Opinion
No. 01 C 9098
January 17, 2002
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago ("District") has filed its Answer and Affirmative Defenses ("ADs") to the Title VII employment discZrimination Complaint brought against it by its employee Richard Tevlin ("Tevlin"). Because some aspects of that responsive pleading are problematic, this memorandum order is issued sua sponte to require District's attorney to cure one deficiency identified here.
On that score, Answer ¶ 2 fails to conform to the requirement of Fed.R.Civ.P. ("Rule") 8(b) that every allegation ("averment" is the term used in the Rule) by a plaintiff must be answered, as well as failing to conform to the disclaimer spelled out by Rule 8(b)'s second sentence as essential to give a responding party the benefit of a deemed denial — in the latter respect, see App. ¶ 1 to State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Riley, 199 F.R.D. 276, 279 (N.D. Ill. 2001) Accordingly Answer ¶ 2 is stricken, but with leave to file an amendment to the Answer on or before January 25, 2002 that conforms to Rule 8(b).
As for the ADs, App. ¶ 5 to State Farm explains that Rule 8(c) contemplates a defendant's admission of all of a complaint's allegations for that purpose, coupled with an explanation as to why the defendant is still not liable to the plaintiff (or perhaps, as in the case of comparative negligence or mitigation of damages, may be liable for less than the plaintiff claims). In this instance District's ADs are at odds with that concept to some extent, but because they help focus on District's particularized position in opposition to Tevlins claim they will be left intact without further amendment.