, Defendant denies the same, including the prayer for relief. COUNT False Imprisonment 89. 100. Count 111 (Paragraphs 89 100) is not directed to Defendant Schultz, and therefore no response is required; but to the extent a response is required, Defendant denies the same, including the prayer for relief. COUNT IV: Assault 101. Defendant incorporates his responses and denials to Paragraphs fully restated herein. 102. The allegations contained in Paragraph 102 constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required; but the extent a response is required, Defendant denies the same. 103. Except to admit that Schultz, Blakeley, Jaksetic, and Mothershed met in Jaksetic?s of?ce on February 21, 2017, Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 103. 104. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 104. 105. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 105. 106. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 106. 107. Except to admit that February 21, 2017, and the date when this action was ?led are less than two years apart, Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 107. 108. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 108. 109. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 109. Page 6 of 12 4842774v.1 Wd ZVZO AEOZ ?90 JeqweAON MUHOO sgn0? lS 99113 110. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 110, including the prayer for relief. COUNT V: Sex Discrimination in Violation of the Missouri Human Rights Act 111. Defendant incorporates his responses and denials to Paragraphs 1 40 as if fully restated herein. 112. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 112. 1 l3. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 113. 114. Upon information and belief, Defendant may have reassigned an employee. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 1 14 are denied. 1 15. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 115. 116. Upon information and belief, Defendant admits that on June 2, 2017, Jaksetic ?led a Charge of Discrimination with the MCHR that alleged sex discrimination. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 116 are denied. 1 17. Defendant admits that the attached document speaks for itself. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 117 are denied. 118. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 118. 119. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 119. 120. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 120. 121. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 121, including the prayer for relief. Defendant denies each and every allegation of fact, conclusion of law, or other matter contained in the Petition that has not been expressly admitted herein, including the prayers for relief. Page 7 of 12 4842774v.1 Wd 317120 - .LLOZ ?90 - Azunoo sum 18 - Dena Kneowoaoela DEFENSES 1. Some or all of Plaintiff?s Petition fails to state a claim against Defendant upon which relief can be granted by this Court. 2. All events which occurred more than 180 days prior to the ?ling of Plaintiffs? charges of employment discrimination with the MCHR are untimely and not properly assertable in this action; nor are the Plaintiffs entitled to relief in this action for any events which occurred more than 180 days prior to the ?ling of their respective charges of discrimination. 3. As explained in Defendants? Partial Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiffs? claims under the MHRA are barred as Plaintiffs have failed to exhaust their administrative remedies and have not received a Notice of Right to Sue. Further, Plaintiffs? claims are barred to the extent that this Court lacks subject matter and/or other jurisdiction over all or portions of Plaintiffs? Petition. 4. Defendant asserts that Plaintiff was an at-will employee and, therefore, Plaintiff was subject to discharge at any time, with or without cause, so long as said discharge was not for an unlawful reason. 5. Plaintiffs have not suffered any legally cognizable damage. 6. Plaintiffs failed to state a claim for the recovery of punitive damages upon which relief may be granted. Further, their claims for punitive damages are unconstitutional. 7. To the extent that Plaintiffs were involved in any improper activities during their employment, or failed to properly notice and act upon any such activities, Plaintiffs are estopped from recovering for their claims. 8. Plaintiffs are estopped from claiming damages associated with the termination of their employment because both employees voluntarily resigned. Page 8 of 12 4842774v.l wa zvrzo ALOZ '90 - ?iunoo sum 18 - pend Alleviuomela 9. Any amount which Plaintiffs claim are due and owing to Plaintiffs for lost wages and other employment bene?ts must be mitigated and reduced by the amount of wages and bene?ts Plaintiffs earned (including unemployment compensation bene?ts), or through the exercise of reasonable diligence could have earned, during the period for which lost wages and bene?ts are sought by Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs further must mitigate all damages and to the extent Plaintiffs have failed to do so, Plaintiffs? damage claims must be reduced. 10. Defendant is entitled to recover its costs of court and attorneys? fees for the defense of Plaintiffs? action because portions of this action are frivolous and without foundation in law or in fact. 11. To the extent Defendant discovers during the course of this action that Plaintiffs engaged in any conduct which would warrant or would have warranted discharge under Company policy, Plaintiffs? right to recover damages beyond the date of such discovery will be cutoff. See McKennon v. Nashville Banner Publishing Company, 513 U.S. 352 (1995). 12. Defendant?s conduct and actions were at all times undertaken in good faith, and without malice or ill-will toward the Plaintiffs. 13. Any and all actions taken by Defendant affecting Plaintiffs were taken for reasons other than Plaintiffs? sex, refusal to perform an illegal act, or reporting of an illegal act. 14. Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate severe and pervasive conduct altered the conditions of their employment. Further, although Defendant denies that Plaintiffs were exposed to a hostile work environment, Defendant asserts that reasonable care was exercised to prevent and correct any harassing behavior, and that Plaintiffs unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunity provided or to avoid harm otherwise. See Burlington Page 9 of 12 4842774v,1 217220 - ALOZ ?90 JeqweAON - Munoz) 3mm is - pens Aileowonoeia Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742, 761-63 (1998); aragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 790, 807 (1998). 15. To the extent Plaintiffs complained to Defendant about alleged unlawful treatment, immediate and adequate steps were taken to investigate Plaintiffs? complaints. 16. To the extent Plaintiff Jaksetic?s wages were less than those of Defendant?s employees of the opposite sex for equal work and functions, such reduced wage was the result of a seniority system, a merit system, a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production, and/or a pay differential based on factors other than sex. 17. At all times relevant hereto, Foundation Care and Insperity had speci?c policies against unlawful discrimination and harassment in the work place and such polices were well- known to employees. 18. Plaintiffs consented (either expressly or implicitly) to any and all actions by Defendant, which are made the basis for Plaintiffs? lawsuit, if any such actions are found to have taken place. 19. The MHRA is the exclusive remedy for all claims of unlawful employment practices. 20. To the extent Plaintiffs? MHRA claims exceed the amounts permissible under the MHRA, all such claims are subject to the limitations of applicable statutory caps existing at law. 21. Plaintiffs were not employees of Defendant under the MHRA as amended, and to the extent that any claim asserted by Plaintiffs is predicated upon the existence of an employer- employee relationship between Plaintiffs and Defendant, the same should be dismissed. 22. Plaintiff?s claims are subject to all amendments to the Missouri Human Rights Act that went into effect on August 28, 2017. Page 10 of 12 4842774v.1 we was - use '90 JeqweAON - Aiunoo sum 18 - pens Kileowonoeaa 23. Because no discovery has yet occurred in this action, Defendant reserves the right to assert further defenses as appropriate. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully prays that the Court enter a judgment providing that: 1. Plaintiffs? claims in this action be dismissed in their entirety, with prejudice; 2. Defendant be awarded the costs incurred in the defense of Plaintiffs? claims, including his reasonable attorneys? fees; 3. Defendant be awarded such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. Respectfully submitted this 6th day of November, 2017. CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH PROPHETE, LLP /s/Susan Bassford Wilson Susan Bassford Wilson, #60621 7733 Blvd., Suite 1325 St. Louis, MO 63105 T: (314) 338-3740 F: (314) 727?1978 swilsnn@constangv.com Robert Ortbals, #56540 7733 Blvd, Suite 1325 St. Louis, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 338-3740 Facsimile: (314) 727-1978 Attorneys for Defendants Page 11 of12 4842774v.1 [Nd 217320 ALOZ '90 JeqwerN ??000 SinO-l 18 Pellzl CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certi?es that on November 6, 2017, the foregoing was electronically ?led with the Clerk of Court using the system, which will automatically send email noti?cation of such ?ling to the following attorney of record: 4842774v.1 Jerome J. Dobson Nicole A. Matlock 5017 Washington Place, Third Floor St. Louis, MO 63108 (314) 621-8363 idohson@dobsonuoldbergcom nmat]ock?ldohsongoldbergcom Attorney for Plaintiff ls! Susan Bussfm?d Wilson Attorney for Defendant Page 12 of 12 zvtzo - LLOZ ?90 JeqweAON - Munoz) IS - PBIH Aneowonoela IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ST. LOUIS COUNTY STATE OF MISSOURI KATIE MOTHERSHED, AND GINA JAKSETIC, Plaintiffs, Cause No. 17SL-CC03242 VS. FOUNDATION CARE, LLC, MICHAEL SCHULTZ, DANIEL BLAKELEY, AND INSPERITY, Defendants. DEFENDANT FOUNDATION ANSWER TO PETITION COMES NOW Defendant Foundation Care (?Defendant?), by and through the undersigned counsel, Constangy, Brooks, Smith Prophete, LLP, and for its Answer to Plaintiffs? Petition states as follows: COUNT I: Sexual Harassment and Hostile Work Environment in Violation of the Missouri Human Rights Act 1 . Defendant admits that Mothershed is female. Defendant further admits Mothershed formerly worked for Foundation Care and, upon information and belief, resides in Illinois. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 1 are denied. 2. Defendant admits that Jaksetic is female. Defendant further admits Jaksetic formerly worked for Foundation Care and, upon information and belief, resides in Missouri. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 2 are denied. 3. Defendant admits that Foundation Care is a Missouri corporation doing business in St. Louis County, Missouri. 4844]46v.l wen - are: '90 Jeqwencw - ?iunoo sane-I as - pens ?nemuonsea 4. Upon information and belief, Foundation Care admits that Insperity was Plaintiffs? co?employer for a portion of Plaintiffs? employment with Foundation Care. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 4 are denied. 5. Defendant admits Michael Schultz (?Schultz?) is a male citizen of the United States who resides in Missouri. Defendant further admits that Schultz was a partial owner of Foundation Care during Plaintiffs? employment with Foundation Care. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 5 are denied. 6. Defendant admits Daniel Blakeley (?Blakeley?) is a male citizen of the United States who resides in St. Louis County, Missouri. Defendant further admits that Blakeley was a partial owner of Foundation Care during Plaintiffs? employment with Foundation Care. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 6 are denied. 7. The allegations contained in Paragraph 7 constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required; but to the extent a response is required, Defendant denies the same. 8. Defendant admits that Foundation Care currently employs more than six individuals within the State of Missouri. The remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 8 constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required; but to the extent a response is required, Defendant denies the same. 9. Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 9, and therefore denies the same. 10. The allegations contained in Paragraph 10 constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required; but to the extent a response is required, Defendant denies the same. 11. The allegations contained in Paragraph 11 constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required; but to the extent a response is required, Defendant denies the same. 4844146v.l E2380 ALOZ '90 MUHOO Sino'l 18 AEIBOWOJJOGIEI 12. Defendant admits that Foundation Care hired Mothershed in May 2012, and that Mothershed worked for Foundation Care until April 17, 2017. Defendant further admits that during her employment, the positions Mothershed held included director of pharmacy and the senior director of pharmacy and clinical operations. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 12 are denied. 13. The allegations contained in Paragraph 13 constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required; but to the extent a response is required, Defendant denies the same. 14. Defendant admits that during her employment, Mothershed was supervised by Blakeley. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 14 are denied. 15. Defendant admits that Foundation Care hired Jaksetic in June 2004, and that Jaksetic worked for Foundation Care until April 17, 2017. Defendant further admits that during her employment, the positions Jaksetic held included senior director of healthcare client and consumer relations and the director of reimbursement. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 15 are denied. 16. The allegations contained in Paragraph 16 constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required; but to the extent a response is required, Defendant denies the same. 17. Defendant admits that during her employment, Jaksetic was supervised by Blakeley. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 17 are denied. 18. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 18. 19. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 19. 20. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 20. 21. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 21. 22. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 22. 4844146v.1 Wd 1.21380 ALOZ ?90 JeqwerN KWHOO Slno'l 18 9915i AEIBOEUOJDQIE 23. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 23. 24. Except the deny that any hostile behavior occurred, Defendant lacks suf?cient information to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 24, and therefore denies the same. 25. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 25. 26. Defendant denies that Schultz or Blakeley carried a ?rearm to work without authorization. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 26 are denied. 27. Defendant admits that Schultz, Blakeley, Jaksetic, and Mothershed met in Jaksetic?s of?ce on February 21, 2017. Defendant further admits that both Mothershed and Schultz spoke loudly during this meeting. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 27 are denied. 28. Except to admit the February 21, 2017 meeting concerned employee personnel files, Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 28. 29. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 29. 30. Except to admit that Mothershed began crying during this meeting, Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 30. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 31. 32. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 32. 33. Except to admit that Mothershed began crying during this meeting, Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 33. 34. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 34. 35. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 35. 4844146v.l Wd Lzreo - ALOZ ?90 JeqweAON - Aiunoo sum 18 - PGIH Aneowoaoela 36. Except to admit that Blakeley spoke to Mothershed following the February 21, 2017 meeting, Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 36. 37. Defendant admits that both Plaintiffs worked on February 22 and 23, 2017. Defendant further admits that both Plaintiffs were granted leave until April 17, 2017. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 37 are denied. 38. Defendant admits that Plaintiffs? counsel noti?ed Foundation Care that Plaintiffs alleged they had been constructively discharged in April 2017. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 38 are denied. 39. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 39. 40. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 40. 41. Upon information and belief, Defendant admits that on June 2, 2017, Mothershed ?led a Charge of Discrimination with the Missouri Commission on Human Rights that alleged sex discrimination. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 41 are denied. 42. Defendant admits that the attached document speaks for itself. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 42 are denied. 43. Upon information and belief, Defendant admits that on June 2, 2017, Jaksetic ?led a Charge of Discrimination with the MCHR that alleged sex discrimination. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 43 are denied. 44. Defendant admits that the attached document speaks for itself. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 44 are denied. 45. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 45. 46. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 46. 47. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 47. 4844146v.l Wd ?102 ?90 4111500 Sino'l lS Pelt! 48. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 48, including the prayer for relief. COUNT II: Wrongful Discharge in Violation of Public Policy 49. Defendant incorporates its responses and denials to Paragraphs fully restated herein. 50. The allegations contained in Paragraph 50 constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required; but to the extent a response is required, Defendant denies the same. 51. Except to admit that Foundation Care is a licensed pharmacy in Missouri, the allegations contained in Paragraph 51 constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required; but to the extent a response is required, Defendant denies the same. 52. Except to admit that Schultz is a licensed pharmacist, the allegations contained in Paragraph 52 constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required; but to the extent a response is required, Defendant denies the same. 53. Except to admit that Blakeley is a licensed pharmacist and was the pharmacist-in- charge for Foundation Care during Plaintiffs? employment, the allegations contained in Paragraph 53 constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required; but to the extent a response is required, Defendant denies the same. 54. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 54. 55. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 55. 56. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 56. 57. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 57. 58. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 58. 59. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 59. 4844146v.l Lzrso - n02 ?90 JeqweAON - Munoz) sum 18 - pens 60. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 60. 61. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 61. 62. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 62. 63. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 63. 64. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 64. 65. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 65. 66. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 66. 67. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 67. 68. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 68. 69. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 69. 70. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 70. 71. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 71. 72. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 72. 73. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 73. 74. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 74. 75. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 75. 76. Except to admit that Defendant did not notify other states of an agreement reached with the State of Kansas, Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 76. 77. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 77. 78. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 78. 79. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 79. 80. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 80. 81. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 81. 4844146v.l Wd ?2380 - 1:02 ?90 JeqweAON - Riunoo 3810118 - pens 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. for relief. 89. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 82. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 83. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 84. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 85. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 86. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 87. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 88, including the prayer COUNT False Imprisonment Defendant incorporates its responses and denials to Paragraphs fully restated herein. 90. The allegations contained in Paragraph 90 constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required; but to the extent a response is required, Defendant denies the same. 91. Except to admit that Schultz, Blakeley, aksetic, and Mothershed met in aksetic?s of?ce on February 21, 2017, Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 92. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 93. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 94. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 95. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 96. Except to admit that February 21, 2017, and the date when this action was ?led are less than two years apart, Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 97. 98. 4844146v.l Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 98. wa wee - ztoz '90 JeqwemN - Mums Sinm 18 - peas Aneowmwela 99. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 99. 100. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 100, including the prayer for relief. COUNT IV: Assault 10]. Defendant incorporates its responses and denials to Paragraphs fully restated herein. 102. The allegations contained in Paragraph 102 constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required; but to the extent a response is required, Defendant denies the same. 103. Except to admit that Schultz, Blakeley, Jaksetic, and Mothershed met in Jaksetic?s office on February 21, 2017, Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 103. 104. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 104. 105. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 105. 106. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 106. 107. Except to admit that February 21, 2017, and the date when this action was ?led are less than two years apart, Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 107. 108. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 108. 109. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 109. 110. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 110, including the prayer for relief. 4844146v.l wa 52:20 - ALOZ '90 JeqweAON - munoo 3500118 - pens A?leowomela COUNT V: Sex Discrimination in Violation of the Missouri Human Rights Act 111. Defendant incorporates its responses and denials to Paragraphs 1 40 as if fully restated herein. 112. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 112. 113. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 113. 1 14. Upon information and belief, Schultz may have reassigned an employee. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 114 are denied. 1 15. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 115. 116. Upon information and belief, Defendant admits that on June 2, 2017, Jaksetic ?led a Charge of Discrimination with the MCHR that alleged sex discrimination. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 1 16 are denied. 1 17. Defendant admits that the attached document speaks for itself. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 1 17 are denied. 1 18. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 118. 1 19. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 119. 120. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 120. 121. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 121, including the prayer for relief. Defendant denies each and every allegation of fact, conclusion of law, or other matter contained in the Petition that has not been expressly admitted herein, including the prayers for relief. 4844146v.1 tareo - 1:02 ?90 JeqweAON - Aiunoo 3mm 18 - pend ?lleowonoela DEFENSES 1. Some or all of Plaintiff?s Petition fails to state a claim against Defendant upon which relief can be granted by this Court. 2. All events which occurred more than 180 days prior to the ?ling of Plaintiffs? charges of employment discrimination with the MCHR are untimely and not properly assertable in this action; nor are the Plaintiffs entitled to relief in this action for any events which occurred more than 180 days prior to the ?ling of their respective charges of discrimination. 3. As explained in Defendants? Partial Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiffs? claims under the MHRA are barred as Plaintiffs have failed to exhaust their administrative remedies and have not received a Notice of Right to Sue. Accordingly, Plaintiffs? claims are barred to the extent that this Court lacks subject matter and/or other jurisdiction over all or portions of Plaintiffs? Petition. 4. Defendant asserts that Plaintiff was an at-will employee of Foundation Care and, therefore, Plaintiff was subject to discharge at any time, with or without cause, so long as said discharge was not for an unlawful reason. 5. Plaintiffs have not suffered any legally cognizable damage. 6. Plaintiffs failed to state a claim for the recovery of punitive damages upon which relief may be granted. Further, their claims for punitive damages are unconstitutional. 7. To the extent that Plaintiffs were involved in any improper activities during their employment, or failed to properly notice and act upon any such activities, Plaintiffs are estopped from recovering for their claims. 8. Plaintiffs are estopped from claiming damages associated with the termination of their employment because both employees voluntarily resigned. 4844146v.l Wd L390 U023 ?90 MUHOO 33101 18 pelH AEIBQWOHGSEI 9. Any amount which Plaintiffs claim are due and owing to Plaintiffs for lost wages and other employment benefits must be mitigated and reduced by the amount of wages and bene?ts Plaintiffs earned (including unemployment compensation bene?ts), or through the exercise of reasonable diligence could have earned, during the period for which lost wages and bene?ts are sought by Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs further must mitigate all damages and to the extent Plaintiffs have failed to do so, Plaintiffs? damage claims must be reduced. 10. Defendant is entitled to recover its costs of court and attorneys? fees for the defense of Plaintiffs? action because portions of this action are frivolous and without foundation in law or in fact. 11. To the extent Defendant discovers during the course of this action that Plaintiffs engaged in any conduct which would warrant or would have warranted discharge under Company policy, Plaintiffs? right to recover damages beyond the date of such discovery will be cutoff. See McKennon v. Nashville Banner Publishing Company, 513 U.S. 352, 115 S. Ct. 879 (1995). 12. Defendant?s conduct and actions were at all times undertaken in good faith, and without malice or ill-will toward the Plaintiffs. 13. Any and all actions taken by Defendant affecting Plaintiffs were taken for reasons other than Plaintiffs? sex, refusal to perform an illegal act, or reporting of an illegal act. 14. Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate severe and pervasive conduct altered the conditions of their employment. Further, although Defendant denies that Plaintiffs were exposed to a hostile work environment, Defendant asserts that reasonable care was exercised to prevent and correct any harassing behavior, and that Plaintiffs unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunity provided or to avoid harm otherwise. See Burlington 4844146v.l Wd ?3350 ALOZ ?90 Slnc'l IS Delhi Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 US. 742, 761?63 (1998); aragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 US. 775, 790, 807 (1998). 15. To the extent Plaintiffs complained to Defendant about alleged unlawful treatment or conduct, immediate and adequate steps were taken to investigate Plaintiffs? complaints. 16. To the extent Plaintiff Jaksetic?s wages were less than those of Defendant?s employees of the opposite sex for equal work and functions, such reduced wage was the result of a seniority system, a merit system, a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production, hours worked, and/or a pay differential based on factors other than sex. 17. At all times relevant hereto, Foundation Care and Insperity had speci?c policies against unlawful discrimination and harassment in the work place and such polices were well? known to employees. 18. Plaintiffs consented (either expressly or implicitly) to any and all actions by Defendant, which are made the basis for Plaintiffs? lawsuit, if any such actions are found to have taken place. 19. Plaintiffs cannot maintain an action for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy where they are provided a statutory remedy for the speci?c wrong alleged. The MHRA is the exclusive remedy for all claims of unlawful employment practices. 20. To the extent Plaintiffs? MHRA claims exceed the amounts permissible under the MHRA, all such claims are subject to the limitations of applicable statutory caps existing at law. 21. Plaintiffs were not employees of Defendant under the MHRA as amended, and to the extent that any claim asserted by Plaintiffs is predicated upon the existence of an employer- employee relationship between Plaintiffs and Defendant, the same should be dismissed. 4844146v.l Wd ?2190 ALOZ '90 JeqweAGN Munoz) Sino'l 18 pellzi 22. Plaintiff?s claims are subject to all amendments to the Missouri Human Rights Act that went into effect on August 28, 2017. 23. Because no discovery has yet occurred in this action, Defendant reserves the right to assert further defenses as appropriate. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully prays that the Court enter a judgment providing that: l. Plaintiffs? claims in this action be dismissed in their entirety, with prejudice; 2. Defendant be awarded the costs incurred in the defense of Plaintiffs? claims, including his reasonable attorneys? fees; 3. Defendant be awarded such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. Respectfully submitted this 6th day of November, 2017. CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH PROPHETE, LLP ?v?gmmr Bassford Wilson Susan Bassford Wilson, #60621 7733 Blvd., Suite 1325 St. Louis, MO 63105 T: (314) 338-3740 F: (314) 727-1978 Robert Ortbals, #56540 7733 Blvd, Suite 1325 St. Louis, MO 63105 T: (314) 338?3740 F: (314) 727-1978 Attorneys for Defendants 4844146v.1 Wd ?3290 - 2:02 ?90 JeqweAON - Munoz) 9mm 18 - Delhi CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certi?es that on November 6, 2017, the foregoing was electronically ?led with the Clerk of Court using the system, which will automatically send email noti?cation of such ?ling to the following attorney of record: 4844146v.l Jerome J. Dobson Nicole A. Matlock 5017 Washington Place, Third Floor St. Louis, MO 63108 (314) 621-8363 nmat ock?ltlobsongoldbergcom Attorney for Plaintiff is! Susan Bussfw'd Wilson Attorney for Defendant Wd LZISO ALOZ '90 MUHOO IS Pelizl 0119311011398