Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 19

Case: 1:17-cv-06512 Document #: 23 Filed: 11/21/17 Page 1 of 19 PageID #:74

30022.00/dnd/1261219

UNITED STATE DISTRICT COURT


NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

JOHN BEAR, )
)
Plaintiff, ) Case No. 17-cv-06512
)
v. )
)
JEFF MASON and THE UNIVERSITY OF )
CHICAGO, )
)
Defendants. )
__________________________________________)
JEFF MASON )
)
Counter-Plaintiff )
)
v. )
)
JOHN BEAR )
)
Counter-Defendant )

DEFENDANT JEFF MASON’S ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIM


TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

Defendant, Jeff Mason, by and through his attorneys, Williams Montgomery and John

LTD., hereby state as his answer to Plaintiff’s, John Bear (“Bear”), Complaint as follows:

PARTIES

1. Coach Bear is an individual residing in Lombard, Illinois.

ANSWER: Defendant Mason states that Plaintiff Bear is an individual but lacks

knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations

contained in paragraph 1 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

2. Mason is an individual residing in Indianapolis, Indiana. Upon information and

belief, Mason transacts business regularly in Chicago, Illinois.


Case: 1:17-cv-06512 Document #: 23 Filed: 11/21/17 Page 2 of 19 PageID #:75

ANSWER: Defendant Mason states that he is an individual that resides in Indianapolis,

Indiana and denies the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 2 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

3. The U of C is a private university in Chicago, Illinois.

ANSWER: The facts stated in paragraph 3 of Plaintiff’s Complaint are correct.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4. This Court has jurisdiction over Count I under the express provisions of Title VII,

§ 2000e-5(f)(3) and 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

ANSWER: Defendant Mason states that the allegations contained in paragraph 4 of

Plaintiff’s Complaint constitute a legal conclusion to which no answer is required. To the extent

an answer is required, Defendant Mason states that the allegations contained in paragraph 4 of

Plaintiff’s Complaint are correct.

5. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Counts II through VI under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1367 as the allegations in Counts II through VI are so related to the claims in the other counts

that they form part of the same case or controversy.

ANSWER: Defendant Mason states that the allegations contained in paragraph 5 of

Plaintiff’s Complaint constitute a legal conclusion to which no answer is required. To the extent

an answer is required, Defendant Mason states that this Court has supplemental jurisdiction over

Count II pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Defendant Mason denies the remaining allegations

contained in paragraph 5 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

6. Venue is proper in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1391, because all the significant events giving rise to the claims occurred in this

judicial district.

2
Case: 1:17-cv-06512 Document #: 23 Filed: 11/21/17 Page 3 of 19 PageID #:76

ANSWER: Defendant Mason states that the allegations contained in paragraph 6 of

Plaintiff’s Complaint constitute a legal conclusion to which no answer is required. To the extent

an answer is required, Defendant Mason states that venue is proper in the Northern District of

Illinois, Eastern Division, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391, because the alleged events giving rise to

the claims allegedly occurred in this judicial district. As set forth more specifically in this answer,

Defendant Mason denies that certain events alleged by Bear actually occurred. Defendant Mason

lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining

allegations contained in paragraph 6 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

7. Venue is also proper in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division because

Defendant does business and has employees located within this judicial district.

ANSWER: Defendant Mason states that the allegations contained in paragraph 7 of

Plaintiff’s Complaint constitute a legal conclusion to which no answer is required. To the extent

an answer is required, Defendant Mason states that the U of C does business and has employees

located within this judicial district. Defendant Mason denies the remaining allegations contained

in paragraph 7 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

Employment with the U of C

8. Coach Bear was hired by the U of C in June 2016 as an assistant football coach.

ANSWER: Defendant Mason states that Bear was an assistant football coach at the U

of C but lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth as to when and

under what terms or circumstances Bear held that position.

3
Case: 1:17-cv-06512 Document #: 23 Filed: 11/21/17 Page 4 of 19 PageID #:77

9. When being recruited for the position, Coach Bear was told by the U of C’s head

football coach, Chris Wilkerson (“Wilkerson”), that the U of C had a strong athletic department

and that he had the support of an “up and coming athletic director.”

ANSWER: Defendant Mason lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief

about the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 9 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

10. Wilkerson made multiple statements to Coach Bear regarding the U of C’s

commitment to excellence and desire to have a winning football team to entice him to work at the

U of C.

ANSWER: Defendant Mason lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief

about the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 10 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

11. For example, Wilkerson told Coach Bear that the football team was focused on

winning and that the job would give his career upward momentum, one day propelling him to be

a head coach.

ANSWER: Defendant Mason lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief

about the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 11 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

12. After Coach Bear began working at the U of C, he realized that the female Athletic

Director, Erin McDermott (“McDermott”), had little interest in either treating male coaches fairly

or building a strong football team.

ANSWER: Defendant Mason lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief

about the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 12 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

13. The U of C has a pattern of treating male coaches differently than female coaches.

For example, there was a loud verbal incident in the 2015-2016 school year with a female coach,

Amy Reifert, which resulted in a policy change and not a termination of her employment.

4
Case: 1:17-cv-06512 Document #: 23 Filed: 11/21/17 Page 5 of 19 PageID #:78

ANSWER: Defendant Mason lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief

about the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 13 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

Excessive tailgates

14. While the U of C has little interest in supporting the football team, they did have a

vested interest in profiting off the football team.

ANSWER: Defendant Mason lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief

about the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 14 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

15. To that end, McDermott would direct tables and tents to be set out around the

football field and specifically on 56th Street and its surrounding sidewalk and then allowing

unrestricted alcohol consumption by the students, alumni, and students’ parents that would attend

the games. 56th Street is in the Hyde Park neighborhood of Chicago.

ANSWER: Defendant Mason states that 56th Street is in the Hyde Park neighborhood

of Chicago and that tables and tents would at times be set out at and around U of C football games

for fans, including students, alumni and parents but lacks knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 15 of Plaintiff’s

Complaint.

16. At these tailgates, excessive drinking by students, alumni, and parents of students

occurred.

ANSWER: Defendant Mason lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief

about the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 16 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

17. The excessive drinking led to dangerous incidents. For example, on one occasion,

some of the students’ parents began shouting racial slurs at some of the other parents and a fight

almost broke out.

5
Case: 1:17-cv-06512 Document #: 23 Filed: 11/21/17 Page 6 of 19 PageID #:79

ANSWER: Defendant Mason lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief

about the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 17 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

18. Despite the unruliness and trespassing that occurred, the U of C refused to staff any

security at the tailgates in order to maintain order.

ANSWER: Defendant Mason states that he is unaware of unruliness and trespassing

that occurred and lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the

allegations contained in paragraph 18 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

19. On multiple occasions, the football coaching staff expressed concerns about the

danger that the tailgates threatened, but McDermott, on behalf of the U of C, failed to take any

action or have any security measures in place at football games.

ANSWER: Defendant Mason lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief

about the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 19 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

Mason’s history with the U of C

20. Mason is a parent of one of the students at the U of C.

ANSWER: As of November 2016, the facts stated in paragraph 20 of Plaintiff’s

Complaint are correct.

21. Upon information and belief, Mason had a long history of disruptive behavior

during tail gates at the U of C campus in Chicago.

ANSWER: Defendant Mason denies all the allegations contained in paragraph 21 of

Plaintiff’s Complaint.

22. Upon information and belief, such behavior included excessive drinking, personal

insults, and complaints and threats against the coaching staff for refusing to allow his son to play

more during games.

6
Case: 1:17-cv-06512 Document #: 23 Filed: 11/21/17 Page 7 of 19 PageID #:80

ANSWER: Defendant Mason denies all the allegations contained in paragraph 22 of

Plaintiff’s Complaint.

23. Mason would regularly email other parents of students and express frustration and

disappointment with the football coaching staff.

ANSWER: Defendant Mason denies all the allegations contained in paragraph 23 of

Plaintiff’s Complaint.

24. Mason made repeated complaints throughout the 2016 football season to other

parents regarding both Coach Bear and the other members of the coaching staff, blaming the team’s

inability to win every game on poor coaching and their refusal to play Mason’s son more often.

ANSWER: Defendant Mason states that at times in the 2016 football season he made

statements to other parents that may have been critical of the coaching staff and denies all the

remaining allegations contained in paragraph 24 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

25. Upon information and belief, some of the students’ parents began avoiding Mason

given his tendency to get drunk and unruly at tailgates and engage in derogatory treatment of the

football coaching staff.

ANSWER: Defendant Mason denies all the allegations contained in paragraph 25 of

Plaintiff’s Complaint.

26. Wilkerson, Coach Bear, and other members of the football coaching staff discussed

their concerns and frustrations with Mason repeatedly and made the issue known to McDermott

and the U of C.

ANSWER: Defendant Mason denies that Wilkerson, Bear, or any other member of the

football coaching staff ever discussed with Mason any concerns or frustrations about Mason,

denies that that they had concerns and frustrations with Mason, and lacks knowledge or

7
Case: 1:17-cv-06512 Document #: 23 Filed: 11/21/17 Page 8 of 19 PageID #:81

information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations contained in

paragraph 26 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

27. Upon information and belief, the U of C was aware that Mason was a threat to the

safety of the football coaching staff, but took no remedial action to end the risk.

ANSWER: Defendant Mason denies that he was a threat to the safety of the football

coaching staff and denies all the allegations contained in paragraph 27 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

The Incident

28. On November 12, 2016, the U of C men’s football team played a game against

Washington University’s team.

ANSWER: The facts stated in paragraph 28 of Plaintiff’s Complaint are correct.

29. Prior to this game, McDermott, an authorized agent of the U of C, had set up a

tailgate on 56th Street. Mason attended the tailgate.

ANSWER: Defendant Mason states that he attended a “tailgate” on and around 56th

Street, that he believes U of C personnel dropped off tables and trash cans in the tailgate area, that

the tables were set up in an appropriate setting by the football parents, and lacks knowledge or

information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations contained in

paragraph 29 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

30. Upon information and belief, Mason drank excessive amounts of alcohol during the

game and became increasingly disorderly. He did not return to the game after the second half but

elected to stay at the tailgate and continue drinking.

ANSWER: Defendant Mason denies all the allegations contained in paragraph 30 of

Plaintiff’s Complaint.

8
Case: 1:17-cv-06512 Document #: 23 Filed: 11/21/17 Page 9 of 19 PageID #:82

31. After the game, Coach Bear was in a restricted section of the stadium with other

coaches, player, and members of his family.

ANSWER: Defendant Mason lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief

about the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 31 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

32. Upon information and belief, after the game, Mr. Mason was drunk and shouting

belligerently at U of C employees to be let into the stadium.

ANSWER: Defendant Mason denies all the allegations contained in paragraph 32 of

Plaintiff’s Complaint.

33. Upon information and belief, as there was no security at the football game, Mason

was able to force his way into this restricted section.

ANSWER: Defendant Mason denies that he forced his way into a restricted section of

the stadium and denies that at the time alleged Bear was in a restricted area, but rather the area was

populated by parents, players and coaches of each team, and denies all the remaining allegations

contained in paragraph 33 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

34. Mason approached Coach Bear, violently grabbed him by the wrist, spun Coach

Bear towards himself and then began shouting at Coach Bear.

ANSWER: Defendant Mason denies all the allegations contained in paragraph 34 of

Plaintiff’s Complaint.

35. During the assault and battery of Coach Bear, Mason shouted the following:

a. “How dare you show sportsmanship to the other team!”

b. “You don’t care about the players!”

c. You don’t really care about the football team’s concussion protocol!”

9
Case: 1:17-cv-06512 Document #: 23 Filed: 11/21/17 Page 10 of 19 PageID #:83

ANSWER: Defendant Mason denies an assault and battery of Bear and lacks knowledge

or information sufficient to form a belief about the exact words he spoke to Bear, but recalls that

it was a single statement and believes it questioned Coach Bear on how he can show sportsmanship

to the other team and why he did not respect the university’s concussion protocol for his own

players, and denies all the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 35 of Plaintiff’s

Complaint.

36. Coach Bear verbally defended himself from Mason’s remarks, while reasonably

believing he was being attacked and assaulted by Mason.

ANSWER: Defendant Mason denies attacking or assaulting Bear or making any

remarks that required Bear to verbally defend himself. Instead, Bear was physically aggressive

toward Mason and had to be restrained and removed from the area. Defendant Mason denies the

remaining allegations contained in paragraph 36 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

37. Coach Bear then left the area and returned to his office.

ANSWER: Defendant Mason states that Bear was physically aggressive toward Mason

and had to be restrained and removed from the area. After Bear’s removal, Mason lacks knowledge

or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of where he went or the remaining

allegations contained in paragraph 37 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

38. Coach Bear waited in his office for over an hour, assuming that someone from the

athletic department would speak to him about the incident.

ANSWER: Defendant Mason lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief

about the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 38 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

10
Case: 1:17-cv-06512 Document #: 23 Filed: 11/21/17 Page 11 of 19 PageID #:84

39. Wilkerson reached out to Coach Bear to question what happened. During that

conversation, Wilkerson told Coach Bear that he had done a great job all season and that he loved

working with him.

ANSWER: Defendant Mason lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief

about the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 39 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

40. As no one else from the U of C reached out to Coach Bear while he was in his office

after the game, Coach Bear went home.

ANSWER: Defendant Mason lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief

about the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 40 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

41. On November 14, 2016, the U of C acting through McDermott told Coach Bear that

he was being placed on “investigative suspension.”

ANSWER: Defendant Mason lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief

about the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 41 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

42. During the course of the “investigation,” another parent of a U of C student sent an

email to McDermott in which he outlined the long, violent history of Mason’s behavior at football

games and his history of harassing other parents, students, and football coaches. A copy of a

redacted version of this email is attached as Exhibit A.

ANSWER: Defendant Mason denies any history of violent behavior or of harassing

other parents, students, and football coaches at football games and lacks knowledge or information

sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 42

of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

43. Other parents and coaches also voiced support for Coach Bear, acknowledging that

Mason assaulted and grabbed him.

11
Case: 1:17-cv-06512 Document #: 23 Filed: 11/21/17 Page 12 of 19 PageID #:85

ANSWER: Defendant Mason denies assaulting and grabbing Bear and lacks knowledge

or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations contained in

paragraph 43 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

44. Despite this support, McDermott told Coach Bear that he could either resign his

position with the U of C or else have his position terminated. Coach Bear elected to resign under

duress and to protect his effort to find other employment.

ANSWER: Defendant Mason lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief

about the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 44 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

COUNT I
Violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
(U of C)
Count I of Plaintiff’s Complaint is not directed to Defendant Mason and therefore he makes

no answer thereto. To the extent that any answer is called for, Defendant Mason makes a general

denial to all the allegations contained in Count I of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

COUNT II
Premises Liability
(U of C)
Count II of Plaintiff’s Complaint is not directed to Defendant Mason and therefore he

makes no answer thereto. To the extent that any answer is called for, Defendant Mason makes a

general denial to all the allegations contained in Count II of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

COUNT III
Assault
(Mason)

61. Coach Bear incorporates Paragraphs 1-44 as if fully stated herein.

ANSWER: Defendant Mason reasserts his answers to paragraphs 1-44 as and for his

answer to this paragraph 61 as if fully set forth herein.

12
Case: 1:17-cv-06512 Document #: 23 Filed: 11/21/17 Page 13 of 19 PageID #:86

62. On November 12, 2016, Mason forced his way into a restricted section of the U of

C football stadium and began violently screaming and harassing Coach Bear with the intent to

harm and/or frighten Coach Bear.

ANSWER: Defendant Mason denies all the allegations contained in paragraph 62 of

Plaintiff’s Complaint.

63. Due to Mason’s outrageous threatening conduct, Coach Bear reasonably felt that

there was an imminent threat of harm.

ANSWER: Defendant Mason denies engaging in any outrageous threatening conduct

and denies all the allegations contained in paragraph 63 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

64. Mason then grabbed Coach Bear’s wrist, spun him toward himself, and continued

screaming at him. Coach Bear was concerned for his safety.

ANSWER: Defendant Mason denies all the allegations contained in paragraph 64 of

Plaintiff’s Complaint.

65. As a direct result of Mason’s actions, Coach Bear has suffered physical, economic,

and emotional damages.

ANSWER: Defendant Mason denies the actions alleged and denies all the allegations

contained in paragraph 65 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

WHEREFORE, Defendant Mason denies that Bear is entitled to any relief whatsoever and

prays that judgment enter in favor of Defendant Mason and against Bear and that the court grant

such further relief it deems just, including the award of costs.

COUNT IV
Battery
(Mason)

66. Coach Bear incorporates Paragraph 1-44 as if fully stated herein.

13
Case: 1:17-cv-06512 Document #: 23 Filed: 11/21/17 Page 14 of 19 PageID #:87

ANSWER: Defendant Mason reasserts his answers to paragraphs 1-44 as and for his

answer to this paragraph 66 as if fully set forth herein.

67. On November 12, 2016, Mason forced his way into a restricted section of the

football stadium and began screaming at Coach Bear.

ANSWER: Defendant Mason denies all the allegations contained in paragraph 67 of

Plaintiff’s Complaint.

68. Mason then grabbed Coach Bear’s wrist, spun him toward himself, and continued

screaming at him.

ANSWER: Defendant Mason denies all the allegations contained in paragraph 68 of

Plaintiff’s Complaint.

69. Mason’s grabbing of Coach Bear was unauthorized.

ANSWER: Defendant Mason denies all the allegations contained in paragraph 69 of

Plaintiff’s Complaint.

70. The violent grabbing of Coach Bear’s wrist injured Coach Bear both physically and

emotionally, and Coach Bear has been damaged as a result.

ANSWER: Defendant Mason denies a violent grabbing of Bear’s wrist and denies all

the allegations contained in paragraph 70 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

WHEREFORE, Defendant Mason denies that Bear is entitled to any relief whatsoever and

prays that judgment enter in favor of Defendant Mason and against Bear and that the court grant

such further relief it deems just, including the award of costs.

COUNT V
Tortious Interference with Business Contracts
(Mason)

71. Plaintiff incorporates Paragraphs 1-44 as if fully stated herein.

14
Case: 1:17-cv-06512 Document #: 23 Filed: 11/21/17 Page 15 of 19 PageID #:88

ANSWER: Defendant Mason reasserts his answers to paragraphs 1-44 as and for his

answer to this paragraph 71 as if fully set forth herein.

72. Coach Bear had a reasonable anticipation of continued career advancement towards

becoming a head football coach when he accepted the position of assistant football coach at the U

of C.

ANSWER: Defendant Mason lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief

about the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 72 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

73. Upon information and belief, Mason was aware of Coach Bear’s professional

ambitions to become a head coach.

ANSWER: Defendant Mason denies all the allegations contained in paragraph 73 of

Plaintiff’s Complaint.

74. Mason had a history of misguided frustration with Coach Bear, as Coach Bear

would not allow Mason’s son to get more football playing time.

ANSWER: Defendant Mason denies all the allegations contained in paragraph 74 of

Plaintiff’s Complaint.

75. As such, Mason began contacting other parents to complain about Coach Bear and

other members of the U of C football coaching staff, seeking to have them replaced.

ANSWER: Defendant Mason denies all the allegations contained in paragraph 75 of

Plaintiff’s Complaint.

76. On November 12, 2016, Mason violently confronted Coach Bear in an unjustified

attempt to embarrass him and hurt his professional reputation and employment with the U of C.

ANSWER: Defendant Mason denies all the allegations contained in paragraph 76 of

Plaintiff’s Complaint.

15
Case: 1:17-cv-06512 Document #: 23 Filed: 11/21/17 Page 16 of 19 PageID #:89

77. Because of this incident, Coach Bear’s employment with the U of C was terminated

and Coach Bear’s chances at becoming a head football coach in the near future have been

substantially diminished.

ANSWER: Defendant Mason lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief

about the truth of the allegations as to why Bear’s employment with U of C ended but denies that

he was the cause of the termination and denies the remaining allegations contained in paragraph

77 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

78. Mason’s interference with Coach Bear’s business prospects was intentional,

willful, reckless, and unjustified.

ANSWER: Defendant Mason denies any interference with Bear’s business prospects

and denies the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 78 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

WHEREFORE, Defendant Mason denies that Bear is entitled to any relief whatsoever and

prays that judgment enter in favor of Defendant Mason and against Bear and that the court grant

such further relief it deems just, including the award of costs.

COUNT VI
Defamation
(Mason)
79. Plaintiff incorporate Paragraphs 1-44 as if fully stated herein.

ANSWER: Defendant Mason reasserts his answers to paragraphs 1-44 as and for his

answer to this paragraph 79 as if fully set forth herein.

80. On November 12, 2016, Mason forced his way into a restricted section of the

football stadium and began screaming at Coach Bear.

ANSWER: Defendant Mason denies all the allegations contained in paragraph 80 of

Plaintiff’s Complaint.

16
Case: 1:17-cv-06512 Document #: 23 Filed: 11/21/17 Page 17 of 19 PageID #:90

81. At the time, Coach Bear was surrounded by other members of the coaching staff,

football players, and his family.

ANSWER: Defendant Mason denies the premise of the allegations contained in

paragraph 81 of Plaintiff’s Complaint and therefore those allegations are denied. Defendant

Mason lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining

allegations contained in paragraph 81 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

82. In front of multiple witnesses, Mason shouted:

a. “How dare you show sportsmanship to the other team!”

b. “You don’t care about the players!”

c. You don’t really care about the football team’s concussion protocol!”

ANSWER: Defendant Mason lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief

about the exact words he spoke to Bear, but recalls that it was a single statement and believes it

questioned coach Bear on how he can show sportsmanship to the other team and why he did not

respect the university’s concussion protocol for his own players, and denies all the remaining

allegations contained in paragraph 82 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

83. Mason made these remarks knowing they were false.

ANSWER: Defendant Mason denies all the allegations contained in paragraph 83 of

Plaintiff’s Complaint.

84. Mason made these remarks with the intent of causing Coach Bear embarrassment

and harming his professional reputation.

ANSWER: Defendant Mason denies all the allegations contained in paragraph 84 of

Plaintiff’s Complaint.

17
Case: 1:17-cv-06512 Document #: 23 Filed: 11/21/17 Page 18 of 19 PageID #:91

85. Because of Mason’s actions, Coach Bear has suffered damages as his employment

with the U of C was terminated.

ANSWER: Defendant Mason denies all the allegations contained in paragraph 85 of

Plaintiff’s Complaint.

WHEREFORE, Defendant Mason denies that Bear is entitled to any relief whatsoever and

prays that judgment enter in favor of Defendant Mason and against Bear and that the court grant

such further relief it deems just, including the award of costs.

COUNTERCLAIM

Defendant, Jeff Mason, by his attorneys, states as follows for his Counterclaim against

John Bear:

COUNT I – ASSAULT

1. At the time and place alleged in the Plaintiff’s Complaint on November 12, 2016

following the U of C football game Counter-Defendant Bear was an assistant football coach for U

of C and Counter-Plaintiff Mason was a parent of one of the players on the U of C football team.

2. Counter-Defendant Bear, a former college football player, was approximately 32

years old and approximately 6 feet 3 inches tall and weighed approximately 260 pounds.

3. Counter-Plaintiff Mason, an investment professional, was 62 years old and

approximately 6 feet tall and weighed approximately 210 pounds.

4. While Mason was waiting with other parents and fans following the football game

Bear approached Mason in an aggressive manner, got face to face with him, and Bear shouted

“who the fuck are you?!” and continued to shout at Mason and had to be retrained and removed

from the area by others.

18
Case: 1:17-cv-06512 Document #: 23 Filed: 11/21/17 Page 19 of 19 PageID #:92

5. Although Bear and Mason did not have any physical contact at the time, other than

possibly incidental contact, Mason had a reasonable apprehension of an imminent battery by Bear

at the time.

6. The conduct of John Bear constitutes an assault.

7. Jeff Mason suffered damages as a direct result of the assault.

WHEREFORE, Counter-Plaintiff Jeff Mason prays that judgement enter in his favor and

against John Bear in an amount to be proven at trial, including punitive damages, and that the court

grant such further relief it deems just, including the award of costs.

Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/: Michael C. Bruck


Michael C. Bruck
Michael C. Bruck
William B. McAllister
WILLIAMS MONTGOMERY & JOHN LTD.
233 S. Wacker Dr., Suite 6100
Chicago, IL 60606
(312) 443-3235 / Fax: (312) 630-8535
Email: mcb@willmont.com
Email: wbm@willmont.com
Attorneys for Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff Jeff Mason

19