MARIANNE MOORE
v.
WILLIAM HUNT, JAMES W. RILEY, and CITY OF BLOOMINGTON


ANSWER OF THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON

Defendant City of Bloomington responds to the allegations of Plaintiff as follows:
1. Deny the allegations of paragraph 1.
2. Admit the allegations of jurisdiction in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4, but deny all substantive allegations in those paragraphs.
3. Admit the allegations contained in paragraphs 5-10 with respect to the identity of the parties.
4. Are without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in paragraphs 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19, and therefore deny them.
5. Deny the allegations of paragraph 20.
6. Deny the allegations of paragraph 21.
7. As to paragraph 22 of the complaint, see paragraphs 1-6 of this answer.
8. Are without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in paragraphs 23, 24, and 25, and therefore deny them.
9. Deny the allegations of paragraph 26.
10. Deny the allegations of paragraph 27.
11. Deny the allegations of paragraph 28.
12. Deny the allegations of paragraph 29.
13. As to paragraph 30 of the complaint, see paragraphs 1-6 and 8-12 of this answer.
14. Are without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in paragraph 31, and therefore deny them.
15. Deny the allegations of paragraph 32.
16. Are without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in paragraphs 33 and 34, and therefore deny them.
17. Deny the allegations of paragraph 35.
18. Deny the allegations of paragraph 36.
19. Deny the allegations contained in paragraph 37.
20. Deny the allegations of paragraph 38.
21. As to paragraph 39 of the complaint, see paragraphs 1-12, and 10-20 of this answer.
22. Are without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in paragraphs 40 and 41, and therefore deny them.
23. Deny the allegations of paragraphs 42-45.

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE -- FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED

24. With respect to plaintiff's allegation that defendants failed to properly train William Hunt contained in paragraph 21, defendants assert that they are under no legal duty to train employees on sexual harassment issues, and that the allegation therefore fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE -- QUALIFIED IMMUNITY

25. With respect to the allegations that the defendants delayed action on Plaintiff's complaint against William Hunt, the defendants could not reasonably have known that a delay of a few weeks clearly violated an established constitutional right.
26. With respect to the allegations that the defendants fired Plaintiff in whole or part because she spoke to a news reporter, the defendants could not reasonably have known that their conduct clearly violated an established constitutional right.

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE -- FAILURE TO MITIGATE DAMAGES

27. With respect to Plaintiff's claim for damages for front pay based on her allegations that she has no job, Plaintiff has failed to mitigate her damages because she has not exercised reasonable diligence in looking for a new job.

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE -- IMMUNITY

28. With respect to Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages, the City of Bloomington is a governmental body of the State and is therefore immune from punitive damages.

WHEREFORE, Defendants demand judgment as follows:
1. That paragraph 21 of the complaint be stricken and the allegation dismissed.
2. Against Plaintiff on all counts remaining in the complaint.