HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016CV00966 - ARAUJO & GONZALES V. CITY OF FORT COLLINS, ET AL - 031 - CITY OF FORT COLLINS' ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINTIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 1:16-cv-00966-RBJ
KENNYBERG ARAUJO, and
FRANCIS GONZLES,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, Colorado, a home rule municipality;
DONALD VAGGE, former Deputy Chief of Police, in his individual and official capacities, and
GARY SHAKLEE, Police Sergeant, in his individual and official capacities;
Defendants.
DEFENDANT THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS’ ANSWER AND JURY DEMAND TO
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Defendant, The City of Fort Collins (“Fort Collins”) by and through its attorney, Cathy
Havener Greer and Brendan L. Loy, of the law firm of Wells, Anderson & Race, LLC, for its
Answer and Jury Demand to Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial
(“First Amended Complaint”) states as follows:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. Defendant Fort Collins admits that Plaintiffs are bringing an action pursuant to Title VII
and Section 1981 as alleged in Paragraph 1 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint, but
denies that the City has discriminated against either Plaintiff and denies that the City has
retaliated against either Plaintiff and therefore denies the allegations of Paragraph 1.
Case 1:16-cv-00966-RBJ Document 31 Filed 09/26/16 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 42
2
2. Defendant Fort Collins denies the allegations of Paragraph 2 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended
Complaint except to admit that Plaintiffs are Latino/Hispanic.
3. Defendant Fort Collins denies the allegations of Paragraph 3 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended
Complaint.
4. Defendant Fort Collins denies the allegations of Paragraph 4 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended
Complaint.
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
5. Defendant Fort Collins admits that this Court has jurisdiction as alleged in Paragraph 5
of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
6. Defendant Fort Collins admits that venue is proper but denies the remaining allegations
of Paragraph 6 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint and specifically denies that it
committed unlawful employment practices.
7. Defendant Fort Collins admits that Plaintiff Araujo filed a Charge of Discrimination as
alleged in Paragraph 7 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint, but is without knowledge
as to whether all jurisdictional prerequisites were met and therefore denies the allegations
of Paragraph 7.
8. Defendant Fort Collins admits that a right to sue letter was issued to Detective Araujo on
February 2, 2016. With regard to the remainder of the allegations, Defendant Fort
Collins is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
the allegations of Paragraph 8 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint, and therefore
denies the same.
Case 1:16-cv-00966-RBJ Document 31 Filed 09/26/16 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 42
3
9. Defendant Fort Collins states that Paragraph 9 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint
states a legal conclusion rather than a short and plain statement of Plaintiffs’ claim and
therefore no response is required of this Defendant.
III. PARTIES
10. Defendant Fort Collins admits the allegations of Paragraph 10 of Plaintiffs’ First
Amended Complaint.
11. Defendant Fort Collins admits the allegations of Paragraph 11 of Plaintiffs’ First
Amended Complaint.
12. Defendant Fort Collins admits that it is a home rule city and that it is the employer of
Plaintiff Gonzales and that Plaintiff Araujo is a former employee of the City, admits that
it is an “employer” within the meaning of Title VII and an entity that can be sued
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1981 as alleged in Paragraph 12 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended
Complaint, and denies all other allegations not specifically admitted.
13. Defendant Fort Collins admits that Defendant Vagge is a former Deputy Chief of the
FCPD and is being sued in his individual capacity as alleged in Paragraph 13 of
Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint, but denies that Defendant Vagge was a final
policymaker for Fort Collins.
14. Defendant Fort Collins denies the allegations of Paragraph 14 of Plaintiffs’ First
Amended Complaint.
15. Defendant Fort Collins admits the allegations of Paragraph 15 of Plaintiffs’ First
Amended Complaint.
Case 1:16-cv-00966-RBJ Document 31 Filed 09/26/16 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 42
4
16. Defendant Fort Collins denies the allegations of Paragraph 16 of Plaintiffs’ First
Amended Complaint.
IV. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
Defendant Fort Collins denies the allegations contained in all headings in this
First Amended Complaint, whether captioned in Roman numerals,
alphabetically or with italics.
17. Defendant Fort Collins denies the allegations of Paragraph 17 of Plaintiffs’ First
Amended Complaint.
18. Defendant Fort Collins denies the allegations of Paragraph 18 of Plaintiffs’ First
Amended Complaint.
19. Defendant Fort Collins denies the allegations of Paragraph 19 of Plaintiffs’ First
Amended Complaint.
20. Defendant Fort Collins denies the allegations of Paragraph 20 of Plaintiffs’ First
Amended Complaint.
21. Defendant Fort Collins denies the allegations of Paragraph 21 of Plaintiffs’ First
Amended Complaint.
22. Defendant Fort Collins denies the allegations of Paragraph 22 of Plaintiffs’ First
Amended Complaint.
23. Defendant Fort Collins is without knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief
as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 23 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint
and therefore denies them.
24. In response to Paragraph 24 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint, Defendant Fort
Collins is without knowledge and information sufficient to form a certain belief as to
Case 1:16-cv-00966-RBJ Document 31 Filed 09/26/16 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 42
5
whether the purported statement was made by unspecified third parties, but denies that it
was the policy of Fort Collins at the time not to promote Latino/Hispanic officers. Any
other factual allegations in Paragraph 24 are denied.
25. Defendant Fort Collins admits that Officer John Martinez separated from employment
with Defendant Fort Collins on June 1, 1979 due to a change in career. Defendant Fort
Collins is without knowledge and information sufficient as to the remainder of the
allegations of Paragraph 25 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
26. In response to Paragraph 26 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint, Defendant Fort
Collins states that it believes that no other Latino/Hispanic officer has been promoted to
lieutenant since Lt. Pino’s promotion in 1999, but is without knowledge and information
sufficient to form a certain belief as to whether Lt. Pino is definitely the only such officer
in the FCPD’s history, including in the years before 1999, and therefore denies the same.
Defendant Fort Collins denies that its promotion decisions reflect any form of racial
discrimination or animus whatsoever, and also notes that a Hispanic female was
promoted in 2015 to the equivalent of lieutenant in the civilian ranks of Fort Collins
Police Services.
27. In response to Paragraph 27 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint, Defendant Fort
Collins is without knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to whether Lt.
Pino “tested out as the number one candidate” in 1999. Any other factual allegations in
the paragraph, including the phrase “came only after,” as well as any suggestion or
implication of discrimination, are denied.
Case 1:16-cv-00966-RBJ Document 31 Filed 09/26/16 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 42
6
28. Defendant Fort Collins denies the allegations of Paragraph 28 of Plaintiffs’ First
Amended Complaint.
29. Defendant Fort Collins denies the characterization of the allegations of Paragraph 29 of
Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint and states that a newspaper article is hearsay and
not a short and plain statement of a claim.
30. Defendant Fort Collins denies the allegations of Paragraph 30 of Plaintiffs’ First
Amended Complaint.
31. Defendant Fort Collins denies the allegations of Paragraph 31 of Plaintiffs’ First
Amended Complaint.
32. Defendant Fort Collins denies the allegations of Paragraph 32 of Plaintiffs’ First
Amended Complaint.
33. Defendant Fort Collins denies the allegations of Paragraph 33 of Plaintiffs’ First
Amended Complaint.
34. Defendant Fort Collins admits Paragraph 34 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
35. In response to Paragraph 35 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint, Defendant Fort
Collins is without knowledge and information as to the outdoor temperature at the time
Officer Atencio might have been assigned to attend a City Council meeting. Defendant
Fort Collins admits that Officer Atencio was assigned to this responsibility on occasion,
as were other patrol officers.
36. Defendant Fort Collins is without knowledge and information as to the weather
conditions, denies that patrol officers on this assignment have been called to an
Case 1:16-cv-00966-RBJ Document 31 Filed 09/26/16 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 42
7
emergency response, and admits to the remainder of the allegations of Paragraph 36 of
Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
37. Defendant Fort Collins denies that Officer Atencio received a letter of reprimand as
alleged in Paragraph 37 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint. With respect to the
allegation regarding FCPD policy on leaving a patrol car running, Defendant Fort Collins
avers that the policy in question is as stated in Policy 706 of the Fort Collins Police
Services Policy Manual, which is a document that speaks for itself; as such, no response
is required to any characterization of that policy. Any additional allegations in the
paragraph are denied.
38. Defendant Fort Collins denies the allegations of Paragraph 38 of Plaintiffs’ First
Amended Complaint.
39. Defendant Fort Collins admits Lieutenant Reed left his City vehicle running at the Fort
Collins Police Services building and is without sufficient knowledge and information as
to the remainder of the allegations in Paragraph 39 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended
Complaint and therefore denies them.
40. Defendant Fort Collins admits Paragraph 40 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
41. Defendant Fort Collins admits Lieutenant Reed became distracted, but is without
sufficient knowledge and information as to whether this was his only explanation for
having left his vehicle running, as alleged in Paragraph 41 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended
Complaint.
Case 1:16-cv-00966-RBJ Document 31 Filed 09/26/16 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 42
8
42. Defendant Fort Collins admits Lieutenant Reed acknowledged violating policy, but
denies that Deputy Chief Schiager “refused” to write him up, as alleged in Paragraph 42
of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
43. Defendant Fort Collins denies the allegations of Paragraph 43 of Plaintiffs’ First
Amended Complaint.
44. Defendant Fort Collins denies the allegations of Paragraph 44 of Plaintiffs’ First
Amended Complaint.
45. Defendant Fort Collins denies that Bryce Gonzales applied for a sworn officer position in
2007 as alleged in Paragraph 45 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint but admits he
applied in 2008.
46. Defendant Fort Collins denies the allegations of Paragraph 46 of Plaintiffs’ First
Amended Complaint.
47. Defendant Fort Collins denies the allegations of Paragraph 47 of Plaintiffs’ First
Amended Complaint therefore denies them.
48. Defendant Fort Collins is without knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief
as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 48 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint
and therefore denies them.
49. In response to Paragraph 49 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint, Defendant Fort
Collins admits that if Bryce failed to meet the requirements of the initial hiring phase, he
would not be permitted to retest for eighteen months, in accordance with standard
procedure.
50. Defendant Fort Collins denies Paragraph 50 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
Case 1:16-cv-00966-RBJ Document 31 Filed 09/26/16 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 42
9
51. Defendant Fort Collins denies Paragraph 51 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
52. Defendant Fort Collins admits Paragraph 52 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
53. Defendant Fort Collins admits Paragraph 53 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
54. Defendant Fort Collins admits Paragraph 54 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
55. Defendant Fort Collins admits the FTO program is a field training and new officer
performance evaluation program intended to facilitate an officer’s transition to
performance of law enforcement duties as alleged in Paragraph 55 of Plaintiffs’ First
Amended Complaint and denies the remainder of the allegations.
56. Defendant Fort Collins denies the allegations of Paragraph 56 of Plaintiffs’ First
Amended Complaint.
57. Defendant Fort Collins denies the allegations of Paragraph 57 of Plaintiffs’ First
Amended Complaint.
58. Defendant Fort Collins admits Paragraph 58 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
59. Defendant Fort Collins denies Paragraph 59 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
60. Defendant Fort Collins denies Paragraph 60 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
61. Defendant Fort Collins is without knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief
as to whether an unspecified third party made a statement to Bryce Gonzales such as the
one alleged in Paragraph 61 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint, and therefore denies
the same.
62. In response to Paragraph 62 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint, Defendant Fort
Collins admits that Ms. Savage in December 2012 did not successfully complete her
Field Training Officer (“FTO”) work plan, but denies that she immediately or
Case 1:16-cv-00966-RBJ Document 31 Filed 09/26/16 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 42
10
sequentially thereafter “was allowed to reapply” for a police officer position; rather, an
opportunity arose for her to be placed in a different, non- police officer position as a
Community Service Officer (“CSO”), where she performed well. Subsequently, after
approximately two years in the CSO position, she expressed interest in late 2014 in a
police officer position, at which point she was permitted to re-enter the field training
program as a police officer beginning in June 2015, which she completed successfully.
Any other factual allegations in the paragraph are denied.
63. Defendant Fort Collins denies the allegations of Paragraph 63 of Plaintiffs’ First
Amended Complaint.
64. Defendant Fort Collins denies the allegations of Paragraph 64 of Plaintiffs’ First
Amended Complaint.
65. Defendant Fort Collins admits that Lieutenant Pino brought forth a claim that
promotional practices were discriminatory in February of 2012, and denies the remainder
of the allegations of Paragraph 65 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
66. Defendant Fort Collins denies the allegations of Paragraph 66 of Plaintiffs’ First
Amended Complaint and avers that Lieutenant Pino was removed from his post on the
Northern Colorado Drug Task Force in January of 2012 before Pino made any allegations
of discrimination.
67. Defendant Fort Collins admits Paragraph 67 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint, and
avers that Lt. Pino’s removal was for legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons related to
substantial concerns about his performance and/or serious issues with the NCDTF during
his tenure.
Case 1:16-cv-00966-RBJ Document 31 Filed 09/26/16 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 42
11
68. Defendant Fort Collins admits that Dodd, Schiager and Yeager were promoted to a
Deputy Chief position after explicitly notifying the police chief of interest in that position
(and after completing a rotation with the NCDTF), avers that Pino did not notify the
police chief of interest in a Deputy Chief position, and denies all other allegations in
Paragraph 68 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
69. In response to Paragraph 69 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint, Defendant Fort
Collins admits that Plaintiff Araujo in 2014 brought forth a claim against his supervisor,
Sergeant Gary Shaklee, alleging in part that a letter of reprimand he received from
Shaklee was motivated by discrimination. Defendant Fort Collins denies that Araujo in
2014 expressed concerns about “systemic and persistent race discrimination” outside the
specific context of his allegations against Shaklee personally. Defendant Fort Collins
denies the remainder of the allegations of Paragraph 69 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended
Complaint.
70. Paragraph 70 contains a mixture of factual allegations and legal conclusions. Defendant
Fort Collins admits that Plaintiff Araujo filed a grievance, initiated an internal
investigation at the urging of Chief John Hutto and filed charges with the EEOC and is
not required to respond to the legal conclusion in Paragraph 70 of Plaintiffs’ First
Amended Complaint. To the extent it is required to respond, Fort Collins denies the
allegations.
71. Defendant Fort Collins denies the allegations of Paragraph 71 of Plaintiffs’ First
Amended Complaint.
Case 1:16-cv-00966-RBJ Document 31 Filed 09/26/16 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 42
12
72. Defendant Fort Collins admits the allegations of Paragraph 72 of Plaintiffs’ First
Amended Complaint.
73. Defendant Fort Collins is without knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief
as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 73 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint
regarding statements by unnamed third parties, and therefore denies the same. Defendant
Fort Collins denies that Plaintiff Gonzales was “blackballed.” Any other allegations in
the paragraph are denied.
74. Defendant Fort Collins denies the allegations of Paragraph 74 of Plaintiffs’ First
Amended Complaint.
75. Defendant Fort Collins denies the allegations of Paragraph 75 of Plaintiffs’ First
Amended Complaint.
76. Defendant Fort Collins denies the allegations of Paragraph 76 of Plaintiffs’ First
Amended Complaint.
77. Defendant Fort Collins denies the allegations of Paragraph 77 of Plaintiffs’ First
Amended Complaint.
78. Defendant Fort Collins denies the allegations of Paragraph 78 of Plaintiffs’ First
Amended Complaint.
79. Defendant Fort Collins denies the allegations of Paragraph 79 of Plaintiffs’ First
Amended Complaint.
80. Defendant Fort Collins denies the allegations of Paragraph 80 of Plaintiffs’ First
Amended Complaint.
Case 1:16-cv-00966-RBJ Document 31 Filed 09/26/16 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 42
13
81. Defendant Fort Collins denies the allegations of Paragraph 81 of Plaintiffs’ First
Amended Complaint.
82. Defendant Fort Collins denies the allegations of Paragraph 82 of Plaintiffs’ First
Amended Complaint.
83. Defendant Fort Collins denies the allegations of Paragraph 83 of Plaintiffs’ First
Amended Complaint.
84. Defendant Fort Collins denies the allegations of Paragraph 84 of Plaintiffs’ First
Amended Complaint.
85. Defendant Fort Collins admits Paragraph 85 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
86. Defendant Fort Collins admits that Lt. Pino brought a grievance against Deputy Chief
Vagge, as alleged in Paragraph 86 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint. The
grievance is a written document that speaks for itself, and Defendant Fort Collins is not
required to respond to any characterizations thereof. To the extent a response is required,
such allegations are denied. Defendant Fort Collins further specifically denies that Lt.
Pino or any other employee was subjected to “relentless race discrimination,” or to
unlawful or discriminatory “hypercritical evaluation.”
87. Defendant Fort Collins admits Paragraph 87 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
88. Defendant Fort Collins denies Paragraph 88 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
89. Defendant Fort Collins denies Paragraph 89 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
90. Defendant Fort Collins denies Paragraph 90 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint and
avers that Lieutenant Pino was removed from his post as lieutenant of the Northern
Colorado Drug Task Force before he filed a grievance.
Case 1:16-cv-00966-RBJ Document 31 Filed 09/26/16 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 42
14
91. In response to Paragraph 91 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint, Defendant Fort
Collins admits that no disciplinary action was taken against Deputy Chief Vagge because
no such action was warranted.
92. Defendant Fort Collins denies Paragraph 92 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
93. Defendant Fort Collins denies Paragraph 93 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
94. Defendant Fort Collins denies Paragraph 94 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint
(subparts a- e).
95. In response to Paragraph 95 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint, Defendant Fort
Collins denies that Shaklee “openly targeted and discriminated against” Ms. O’Brien, but
is without knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to the details of the
interactions between Shaklee and those individuals, such as Ms. O’Brien, who were not
Fort Collins employees, but who worked alongside Fort Collins employees on the multi-
agency NCDTF. Any other factual allegations in Paragraph 95 of Plaintiffs’ First
Amended Complaint are denied.
96. Defendant Fort Collins admits Paragraph 96 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
97. Defendant Fort Collins admits Defendant Shaklee was promoted to sergeant, but is
without sufficient information and knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the
remaining allegations in Paragraph 97 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint, and
therefore denies them.
98. Defendant Fort Collins denies Paragraph 98 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint and
avers that Defendant Shaklee played a key role in the selection of Plaintiff Araujo for the
Northern Colorado Drug Task Force.
Case 1:16-cv-00966-RBJ Document 31 Filed 09/26/16 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 42
15
99. Defendant Fort Collins denies Paragraph 99 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
100. Defendant Fort Collins denies Paragraph 100 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
101. Defendant Fort Collins denies Paragraph 101 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
102. Defendant Fort Collins denies Paragraph 102 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
103. Defendant Fort Collins denies Paragraph 103 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
104. Defendant Fort Collins admits that Kim Miller conducted at least one survey of Fort
Collins Police Services (“FCPS”) employees sometime within the last decade and admits
that another person or persons have conducted other surveys at the request of the
Fraternal Order of Police..
105. Defendant Fort Collins admits Dr. Miller conducted a survey and the results of the
anonymous survey included some comments critical of some department leaders, but is
without knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
remaining allegations of Paragraph 105 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint and
therefore denies them.
106. Defendant Fort Collins denies Paragraph 106 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
107. Defendant Fort Collins is without knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief
as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 107 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint
and therefore denies them.
108. Defendant Fort Collins denies Paragraph 108 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
109. Defendant Fort Collins denies Paragraph 109 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
110. Defendant Fort Collins denies Paragraph 110 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
111. Defendant Fort Collins denies Paragraph 111 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
Case 1:16-cv-00966-RBJ Document 31 Filed 09/26/16 USDC Colorado Page 15 of 42
16
112. Defendant Fort Collins denies Paragraph 112 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
113. Defendant Fort Collins admits Paragraph 113 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
114. In response to Paragraph 114 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint, Defendant Fort
Collins states that the contents of Plaintiff Gonzales’s personnel file, including
performance evaluations, commendations, reprimands and other forms of performance
correction, speak for themselves, and Defendant Fort Collins is not required to respond to
a characterization of the contents of the file (or selected portions thereof).
115. Paragraph 115 of the Complaint refers to a written document that speaks for itself. As
such, Defendant Fort Collins is not required to respond to any characterization of the
contents of the document at issue. Defendant Fort Collins specifically denies that the
document at issue is necessarily representative of all views of Mr. Gonzales’ performance
at all times.
116. Paragraph 116 of the Complaint refers to a written document that speaks for itself. As
such, Defendant Fort Collins is not required to respond to any characterization of the
contents of the document at issue. Defendant Fort Collins specifically denies that the
document at issue is necessarily representative of all views of Mr. Gonzales’ performance
at all times.
117. Paragraph 117 of the Complaint refers to a written document that speaks for itself. As
such, Defendant Fort Collins is not required to respond to any characterization of the
contents of the document at issue. Defendant Fort Collins specifically denies that the
document at issue is necessarily representative of all views of Mr. Gonzales’s
performance at all times.
Case 1:16-cv-00966-RBJ Document 31 Filed 09/26/16 USDC Colorado Page 16 of 42
17
118. Paragraph 118 of the Complaint refers to a written document that speaks for itself. As
such, Defendant Fort Collins is not required to respond to any characterization of the
contents of the document at issue. Defendant Fort Collins specifically denies that the
document at issue is necessarily representative of all views of Mr. Gonzales’ performance
at all times.
119. Paragraph 119 of the Complaint refers to written documents that speak for themselves.
As such, Defendant Fort Collins is not required to respond to any characterization of the
contents of the document at issue. To the extent a response is required, the factual
allegations are denied.
120. Defendant Fort Collins denies Paragraph 120 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
121. Defendant Fort Collins admits Paragraph 121 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
122. Defendant Fort Collins is without knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief
as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 122 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint
and therefore denies them.
123. Defendant Fort Collins is without knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief
as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 123 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint
and therefore denies them.
124. Defendant Fort Collins denies Paragraph 124 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
125. Defendant Fort Collins admits Paragraph 125 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
126. Defendant Fort Collins is without knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief
as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 126 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint
and therefore denies them.
Case 1:16-cv-00966-RBJ Document 31 Filed 09/26/16 USDC Colorado Page 17 of 42
18
127. Defendant Fort Collins is without knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief
as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 127 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint
and therefore denies them.
128. Defendant Fort Collins is without knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief
as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 128 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint
and therefore denies them.
129. Defendant Fort Collins admits Paragraph 129 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
130. Defendant Fort Collins admits Paragraph 130 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
131. Paragraph 131 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint describes a written document
whose contents speak for themselves; as such, no response is required. Any other
allegations in the paragraph are denied.
132. Defendant Fort Collins is without knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief
as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 132 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint
and therefore denies them.
133. Defendant Fort Collins is without knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief
as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 133 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint
and therefore denies them.
134. Defendant Fort Collins denies Paragraph 134 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
135. Defendant Fort Collins denies Paragraph 135 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
136. Defendant Fort Collins is without knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief
as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 136 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint
and therefore denies them.
Case 1:16-cv-00966-RBJ Document 31 Filed 09/26/16 USDC Colorado Page 18 of 42
19
137. Defendant Fort Collins is without knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief
as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 137 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint
and therefore denies them.
138. Defendant Fort Collins avers that there is no record of disciplinary action taken against
Plaintiff Gonzales related to the allegations in Paragraph 138 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended
Complaint and therefore denies Paragraph 138.
139. Defendant Fort Collins is without knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief
as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 139 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint
and therefore denies them.
140. Defendant Fort Collins is without knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief
as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 140 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint
and therefore denies them.
141. Defendant Fort Collins denies Paragraph 141 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
142. Defendant Fort Collins admits Paragraph 142 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
143. In response to Paragraph 143 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint, Defendant Fort
Collins admits that Sgt. Gonzales received a commendation from Captain Szakmeister for
his service in the referenced role. The commendation is a written document that speaks
for itself, and Defendant Fort Collins is not required to respond to any characterizations
of the document’s contents. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are
denied.
144. Defendant Fort Collins admits Paragraph 144 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
145. Defendant Fort Collins denies Paragraph 145 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
Case 1:16-cv-00966-RBJ Document 31 Filed 09/26/16 USDC Colorado Page 19 of 42
20
146. In response to Paragraph 146 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint, Defendant Fort
Collins denies that Sgt. Reed was promoted during the referenced time period; admits
that Sgt. Gonzales was not promoted, but denies that he was “held back”; and avers that
Plaintiff Gonzales failed tests and assessments after two portions of the process and
failed to move forward to interview for the promotion.
147. Defendant Fort Collins denies Paragraph 147 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
148. Defendant Fort Collins denies Paragraph 148 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
149. Defendant Fort Collins is without knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief
as to the truth of the allegations regarding statements by an unnamed third party or parties
in Paragraph 149 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint, and therefore denies the same.
Defendant Fort Collins denies that Sgt. Gonzales was “blackballed.” Any other
allegations in the paragraph are denied.
150. Defendant Fort Collins denies Paragraph 150 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
151. Defendant Fort Collins denies Paragraph 151 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
152. Defendant Fort Collins denies Paragraph 152 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
153. Defendant Fort Collins admits Paragraph 153 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
154. Defendant Fort Collins is without knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief
as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 154 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint
and therefore denies them.
155. Defendant Fort Collins denies the allegations in Paragraph 155 of Plaintiffs’ First
Amended Complaint.
Case 1:16-cv-00966-RBJ Document 31 Filed 09/26/16 USDC Colorado Page 20 of 42
21
156. Defendant Fort Collins is without knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief
as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 156 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint
and therefore denies them.
157. Defendant Fort Collins admits that Sgt. Gonzales received an award or commendation at
the FCPS awards ceremony in 2014, but is without knowledge and information sufficient
to form a certain belief as the details of the award alleged in Paragraph 157 of Plaintiffs’
First Amended Complaint.
158. Defendant Fort Collins is without knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief
as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 158 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint
and therefore denies them.
159. Defendant Fort Collins admits Plaintiff Gonzales was interviewed in administrative
investigations conducted by the Defendant’s Human Resources department in 2012 and
2014 and denies the remainder of the allegations in Paragraph 159 of Plaintiffs’ First
Amended Complaint.
160. Paragraph 160 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint contains a legal conclusion that
does not require a response.
161. Defendant Fort Collins denies Paragraph 161 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
162. Defendant Fort Collins admits Plaintiff Gonzales failed the assessment center panel in
August of 2010, which was before he participated in administrative investigation
interviews in 2012 and 2014, and denies the remainder of the allegations in Paragraph
162 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
163. Defendant Fort Collins denies Paragraph 163 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
Case 1:16-cv-00966-RBJ Document 31 Filed 09/26/16 USDC Colorado Page 21 of 42
22
164. Defendant Fort Collins denies Paragraph 164 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
165. Defendant Fort Collins admits that Plaintiff Gonzales expressed interest in the SRO
Sergeant position verbally and with his application to the person who made the selection.
Defendant Fort Collins is without knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief
as to the truth of the remainder of the allegations in Paragraph 165 of Plaintiffs’ First
Amended Complaint and therefore denies them.
166. Defendant Fort Collins admits that a number of recommendation letters (which are
written documents that speak for themselves) were written on behalf of Plaintiff Gonzales
in support of his placement in the SRO Sergeant position, but avers that recommendation
letters were not part of the criteria used in evaluating the candidates, and states that it is
without knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
remainder of the allegations in Paragraph 166 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
167. Defendant Fort Collins admits that Sergeant Laura Lunsford was selected for the School
Resource Officer Sergeant position and denies the remainder of the allegations in
Paragraph 167 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
168. Defendant Fort Collins denies Paragraph 168 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
169. Defendant Fort Collins denies Paragraph 169 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
170. Defendant Fort Collins is without knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief
as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 170 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
171. Defendant Fort Collins admits Paragraph 171 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
172. Defendant Fort Collins admits Paragraph 172 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
173. Defendant Fort Collins admits Paragraph 173 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
Case 1:16-cv-00966-RBJ Document 31 Filed 09/26/16 USDC Colorado Page 22 of 42
23
174. Paragraph 174 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint does not allege facts, but
summarizes a written document that speaks for itself. As such, no response is required.
175. Defendant Fort Collins admits Paragraph 175 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
176. Defendant Fort Collins denies Paragraph 176 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
177. Defendant Fort Collins denies Paragraph 177 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
178. In response to Paragraph 178 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint, Defendant Fort
Collins admits that Mr. McGregor received a similar reprimand for a similar issue, but
denies that he received “the same reprimand,” and denies any suggestion or implication
of discrimination or unlawful disparate treatment. All other allegations in the paragraph
are denied.
179. Defendant Fort Collins denies Paragraph 179 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
180. Defendant Fort Collins denies Paragraph 180 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
181. Defendant Fort Collins denies Paragraph 181 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
182. Defendant Fort Collins denies Paragraph 182 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
183. Defendant Fort Collins is without knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief
as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 183 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
184. Defendant Fort Collins is without knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief
as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 184 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
185. Defendant Fort Collins is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as
to Defendant Shaklee’s intent or state of mind upon hearing the referenced voicemail, and
therefore denies the allegations in Paragraph 185 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
186. Defendant Fort Collins denies Paragraph 186 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
Case 1:16-cv-00966-RBJ Document 31 Filed 09/26/16 USDC Colorado Page 23 of 42
24
187. Defendant Fort Collins admits Paragraph 187 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint and
avers that Plaintiff Araujo was selected as a quartermaster to the SWAT team.
188. Defendant Fort Collins denies Paragraph 188 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
189. Defendant Fort Collins denies Paragraph 189 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
190. Defendant Fort Collins admits Paragraph 190 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
191. Defendant Fort Collins is without knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief
as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 191 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint
regarding purported statements by an unidentified third party, and therefore denies them.
Defendant Fort Collins denies that the events referenced with respect to the SWAT
selection took place in the manner alleged. Any other factual allegations in the paragraph
are denied.
192. Defendant Fort Collins denies Paragraph 192 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
193. Defendant Fort Collins admits Paragraph 193 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint and
notes that Defendant Shaklee played a key role in the selection of Plaintiff Araujo for the
NCDTF.
194. Defendant Fort Collins denies Paragraph 194 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
195. Defendant Fort Collins denies Paragraph 195 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
196. Defendant Fort Collins denies Paragraph 196 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
197. Defendant Fort Collins denies Paragraph 197 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
198. Defendant Fort Collins admits Paragraph 198 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint and
notes that the police reports Plaintiff Araujo was required to complete and file were
approximately two months past due.
Case 1:16-cv-00966-RBJ Document 31 Filed 09/26/16 USDC Colorado Page 24 of 42
25
199. Defendant Fort Collins denies Paragraph 199 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
200. Defendant Fort Collins denies Paragraph 200 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
201. Defendant Fort Collins admits Paragraph 201 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
202. In response to Paragraph 202 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint, Defendant Fort
Collins admits, based upon the information obtained in its investigation of the referenced
matter, that it appears to factually accurate to state that, in Sgt. Shaklee’s referenced
conversation with Plaintiff Araujo, Sgt. Shaklee referred to a case in which Detective
Jaclyn Shaklee asked Plaintiff Araujo to assist her by making and conducting a phone call
with a Spanish-speaking witness.
203. Defendant Fort Collins denies the accuracy of the vague phrase “on behalf of one of her
cases,” but otherwise admits, based upon the information obtained in its investigation of
the referenced matter, that the allegations in Paragraph 203 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended
Complaint appear to be factually accurate.
204. Defendant Fort Collins denies the accuracy of the vague phrase “under the same
circumstances,” but otherwise admits, based upon the information obtained in its
investigation of the referenced matter, that the allegations in Paragraph 204 of Plaintiffs’
First Amended Complaint appear to be factually accurate.
205. Defendant Fort Collins admits, based upon the information obtained in its investigation
of the referenced matter, that the allegations in Paragraph 205 of Plaintiffs’ First
Amended Complaint appear to be factually accurate as a general summary of statements
made by Plaintiff Araujo and by Sgt. Shaklee in the referenced conversation; however,
Defendant Fort Collins lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
Case 1:16-cv-00966-RBJ Document 31 Filed 09/26/16 USDC Colorado Page 25 of 42
26
the truth of allegations about the details of that conversation, and therefore denies the
same, and also specifically denies any implication that Plaintiff Araujo’s referenced
“explanation” was itself correct or an accurate summary of FCPD policy. Any other
factual allegations in the paragraph are denied.
206. In response to Paragraph 206 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint, Defendant Fort
Collins admits that there was a case in which Detective Siobhan Jungmeyer asked
Plaintiff Araujo for assistance related to translation, and admits, based upon the
information obtained in its investigation of the referenced matter, that Sgt. Shaklee and
Plaintiff Araujo discussed that case. Defendant Fort Collins is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the details of the referenced conversation
between Shaklee and Araujo, and therefore denies the same. Any other factual
allegations in the paragraph are denied.
207. In response to Paragraph 207 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint, Defendant Fort
Collins admits, based upon the information obtained in its investigation of the referenced
matter, that Sgt. Shaklee sent a text message (which speaks for itself) regarding the
referenced topic, but denies that Sgt. Shaklee “knew” of that text message at the time of
his conversation with Plaintiff Araujo; rather, it was revealed in the investigation that Sgt.
Shaklee had forgotten about the text message at that time, and at the time he wrote the
reprimand of Plaintiff Araujo.
208. Defendant Fort Collins admits Paragraph 208 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
209. In response to Paragraph 209 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint, Defendant Fort
Collins admits that Sgt. Shaklee instructed Plaintiff Araujo to write several police reports,
Case 1:16-cv-00966-RBJ Document 31 Filed 09/26/16 USDC Colorado Page 26 of 42
27
but denies any implication that this instruction was improper or inappropriate based upon
the “reason” that Araujo allegedly “explained.” Any other factual allegations in the
paragraph are denied.
210. In response to Paragraph 210 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint, Defendant Fort
Collins denies that Plaintiff Araujo “immediately” completed the referenced reports, but
admits that he did so at some point subsequent to his conversation with Sgt. Shaklee.
Any other factual allegations in the paragraph are denied.
211. In response to Paragraph 211 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint, Defendant Fort
Collins admits that Plaintiff Araujo received a written reprimand, dated May 28, 2014,
from Sgt. Shaklee, which Plaintiff Araujo signed and dated July 1, 2014, but is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the exact date when Det.
Araujo received the reprimand. The reprimand is a written document that speaks for
itself; thus, no response is required to any characterization of its contents. To the extent a
response is required, such allegations are denied. Any other allegations in the paragraph
are denied.
212. The reprimand referenced in Paragraph 212 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint is a
written document that speaks for itself; thus, no response is required to any
characterization of its contents. To the extent a response is required, such allegations are
denied. Any other allegations in the paragraph are denied.
213. The reprimand referenced in Paragraph 213 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint is a
written document that speaks for itself; thus, no response is required to any
Case 1:16-cv-00966-RBJ Document 31 Filed 09/26/16 USDC Colorado Page 27 of 42
28
characterization of its contents. To the extent a response is required, such allegations are
denied. Any other allegations in the paragraph are denied.
214. Defendant Fort Collins denies Paragraph 214 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
215. Defendant Fort Collins denies Paragraph 215 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
216. Defendant Fort Collins admits the factual allegations in Paragraph 216 of Plaintiffs’ First
Amended Complaint, but denies that Det. Shaklee was required by policy to submit a
police report regarding Det. Araujo’s phone call.
217. Defendant Fort Collins denies that the referenced facts constitute a “failure” on the part
of Det. Shaklee, and denies any implication of discrimination or disparate treatment, but
otherwise admits the factual allegations in Paragraph 217 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended
Complaint, and notes that there is no basis for disciplinary action against Detective Jaclyn
Shaklee.
218. Defendant Fort Collins is without knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief
as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 218 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint
with respect to the details of conversations between Det. Araujo and certain third parties,
and therefore denies them.
219. Defendant Fort Collins is without knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief
as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 219 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint
with respect to the details of conversations between Det. Araujo and certain third parties,
and therefore denies them.
220. In response to Paragraph 220 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint, Defendant Fort
Collins denies Plaintiff’s characterization of Sgt. Shaklee’s actions; states that it is
Case 1:16-cv-00966-RBJ Document 31 Filed 09/26/16 USDC Colorado Page 28 of 42
29
without knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to Plaintiff Araujo’s
state of mind or “awareness” and therefore denies the same; and avers that FCPD policies
and the Collective Bargaining Agreement are written documents that speak for
themselves, and thus no response is required to allegations that characterize these
documents. To the extent a response is requires, the allegations are denied. Any other
allegations in the paragraph as denied.
221. Defendant Fort Collins admits Paragraph 221 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
222. Defendant Fort Collins denies Paragraph 222 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
223. Paragraph 223 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint describes the contents of a written
document that speaks for itself; as such, no response is required to characterizations of
the document.
224. Defendant Fort Collins admits Paragraph 224 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
225. Defendant Fort Collins denies Paragraph 225 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
226. Paragraph 226 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint describes the contents of a written
document that speaks for itself; as such, no response is required to characterizations of
the document.
227. Defendant Fort Collins denies Paragraph 227 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
228. Defendant Fort Collins denies Paragraph 228 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
229. Defendant Fort Collins denies Paragraph 229 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
230. Defendant Fort Collins denies that Plaintiff Araujo’s complaints were not taken seriously
as alleged in Paragraph 230 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint. In fact, it was Chief
Case 1:16-cv-00966-RBJ Document 31 Filed 09/26/16 USDC Colorado Page 29 of 42
30
Hutto who urged Plaintiff Araujo to file a request for a formal internal affairs
investigation into the merits of his complaints.
231. Paragraph 231 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint describes the contents of a written
document that speaks for itself; as such, no response is required to characterizations of
the document.
232. Defendant Fort Collins admits Paragraph 232 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint, but
denies any allegation or implication that IA handled the matter inappropriately or in
reference to the incorrect policies.
233. Defendant Fort Collins denies Paragraph 233 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
234. Defendant Fort Collins admits Paragraph 234 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
235. Defendant Fort Collins admits Paragraph 235 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
236. Defendant Fort Collins denies Paragraph 236 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
237. Defendant Fort Collins denies Paragraph 237 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
238. Defendant Fort Collins admits Paragraph 238 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint and
further avers that the HR investigation findings were that Defendant Shaklee did not
discriminate against Plaintiff Araujo on the basis of Araujo’s membership in any
protected class.
239. Defendant Fort Collins denies Paragraph 239 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
240. Defendant Fort Collins denies Paragraph 240 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
241. Defendant Fort Collins denies Paragraph 241 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
242. Defendant Fort Collins admits Paragraph 242 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
243. Defendant Fort Collins denies Paragraph 243 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
Case 1:16-cv-00966-RBJ Document 31 Filed 09/26/16 USDC Colorado Page 30 of 42
31
244. Defendant Fort Collins admits Paragraph 244 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
245. Defendant Fort Collins admits Paragraph 245 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
246. Paragraph 246 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint describes the contents of a written
document that speaks for itself; as such, no response is required to characterizations of
the document.
247. Defendant Fort Collins admits Paragraph 247 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
248. Paragraph 248 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint describes the contents of a written
document that speaks for itself; as such, no response is required to characterizations of
the document.
249. Paragraph 249 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint describes the contents of a written
document that speaks for itself; as such, no response is required to characterizations of
the document.
250. Defendant Fort Collins is without knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief
as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 250 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint
and therefore denies them. Defendant Fort Collins specifically denies any discrimination
or unequal treatment in the manner in which officers are or are not disciplined.
251. Defendant Fort Collins is without information and knowledge adequate to form a certain
belief as to whether Lt. Pearson failed to timely submit a report in one such case as
alleged in Paragraph 251 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint, but admits it is possible
that this may have occurred; however, Defendant Fort Collins denies the implied premise
of this allegation, i.e., that Det. Araujo was disciplined merely for failing to timely submit
a single report, and therefore Lt. Pearson should also have been disciplined if he failed to
Case 1:16-cv-00966-RBJ Document 31 Filed 09/26/16 USDC Colorado Page 31 of 42
32
timely submit a single report. Det. Araujo had a pattern of behavior that included being
substantially late in completing multiple reports over a period of time, and it was because
of that pattern that he was disciplined. Lt. Pearson did not have a similar pattern.
Moreover, it is often the case that lieutenants who are not directly involved in the
investigation of a case, but rather are playing a supervisory role, are not expected to
complete reports. Any other factual allegations in the paragraph are denied.
252. In response to Paragraph 252 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint, Defendant Fort
Collins admits that Lt. Pearson was not disciplined for failing to timely submit a single
report, and further avers that Det. Araujo also was not disciplined for failing to timely
submit a single report.
253. Defendant Fort Collins denies Paragraph 253 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
254. Defendant Fort Collins denies Paragraph 254 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
255. Defendant Fort Collins is without knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief
as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 255 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
256. Defendant Fort Collins denies Paragraph 256 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
257. Defendant Fort Collins denies Paragraph 257 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
258. Defendant Fort Collins admits Paragraph 258 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
259. In response to Paragraph 259 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint, Defendant Fort
Collins is without knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to Sgt.
Gonzales’s subjective impressions, but denies that the accusations were not taken
seriously. Any other allegations in the paragraph are denied.
Case 1:16-cv-00966-RBJ Document 31 Filed 09/26/16 USDC Colorado Page 32 of 42
33
260. Defendant Fort Collins is without knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief
as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 260 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint
and therefore denies them.
261. Defendant Fort Collins admits Paragraph 261 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
262. Defendant Fort Collins denies Paragraph 262 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint
263. Defendant Fort Collins denies Paragraph 263 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
264. Defendant Fort Collins admits Paragraph 264 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
265. Defendant Fort Collins admits Plaintiff Gonzales is not being considered for the position
described in Paragraph 265 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint and avers that
Sergeant Gonzales has not applied for a lieutenant promotion since 2010.
V. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-e(a)
Race and National Origin Discrimination
(Plaintiff Araujo Against Defendant Fort Collins)
266. Defendant Fort Collins reincorporates and restates its responses to Paragraphs 1 through
265 as if fully set forth herein.
267. Defendant Fort Collins is without knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief
as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 267 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
268. Paragraph 268 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint contains a legal conclusion which
does not require a response from Defendant Fort Collins.
269. Defendant Fort Collins denies Paragraph 269 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
270. Defendant Fort Collins denies Paragraph 270 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
271. Defendant Fort Collins denies Paragraph 271 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
Case 1:16-cv-00966-RBJ Document 31 Filed 09/26/16 USDC Colorado Page 33 of 42
34
272. Defendant Fort Collins denies Paragraph 272 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
273. Defendant Fort Collins denies Paragraph 273 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
274. Defendant Fort Collins denies Paragraph 274 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
275. Defendant Fort Collins denies Paragraph 275 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
276. Defendant Fort Collins denies Paragraph 276 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
277. Defendant Fort Collins denies Paragraph 277 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. § 1981
Race Discrimination
(All Plaintiffs Against Defendants Shaklee and Vagge in their Individual Capacities)
278. Defendant Fort Collins reincorporates and restates its responses to Paragraphs 1 through
277 as if fully set forth herein.
279. The allegations in Paragraph 279 are not directed toward this Defendant and, therefore,
no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied.
280. The allegations in Paragraph 280 are not directed toward this Defendant and, therefore,
no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied.
281. The allegations in Paragraph 281 are not directed toward this Defendant and, therefore,
no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied.
282. The allegations in Paragraph 282 are not directed toward this Defendant and, therefore,
no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied.
283. The allegations in Paragraph 283 are not directed toward this Defendant and, therefore,
no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied.
284. The allegations in Paragraph 284 are not directed toward this Defendant and, therefore,
no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied.
Case 1:16-cv-00966-RBJ Document 31 Filed 09/26/16 USDC Colorado Page 34 of 42
35
285. The allegations in Paragraph 285 are not directed toward this Defendant and, therefore,
no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied.
286. The allegations in Paragraph 286 are not directed toward this Defendant and, therefore,
no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied.
287. The allegations in Paragraph 287 are not directed toward this Defendant and, therefore,
no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied.
288. The allegations in Paragraph 288 are not directed toward this Defendant and, therefore,
no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied.
289. The allegations in Paragraph 289 are not directed toward this Defendant and, therefore,
no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied.
290. The allegations in Paragraph 290 are not directed toward this Defendant and, therefore,
no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied.
291. The allegations in Paragraph 291 are not directed toward this Defendant and, therefore,
no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. § 1981
Retaliation
(All Plaintiffs Against Defendants Shaklee and Vagge in their Individual Capacities)
292. Defendant Fort Collins reincorporates and restates its responses to Paragraphs 1 through
291 as if fully set forth herein.
293. The allegations in Paragraph 293 are not directed toward this Defendant and, therefore,
no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied.
294. The allegations in Paragraph 294 are not directed toward this Defendant and, therefore,
no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied.
Case 1:16-cv-00966-RBJ Document 31 Filed 09/26/16 USDC Colorado Page 35 of 42
36
295. The allegations in Paragraph 295 are not directed toward this Defendant and, therefore,
no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied.
296. The allegations in Paragraph 296 are not directed toward this Defendant and, therefore,
no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied.
297. The allegations in Paragraph 297 are not directed toward this Defendant and, therefore,
no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied.
298. The allegations in Paragraph 298 are not directed toward this Defendant and, therefore,
no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied.
299. The allegations in Paragraph 299 are not directed toward this Defendant and, therefore,
no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied.
300. The allegations in Paragraph 300 are not directed toward this Defendant and, therefore,
no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied.
301. The allegations in Paragraph 301 are not directed toward this Defendant and, therefore,
no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied.
302. The allegations in Paragraph 302 are not directed toward this Defendant and, therefore,
no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied.
303. The allegations in Paragraph 303 are not directed toward this Defendant and, therefore,
no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981, Brought Through 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Discrimination on the Basis of Race
(All Plaintiffs Against Defendant Fort Collins)
304. Defendant Fort Collins reincorporates and restates its responses to Paragraphs 1 through
303 as if fully set forth herein.
Case 1:16-cv-00966-RBJ Document 31 Filed 09/26/16 USDC Colorado Page 36 of 42
37
305. Defendant Fort Collins denies Paragraph 305 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
306. Defendant Fort Collins admits Paragraph 306 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
307. Paragraph 307 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint states a legal conclusion, rather
than making factual allegations; as such, no response is required.
308. Defendant Fort Collins denies Paragraph 308 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
309. Defendant Fort Collins denies Paragraph 309 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
310. Paragraph 310 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint states a legal conclusion, rather
than making factual allegations; as such, no response is required.
311. Paragraph 311 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint states a legal conclusion, rather
than making factual allegations; as such, no response is required.
312. Defendant Fort Collins denies Paragraph 312 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
313. Defendant Fort Collins denies Paragraph 313 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
314. Defendant Fort Collins denies Paragraph 314 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
315. Defendant Fort Collins denies Paragraph 315 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
316. Defendant Fort Collins denies Paragraph 316 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
317. Defendant Fort Collins denies Paragraph 317 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
318. Defendant Fort Collins denies Paragraph 318 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
319. Defendant Fort Collins denies Paragraph 319 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
320. Defendant Fort Collins denies Paragraph 320 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
321. Defendant Fort Collins denies Paragraph 321 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
Case 1:16-cv-00966-RBJ Document 31 Filed 09/26/16 USDC Colorado Page 37 of 42
38
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981, Brought Through 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Retaliation
(All Plaintiffs Against Defendant Fort Collins)
322. Defendant Fort Collins reincorporates and restates its responses to Paragraphs 1 through
321 as if fully set forth herein.
323. Defendant Fort Collins denies Paragraph 323 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint
324. Defendant Fort Collins admits Paragraph 324 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
325. Paragraph 325 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint states a legal conclusion, rather
than making factual allegations; as such, no response is required.
326. Defendant Fort Collins denies Paragraph 326 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
327. Defendant Fort Collins denies Paragraph 327 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
328. Defendant Fort Collins denies Paragraph 328 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
329. Paragraph 329 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint states a legal conclusion, rather
than making factual allegations; as such, no response is required.
330. Paragraph 330 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint states a legal conclusion, rather
than making factual allegations; as such, no response is required.
331. Defendant Fort Collins denies Paragraph 331 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
332. Defendant Fort Collins denies Paragraph 332 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
333. Defendant Fort Collins denies Paragraph 333 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
334. Defendant Fort Collins denies Paragraph 334 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
335. Defendant Fort Collins denies Paragraph 335 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
336. Defendant Fort Collins denies Paragraph 336 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
337. Defendant Fort Collins denies Paragraph 337 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
Case 1:16-cv-00966-RBJ Document 31 Filed 09/26/16 USDC Colorado Page 38 of 42
39
338. Defendant Fort Collins denies Paragraph 338 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
339. Defendant Fort Collins denies Paragraph 339 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
340. Defendant Fort Collins denies Paragraph 340 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
341. Defendant Fort Collins denies the allegations of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint not
specifically responded to herein including, but not limited the WHEREFORE clause(s) in
Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.
DEFENSES AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
1. Plaintiffs’ Complaint fails, at least in part, to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted against this Defendant.
2. Plaintiffs may have failed to mitigate their damages, if any, as required by law.
3. Defendant’s policies and procedures prohibit illegal discrimination or retaliation
of any kind.
4. The proximate cause of Plaintiffs’ alleged damages, if any, may have been the
acts or omissions of Plaintiffs or a third party or parties over whom the Defendant
has no control, or for whom the Defendant is not legally responsible.
5. All actions taken by Defendant with respect to Plaintiffs were reasonable as a
matter of law.
6. All actions taken by Defendant were for legitimate, valid and non-discriminatory
reasons.
7. Plaintiffs’ claims for punitive damages, at least as against this Defendant, fail as a
matter of law.
Case 1:16-cv-00966-RBJ Document 31 Filed 09/26/16 USDC Colorado Page 39 of 42
40
8. Plaintiffs’ damages, if any, are limited by 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981a(b), 1981a(b)(4),
1981a(a-b) and 2000(e)(g), and 29 U.S.C. § 626(b).
9. Defendant did not retaliate as a matter of law.
10. There is no causal connection between Plaintiffs’ alleged protected activity and
any alleged retaliatory actions by Defendant.
11. This Defendant did not have knowledge of some protected activity alleged by
Plaintiffs.
12. Defendant would have taken the same actions it did with regard to Plaintiffs’
employment in the absence of Plaintiffs’ complaints, criticisms, alleged protected
activity, and allegations of discrimination and retaliation.
13. Any actions taken by Defendant against Plaintiffs were based on reasonable
factors other than race, national origin or retaliation.
14. At all times pertinent herein, Defendant acted in accordance with all common law
and statutory obligations and without any intent to cause Plaintiffs harm.
15. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred or reduced by Plaintiffs’ failure to seek appropriate
redress through Defendant’s policies and procedures.
16. Plaintiffs did not act reasonably in pursuing their allegations of discriminatory
conduct.
17. The written warning/reprimand to Araujo was not an adverse employment action.
18. Gonzales’s staying on probation for additional time was not an adverse
employment action.
Case 1:16-cv-00966-RBJ Document 31 Filed 09/26/16 USDC Colorado Page 40 of 42
41
19. Gonzales’s non-selection for the School Resource Officer sergeant position was
not an adverse employment action.
20. Some of Plaintiffs’ claims, or portions thereof, are untimely under the applicable
statute of limitations, and/or barred by the doctrine ofs of release, waiver,
estoppels and/or laches.
21. Plaintiffs have failed to exhaust administrative remedies with respect to certain
claims or portions thereof, and/or the claims asserted exceed the scope of the
administrative charges or proceedings brought by Plaintiff.
DEFENDANT FORT COLLINS DEMANDS A TRIAL BY JURY
Dated this 26th day of September, 2016.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Cathy Havener Greer
__________________________________
Cathy Havener Greer
Brendan L. Loy
Wells, Anderson & Race, LLC
1700 Broadway, Suite 1020
Denver, CO 80290
T: 303-830-1212
Email: cgreer@warllc.com
Email: bloy@warllc.com
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT
THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
Case 1:16-cv-00966-RBJ Document 31 Filed 09/26/16 USDC Colorado Page 41 of 42
42
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on September 26, 2016, a true and correct copy of the above
and foregoing DEFENDANT THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS’ ANSWER AND JURY
DEMAND TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR
JURY TRIAL was electronically filed with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system,
which will send notification of such filing to the following email addresses:
Laura B. Wolf, Esq.
Qusair Mohamedbhai, Esq.
Rathod | Mohamedbhai LLC
2701 Lawrence Street, Suite 100
Denver, CO 80202
Email: lw@rmlawyers.com
Email: qm@rmlawyers.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
J. Andrew Nathan, Esq.
Marni Nathan Kloster, Esq.
Nicholas C. Poppe, Esq.
NATHAN DUMM & MAYER P.C.
7900 E. Union Avenue, Suite 600
Denver, CO 80237-2776
Attorneys for Defendants Gary Shaklee
David R. DeMuro, Esq.
Vaughan & DeMuro
720 South Colorado Boulevard
North Tower, Penthouse
Denver, CO 80246
Email: ddemuro@vaughandemuro.com
Attorneys for Defendant Donald Vagge
Jenny L. Lopez Filkins
City Attorney's Office-Fort Collins
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
Email: jlopezfilkins@fcgov.com
Attorneys for Defendant City of Fort Collins
S/ Barbara McCall
Barbara McCall
Email: bmccall@warllc.com
Case 1:16-cv-00966-RBJ Document 31 Filed 09/26/16 USDC Colorado Page 42 of 42