Redline Response

7/24/2019 Redline Response

1/8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Briggitta Hardin,

Plaintiff,

v.

Mick Dadlani

and

Red Line DC, LLC

Defendants.

))

)))))))))))

Civil Action No. 1:11-cv-02052 (RBW)

ANSWERTO THE COMPLAINT

Defendants Mick Dadlani (hereinafter, Dadlani) and Red Line DC, LLC (hereinafter,

Redline), by and through counsel, hereby Answer the allegations contained in Plaintiff Briggitta

Hardins (hereinafter, Plaintiff) Complaint as follows:

RESPONSES TO INDIVIDUALLY NUMBERED PARAGRAPHS

Nature of Action

1. Defendants deny that Plaintiff was employed by Redline. Defendants admit that Dadlani

is an owner and a manager of Redline. The remainder of Paragraph 1 states a legal conclusion to

which no response is required but, to the extent that it can be construed as alleging facts, it is denied.

2. Defendants admit that Plaintiff is African-American. Defendants deny the remaining

allegations contained in Paragraph 2 of the Complaint.

3. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 3 of the Complaint.

Case 1:11-cv-02052-RBW Document 5 Filed 02/06/12 Page 1 of 8


2/8

2

4. Paragraph 4 of the Complaint constitutes a prayer for relief to which no response is

required. To the extent a response is necessary, Defendants deny these allegations and further aver

that Plaintiff is not entitled to any relief whatsoever.

Jurisdiction and Venue

5. Paragraph 5 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required.

6.

Paragraph 6 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required.

Parties

7. Defendants admit that Plaintiff is African-American. Defendants admit that Plaintiff

was and is currently employed at Bar Louie, an establishment that is located across the street from

Redline. Upon information and belief, at all times relevant to the allegations contained in the

Complaint, Bar Louie employed Plaintiff as both a bartender and a server. Defendants deny that

Plaintiff was employed by Redline. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to

admit or deny the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 7, so it is denied.

8.

Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 8 of the Complaint.

9. Defendants admit that Dadlani is the primary owner and operational manager of

Redline and that he is responsible for day-to-day operations and management decisions regarding

Redline. Defendant admits that Dadlani is also responsible for hiring and terminating employees,

but that this responsibility is shared among other Redline manager(s). Defendants admit that

Dadlani is the registered agent of Redline. Defendants deny any remaining allegations contained in

Paragraph 9 of the Complaint.

Factual Allegations

10.Defendants deny the allegations contained in the first two sentences of Paragraph 10 of

the Complaint. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny the



3/8

3

allegations contained in the last two sentences of Paragraph 10 of the Complaint, so it is denied.

Upon information and belief, Plaintiff worked for approximately a year and a half at Bar Louie as a

bartender and server before seeking a position with Redline.

11.

Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny the

allegations contained in the first sentence of Paragraph 10 of the Complaint, so it is denied. With

respect to the second sentence of Paragraph 11 of the Complaint, Defendants admit that they were

looking for experienced servers; however, they had a full cadre of bartenders. With respect to the

third sentence of Paragraph 11, Defendants aver that, like any new small business, they hoped that

they would be successful.

12.Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 12 of the Complaint.





17.

Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 17 of the Complaint.

18.Paragraph 18 states legal conclusions to which no response is required but, to the extent

that it can be construed as alleging facts, these allegations are denied.




Defendants Discriminatory Polices and Practices






4/8

4


26.



28.


29.



31.




Injury to Plaintiff



Claims for Relief

Count I

Discrimination under Section 1981 of the Civil Rights act of 1866

36. Defendants repeat and incorporate by reference their responses to each and every

allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if set out in full.



Count II

Discrimination under the District of Columbia Human Rights Act

39.Defendants repeat and incorporate by reference their responses to each and every

allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if set out in full.




5/8

5


42(a)-(f). With respect to Plaintiffs Prayer for Relief, a response is not necessary. To the

extent that a response is necessary, Defendants deny these allegations and further aver that

Plaintiff is not entitled to any relief whatsoever.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

FIRST DEFENSE

The Complaint fails, in whole or in part, to state a claim on which relief may be granted.

SECOND DEFENSE

Plaintiff never made any complaints to Redline, Dadlani or any Redline manager or

employee about any discriminatory treatment.

THIRD DEFENSE

Defendants acted properly, professionally and without malice at all times towards Plaintiff

such that Defendants are not liable for punitive damages in this case.

FOURTH DEFENSE

Defendants did not discriminate against Plaintiff in violation of the D.C. Human Rights Act

or 42 U.S.C. 1982, et seq.

FIFTH DEFENSE

Defendants actions with respect to Plaintiff were taken for legitimate, non-discriminatory,

non-prohibited reasons and/or for good cause.

SIXTH DEFENSE

Plaintiff failed to make reasonable efforts to mitigate his damages.



6/8

6

SEVENTH DEFENSE

The claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the applicable statutes of limitation and/or

filing periods.

EIGHTH DEFENSE

The claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the principles of waiver and/or estoppel.

NINTH DEFENSE

The claims must be dismissed against Defendant Dadlani because he did not aid, abet, ratify,

condone, encourage or acquiesce in any alleged discriminatory conduct.

TENTH DEFENSE

The claims must be dismissed against Defendant Dadlani because he does not qualify as an

employer under the D.C. Human Rights Act.

ELEVENTH DEFENSE

The claims are barred, in whole or in part, by Plaintiffs failure to satisfy the statutory and/or

administrative prerequisites to the bringing of an action under D.C. Human Rights Act or 42 U.S.C.

1982, et seq.

TWELFTH DEFENSE

Plaintiff did not suffer a tangible employment action in connection with any of the

circumstances relevant to this lawsuit.

THIRTEENTH DEFENSE

Defendants intend to rely upon such other and further defenses as may become available or

apparent during the proceedings in the action and hereby reserves the right to amend its Answer

and/or to assert any such further defense or claim.



7/8

7

Date: February 6, 2012 Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Sundeep Hora______________Sundeep Hora (D.C. Bar. No. 472944)ALDERMAN, DEVORSETZ & HORA PLLC1025 Connecticut Ave., NWSuite 615Washington, D.C. 20036Tel. 202.969.8220Fax 202.969.8224E-mail: [email protected]

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS



8/8

8

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that, on this 6th day of February 2012, I caused a copy of the

foregoing Answer to the Complaint to be served upon the following by electronic mail in

.pdf format to:

Jennifer KlarRELMAN, DANE & COLFAX, PLLC1225 19thStreet, NW, Suite 600Washington, DC [email protected]

and

Emily ReadWashington LawyersCommittee for Civil Rights andUrban Affairs11 Dupont Circle, NWSuite 400Washington, DC [email protected]

Attorneys for Plaintiff

/s/____________Sundeep Hora


Documents

Redline Response