Case 6:10-cv-06333-TC

Document 29

Filed 08/05/11

Page 1 of 4

Page ID#: 193

Richard A. Roseta, OSB #722181 rickroseta@brownroseta.com Brown, Roseta, Long, McConville & Kilcullen 44 Club Road, Suite 210 Eugene, OR 97401 Phone: 541-686-1883 Fax: 541-686-2008 Attorneys for Defendants WESD and Novotney

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON EUGENE, OREGON MAUREEN T. CASEY, Plaintiff, v. WILLAMETTE EDUCATION SERVICE DISTRICT, a political subdivision of the State of Oregon and public body corporate, DAVE NOVOTNEY, individually and as an employee of WESD, and JACK STOOPS, individually and as an agent of WESD, Defendants. Come now Defendants Willamette Education Service District and Dave Novotney and for Answer and Affirmative Defense to the Complaint on file herein admit, deny and allege as follows: 1. Defendants deny paragraph 1 of Plaintiffs Complaint. Case No. 6:10-cv-06333-TC ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES OF DEFENDANTS WILLAMETTE EDUCATION SERVICE DISTRICT AND DAVE NOVOTNEY

Case 6:10-cv-06333-TC

Document 29

Filed 08/05/11

Page 2 of 4

Page ID#: 194

2. Defendants admit jurisdiction. 3. Defendants admit paragraphs 3, 5 and 6 of the Complaint on file. 4. Among other duties, Superintendent Casey had those duties outlined in paragraph 7 of Complaint on file herein. 5. Defendants admit that Dr. Casey had a written employment contract that expired on June 30, 2010. 6. Defendants deny paragraph 9 of the Complaint. 7. Defendants deny paragraphs 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 15.2. 8. Defendants admit that Dr. Casey was placed on administrative leave by the WESD Board pending further investigation. Defendants deny the remainder of paragraph 16. 9. Defendants deny paragraphs 17, 18, 19 and 20 of the Complaint on file. 10. Defendants admit that Dr. Casey was notified by letter of September 25, 2009 of the Boards intent to recommend termination of Superintendent for cause. Defendants deny the remainder of paragraph 21. 11.

Case 6:10-cv-06333-TC

Document 29

Filed 08/05/11

Page 3 of 4

Page ID#: 195

Defendants deny paragraphs 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, and 28 of the Complaint on file. 12. Defendants admit that WESD received a tort claim notice from Campbell. Defendants deny the remainder of paragraphs 29 13. Defendants deny paragraphs 30 and 31. 14. Except as admitted above or hereinafter alleged, Defendants deny each and every other allegation, matter and thing contained in the Plaintiffs Complaint and the whole thereof. * * * * *

FOR THEIR FIRST ANSWER AND BY WAY OF AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT DEFENDANTS ALLEGE AS FOLLOWS: FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 15. Plaintiff waived her due process claims by declining to participate in a hearing before the Board of Directors of WESD. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 16. Defendants are absolutely privileged because they were operating in the exercise of their official duties. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 17. Defendants are immune in so far as their conduct did not violate clearly established

Case 6:10-cv-06333-TC

Document 29

Filed 08/05/11

Page 4 of 4

Page ID#: 196

statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 18. Plaintiff has failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a claim for relief against Willamette Education Service District and Dave Novotney as an individual and as an employee of Willamette Education Service District. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 19. At all times, Defendants were exercising their discretion under the laws of the State of Oregon, and therefore are immune from liability. WHEREFORE, Defendants pray for a dismissal of the Complaint and recovery of their costs and disbursements incurred herein. DATED this 5 th day of August, 2011.

/s/ Richard A. Roseta

Richard A. Roseta, OSB #722181 (541) 686-1883 Attorney for Defendants WESD and Novotney ### Submitted by:

/s/ Richard A. Roseta

cc: via electronic service: Judy Snyder judy@jdsnyder.com cc: via electronic service: Gregory Lusby glusby@agsprp.com