1:23-cv-01415-JEH # 19 Filed: 05/13/24 Page 1 of 22
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
`PEORIA DIVISION
`
`DAVID OGDEN,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Case No. 1:23-cv-01415-JES-JEH
`
`v.
`
`RIVIAN AUTOMOTIVE, LLC,
`
`Defendant.
`
`DEFENDANT’S ANSWER AND DEFENSES TO COMPLAINT
`
`Defendant Rivian Automotive, LLC submits its Answer and Defenses to Plaintiff David
`
`Ogden’s Complaint as follows:
`
`NATURE OF PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM
`
`COMPLAINT ¶1:
`
`This lawsuit arises under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 as
`amended, 29 U.S.C. 621 et sequentia, seeking redress for Defendant’s commission of age
`discrimination.
`
`ANSWER:
`
`Defendant admits that Plaintiff purports to bring this action claiming violations of the
`
`Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (“ADEA”). Defendant denies that it
`
`discriminated against Plaintiff or that it violated the referenced statute. Defendant denies that
`
`Plaintiff is entitled to any relief whatsoever and denies any remaining allegations in Paragraph 1.
`
`COMPLAINT ¶2:
`
`The Plaintiff will demonstrate, through facts, exhibits, citation of applicable case law,
`
`that
`
`he is a member of the protected class;
`
`he was performing well enough to meet his employer’s legitimate expectations;
`
`(a)
`
`(b)
`
`309536884v.5
`
`

`

`1:23-cv-01415-JEH # 19 Filed: 05/13/24 Page 2 of 22
`
`he suffered an adverse employment action; and
`
`similarly situated employees not in his protected class were treated more
`favorably. (See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973).
`Hildebrandt v. Illinois Department of Natural Resources, 347 F.3d 1014, 1030
`(7th Cir. 2003).
`
`(c)
`
`(d)
`
`ANSWER:
`
`Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 2.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`COMPLAINT ¶3:
`
`Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 USC 1331.
`
`ANSWER:
`
`Defendant admits the allegations in Paragraph 3.
`
`COMPLAINT ¶4:
`
`Venue of this action properly lies in the Central District of Illinois, Peoria Division,
`pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b) insofar as Defendant operates and transacts business in this
`judicial district and the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred within this District.
`
`ANSWER:
`
`Defendant admits that venue in this Court is proper. Defendant denies the remaining
`
`allegations in Paragraph 4.
`
`COMPLAINT ¶5:
`
`During the time in question, the Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an “employee”
`within the meaning set forth in section 11, 29 U.S.C. 630(f).
`
`ANSWER:
`
`Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to what Plaintiff
`
`means by “during the time in question,” and therefore denies the same. Defendant admits that it
`
`employed Plaintiff and that during the time of his employment with Defendant, he was an
`
`309536884v.5
`
`2
`
`

`

`1:23-cv-01415-JEH # 19 Filed: 05/13/24 Page 3 of 22
`
`“employee” as that term is defined by 29 U.S.C. § 630(f). Defendant denies any remaining
`
`allegations in Paragraph 5.
`
`COMPLAINT ¶6:
`
`Throughout the applicable limitations period, Rivian Automotive employed in excess of
`1,000 employees at the Normal, Illinois manufacturing facility and thus the Defendant meets the
`requirement of “twenty or more employees”, and is thus an “employer” as defined by section 11,
`29 U.S.C. 630(b).
`
`ANSWER:
`
`Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to what Plaintiff
`
`means by “throughout the applicable limitations period,” and therefore denies the same.
`
`Defendant admits the remaining allegations in Paragraph 6.
`
`ADMINISTRATIVE PRE-QUALIFICATIONS
`
`COMPLAINT ¶7:
`
`The Plaintiff has fulfilled and complied with all conditions precedent to proceed with this
`Complaint as required by 29 CFR 1926.
`
`ANSWER:
`
`Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
`
`allegations in Paragraph 7, and therefore denies the same.
`
`COMPLAINT ¶8:
`
`On July 29, 2022, the Plaintiff filed a charge of age discrimination with the EEOC, which
`was assigned a case number of 440-2022-08962, and is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
`
`ANSWER:
`
`Defendant denies that anything was attached to the Complaint as Exhibit A. Defendant
`
`lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining
`
`allegations in Paragraph 8, and therefore denies the same.
`
`309536884v.5
`
`3
`
`

`

`1:23-cv-01415-JEH # 19 Filed: 05/13/24 Page 4 of 22
`
`COMPLAINT ¶9:
`
`On August 10, 2023, the Plaintiff received an “Determination and Notice of Rights”
`email from Isabel Jeremiah of the EEOC informing Ogden that EEOC was ending its
`investigation and would not be filing a complaint against the Defendant, Rivian Motors, LLC.
`This email is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
`
`ANSWER:
`
`Defendant denies that anything was attached to the Complaint as Exhibit B. Defendant
`
`lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining
`
`allegations in Paragraph 9, and therefore denies the same.
`
`COMPLAINT ¶10:
`
`This Complaint has been filed within ninety (90) days of his receipt of the EEOC’s
`Dismissal and Notice of Right to Sue
`
`ANSWER:
`
`Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
`
`allegations in Paragraph 10, and therefore denies the same.
`
`COMPLAINT ¶11:
`
`At all times material to the allegations of this Plaintiff resided in Bond County, Illinois.
`
`ANSWER:
`
`Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to what Plaintiff
`
`means by “at all times material to the allegations of this,” and therefore denies the same. Upon
`
`information and belief, Defendant admits the remaining allegations in Paragraph 11.
`
`COMPLAINT ¶12:
`
`At all times material to the allegations in this Complaint, Defendant was a corporation
`doing business in and for McLean County, Illinois, whose address is 2450 Electric Avenue,
`Normal, Illinois.
`
`ANSWER:
`
`Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 12.
`
`309536884v.5
`
`4
`
`

`

`1:23-cv-01415-JEH # 19 Filed: 05/13/24 Page 5 of 22
`
`BACKGROUND AND FACTS
`
`COMPLAINT ¶13:
`
`Prior to his employment with the Defendant, all interviews were conducted via telephone
`or electronically rather than in person, so by happenstance the Defendant and its agents were
`unable to ascertain Ogden’s age.
`
`ANSWER:
`
`Defendant denies that, prior Plaintiff’s employment with it, all interviews were conducted
`
`via telephone or electronically rather than in person. Upon information and belief, Defendant
`
`admits that Plaintiff’s interviews were conducted via telephone and/or Zoom. Defendant admits
`
`that Plaintiff did not disclose his age during the interview process. Defendant denies any
`
`remaining allegations in Paragraph 13.
`
`COMPLAINT ¶14:
`
`The Plaintiff began working on-site at the Normal, Illinois manufacturing facility as a
`Senior Safety Engineer on July 06, 2021. Throughout his employment with Rivian Motors, the
`Plaintiff’s supervisor, Jessica Siron, rated his work as a senior safety engineer as excellent.
`Ogden’s exemplary performance is reflected in his “BetterWorks” reviews, which are attached as
`Exhibit C.
`
`ANSWER:
`
`Defendant admits that it hired Plaintiff as a Sr. Safety Engineer, and that Plaintiff began
`
`working at its manufacturing facility in Normal, Illinois on July 6, 2021 reporting to Jessica
`
`Siron. Defendant denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 14.
`
`COMPLAINT ¶15:
`
`The enthusiasm and professionalism of Ogden’s performance is reflected in comments
`Ogden received from his supervisor, Jessica Siron. Siron informed Ogden that of the (34)
`persons in her group, Ogden was the only employee who rated his satisfaction in his position as a
`“Five” on a scale of 1 to 5.
`
`ANSWER:
`
`Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 15.
`
`309536884v.5
`
`5
`
`

`

`1:23-cv-01415-JEH # 19 Filed: 05/13/24 Page 6 of 22
`
`COMPLAINT ¶16:
`
`From the onset of his employment, it became apparent that Ogden was in a distinct
`minority in that virtually every employee at Rivian was under 45 years of age. Rivian seemed
`preoccupied with doing everything different, and rejecting the norms of the automotive industry.
`The pervasive ‘youth culture’ is reflected by the Rivian website in which everyone appears to be
`under 40 years of age (Exhibit D). Images of exclusively young people camping and driving
`Rivian vehicles constantly flashed on the screensavers of every meeting room video monitor.
`
`ANSWER:
`
`Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 16.
`
`COMPLAINT ¶17:
`
`The profound absence of experienced workers in the workforce who understood
`manufacturing protocols and norms precipitated numerous chronic EHS issues, such as
`employees failing to wear protective eyewear on the shop floor. The public-facing website video
`of a young man riding a skateboard through the Rivian factory while chatting on a cell phone and
`not wearing safety glasses, projecting a message that ‘we don’t need to follow all those old-
`fashioned factory rules’ (Exhibit E).
`
`ANSWER:
`
`Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 17.
`
`COMPLAINT ¶18:
`
`Beginning in October 2021, a new EHS (Environmental Health and Safety) Director,
`Andrew Wehr, was hired by Rivian, supplanting Jessica Siron as the senior EHS leadership.
`Soon the Plaintiff became aware of a pervasive toxic workplace environment in which his age
`was perceived by some as a point of belittlement. Ogden was singled out for ridiculous
`criticisms and the terms and conditions of employment became different than others not within
`Plaintiff’s protected class, e.g. those approximately under 40 years of age.
`
`ANSWER:
`
`Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 18.
`
`Rivian attempted to bamboozle Ogden with a false charge of using a racial slur
`
`ANSWER:
`
`Defendant denies the allegations in this heading.
`
`309536884v.5
`
`6
`
`

`

`1:23-cv-01415-JEH # 19 Filed: 05/13/24 Page 7 of 22
`
`COMPLAINT ¶19:
`
`On Tuesday, November 23, 2021, Ogden was summoned by HR Specialist Aaron Wynn
`to a private meeting. Wynn proceeded to blindside Ogden with the assertion that he had “used a
`racial slur against Asian Americans.” Ogden assured Wynn that he would never do such a
`thing. Wynn resisted Ogden’s repeated queries to disclose the time and place of the alleged
`“racial slur”. Eventually Wynn revealed that the incident had occurred on November 11th on the
`Rivian bus which transports employees between the manufacturing facility and north parking lot,
`but Wynn refused to disclose the date or person who may have been offended by the alleged
`comment.
`
`ANSWER:
`
`Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 19.
`
`COMPLAINT ¶20:
`
`In their allegation of a ‘racial slur’, the Defendant, through their agent HR Specialist
`Aaron Wynn, contemptuously failed to follow their own investigation protocol. Page 3 of
`Rivian’s Employee Handbook, “Reporting and Investigating Harassment”, states that persons
`reporting inappropriate behavior “report . . . the names of any witnesses”. and that “All claims
`will be investigated in a timely, objective and thorough manner”. Rivian and Wynn exhibited
`discriminatory treatment against Ogden by conveniently overlooking these policy requirements
`and limiting their accusations to those of a unknown third-person who was not participating in
`Ogden and Gale’s compassionate and thoughtful historical conversation. (Rivian Employee
`Handbook is provided as Exhibit F)
`
`ANSWER:
`
`Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 20.
`
`COMPLAINT ¶21:
`
`If Wynn had interviewed the second participant in the bus conversation, Ryan Gale had
`been interviewed as a “witness”, Wynn would have objectively determined that the topic of
`conversation between Ogden and Gale was a historical discussion of events pertinent to the
`Memorial Day holiday and the sacrifice of our nation’s soldiers. Ryan Gale was asking Ogden
`about the motivation necessary to train soldiers to shoot enemy combatants on a battlefield.
`Ogden related the experience of his own Father who trained as an Army infantryman in 1950 and
`served in Korea. Ogden related to Gale how army trainers at Fort Ord, California referred to the
`enemy as g**ks during his Father’s training.
`
`ANSWER:
`
`Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 21.
`
`309536884v.5
`
`7
`
`

`

`1:23-cv-01415-JEH # 19 Filed: 05/13/24 Page 8 of 22
`
`COMPLAINT ¶22:
`
`Rivian’s false ‘racial slur’ accusation is a prima facia discriminatory action against
`Ogden. Public Records reveal Aaron Wynn has a long history of ‘union busting’ and aggressive
`behavior against employees at other ‘Big Three’ facilities. The fact that Ogden’s father was a
`veteran of a conflict seven decades past suggests that Ogden himself is too old to work at up and
`coming, youthful Rivian.
`
`ANSWER:
`
`Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 22.
`
`Rivian disciplined Ogden for dutifully performing his normal duties which
`he and other Safety Engineers performed on a daily basis
`
`ANSWER:
`
`Defendant denies the allegations in this heading.
`
`COMPLAINT ¶23:
`
`During the period of April 04 through April 15, fellow safety engineers Ben Woods and
`Chris Pilkey conducted inspections of catwalk structures in the RPV (Rivian Parcel Van) body
`shop and found them to be unacceptable. In several morning meetings, Woods, Pilkey and
`Ogden discussed pervasive fabrication quality issues and agreed catwalk fabrication activities
`should be more closely scrutinized.
`
`ANSWER:
`
`Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
`
`allegations in Paragraph 23, and therefore denies the same.
`
`COMPLAINT ¶24:
`
`On the night of March 16, Ogden was in the plant between 11 PM and 1 AM March 17
`responding to concern of night-shift fabrication foreman and contractor Brian Wallinger. Prior
`to examining the catwalk area, Ogden discussed the installation with the fabrication foreman and
`his serious and well-founded concern that sparks and debris from the upper handrailing
`fabrication were jeopardizing approximately $250,000+ critically needed battery packs
`improperly stored immediately beneath the hot work area. Ogden’s proactive actions were
`couched in preventing a repetition of numerous battery fires, including a serious battery fire on
`October 26, 2021 which had resulted in the evacuation of the entire facility.
`
`309536884v.5
`
`8
`
`

`

`1:23-cv-01415-JEH # 19 Filed: 05/13/24 Page 9 of 22
`
`ANSWER:
`
`Defendant denies that evacuated the entire facility on October 26, 2021. Defendant lacks
`
`knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations
`
`in Paragraph 24, and therefore denies the same.
`
`COMPLAINT ¶25:
`
`Rather than being complemented for his proactive efforts, the events of Ogden’s
`inspection were contemptuously distorted and Ogden was reprimanded on March 19, 2022.
`
`ANSWER:
`
`Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 25.
`
`COMPLAINT ¶26:
`
`The events of Ogden’s March 16 inspection were deliberately distorted by Rivian. The
`Defendant’s attorney Smentek incorrectly asserts that inspecting the catwalk “he was not
`involved in project work”. This is patently untrue. Unlike the EHS Department Partners, each
`Senior Safety Engineer was responsible for promoting safety and best practices throughout the
`entirety of Rivian’s 3.1 million square foot facility. Additionally, because of his experience in
`general industry, Ogden was specifically assigned to “plant infrastructure, the paint department,
`and continuous improvement”. The area in question on “March 19 (sic)” was an overhead
`catwalk which IS plant infrastructure. (photographs of the catwalk are provided in Exhibit G)
`
`ANSWER:
`
`Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 26.
`
`COMPLAINT ¶27:
`
`Rivian / Smentek’s claim that Ogden violated any rule by crossing red tape is
`preposterous. EVERY Rivian Safety Engineer crossed red tape on a daily basis to perform their
`duties, as did thousands of contractors, engineers and other professionals. According to the
`Rivian Safe Tag standard, Clause 4.5, “The commissioning safety barrier / zone and controlled
`access will remain in place and operational until the cross functional team has approved its
`removal.” As a “Key stakeholder” Ogden was charged with inspecting the progress and
`completeness of infrastructure projects as Ogden is a “responsible party will mark completion
`for each task by initialing their respective name. Final signoffs for each sheet will require
`verification that tasks were completed” It should also be noted that Ogden was a contributing
`author to the Rivian Safe Tag standard. (A copy of the Rivian Safe Tag Standard, portion of
`which were written by Ogden, are attached as Exhibit H)
`
`309536884v.5
`
`9
`
`

`

`1:23-cv-01415-JEH # 19 Filed: 05/13/24 Page 10 of 22
`
`ANSWER:
`
`Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 27.
`
`COMPLAINT ¶28:
`
`The Defendant’s assertion through Smentek that Ogden “violated Rivian Safety protocols
`and exposed him to several fall hazards that exceeded 20 feet” is completely erroneous. In fact
`the wire mesh side and back guards were installed for the entirety of the catwalk support
`structure traversed by Ogden. These side and back guards were welded in place to a point 42”
`above the walking surface as required by both NFPA 101 and the IBC (International Building
`Code). The hot work which concerned Wallinger was the finishing of upper handrail surfaces.
`
`ANSWER:
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 28.
`
`COMPLAINT ¶29:
`
`Ogden would suggest the ‘corrective interview’ of March 19 is also motivated by
`retribution because Ogden had been strict in citing serious deficiencies for elevated sections of
`the RPV skid return system on December 22, 2021
`
`ANSWER:
`
`Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 29.
`
`Ogden’s timely and professional emergency response on July 4, 2022 was deliberately and
`contemptuously distorted to provide false pretense for Ogden’s wrongful dismissal
`
`ANSWER:
`
`Defendant denies the allegations in this heading.
`
`COMPLAINT ¶30:
`
`On the evening of July 4 there were fewer than (30) people in the entire Rivian
`manufacturing plant. Forgoing Independence Day celebrations, Ogden was diligently
`completing risk assessment studies in the cavernous paint shop when Ogden discovered flood
`waters near column K-51 and immediately contacted security at 18:49.
`
`ANSWER:
`
`Defendant denies that there were fewer than 30 people in the entire Rivian manufacturing
`
`plant on the evening of July 4. Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a
`
`belief as to the remaining allegations in Paragraph 30, and therefore denies the same.
`
`309536884v.5
`
`10
`
`

`

`1:23-cv-01415-JEH # 19 Filed: 05/13/24 Page 11 of 22
`
`COMPLAINT ¶31:
`
`In fact, Ogden was well acquainted with the operation, controls and wiring within
`enclosure P1P1V1+PC01 and its effect on the pre-treat tanks. The importance of isolating
`electrical energy in the event of a flood or a threat of submersion is a fundamental of emergency
`preparedness and response. Responding parties including Paint Maintenance Supervisor Peter J.
`Neill and Greg Williamson thanked Ogden for responding quickly to the emergency and taking
`appropriate and measured actions.
`
`ANSWER:
`
`Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to what Ogden was “well
`
`acquainted with,” and therefore denies the same. Upon information and belief, Defendant denies
`
`the remaining allegations in Paragraph 31.
`
`COMPLAINT ¶32:
`
`Ogden’s prompt and professional reaction to the flood prevented significant financial loss
`to Rivian. But rather than thanking Ogden for his diligence, the facts were deliberately and
`contemptuously distorted so as to provide false pretense for Ogden’s wrongful dismissal
`
`ANSWER:
`
`Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 32.
`
`COMPLAINT ¶33:
`
`The Defendant through their attorney Sharilee Smentek erroneously asserts “Ogden
`unnecessarily de-energized electrical panels without authorization resulting in a loss of data”
`and thus Ogden’s termination is not due to a protected status per Watson v. Potter Northern 2009
`WL 424467 (Northern District Illinois Feb 19, 2009). Attorney Smentek is completely
`uninformed. In fact. the volatile memory of this equipment (tank temperature, production
`throughput data, chemical dosing history, etc.) is retained & backed-up in other areas of the
`integrated MES including CPUs located within the master control enclosure located at Column
`H-34.
`
`ANSWER:
`
`Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 33.
`
`COMPLAINT ¶34:
`
`In the follow-up to the flood event, no other members were subjected to such ridiculous
`disciplinary measures members as was Ogden. Throughout the emergency, Ogden was wearing
`protective eyewear and safety shoes. One of the respondents, Carla Neill arrived at the scene
`wearing flip-flops and no protective eyewear. Carla Neill was never reprimanded for improper
`
`309536884v.5
`
`11
`
`

`

`1:23-cv-01415-JEH # 19 Filed: 05/13/24 Page 12 of 22
`
`use of PPE. To the contrary, Ogden gave HIS eyewear to Carla Neill then promptly departed the
`building.
`
`ANSWER:
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 34.
`
`Count I
`
`Defendant Rivian subjected Petitioner to harassment and thus committed Age-based
`discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
`
`ANSWER:
`
`Defendant denies the allegations in this heading.
`
`COMPLAINT ¶35:
`
`Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 - 34 as if fully stated herein.
`
`ANSWER:
`
`Defendant reasserts and incorporates by reference its answers to Paragraphs 1-34 above
`
`as its answer to Paragraph 35 of this Count I.
`
`COMPLAINT ¶36:
`
`Despite his 15 years previous experience as a machine designer and builder, Ogden was
`never allowed to perform off-site FAT (Factory Acceptance Tests), as Ogden was informed by a
`manager that “being on the road gets tougher as you get older”.
`
`ANSWER:
`
`Defendant lacks knowledge or information knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations in Paragraph 36, and therefore denies the same.
`
`COMPLAINT ¶37:
`
`One of Ogden’s responsibilities was inspecting equipment as part of the “Rivian Safe
`Tag” approval process. After inspecting an overhead mezzanine on December 29, 2021, Ogden
`found excessive structural beam deflection and many of the fasteners supporting 20+ tons of
`overhanging steel were missing or improperly installed. Ogden attempted to impart the
`importance of structural integrity to Rivian engineers Evan Dunn and Will Zochodne, citing the
`loss of over a hundred lives in the catastrophic collapse of the Kansas City Hyatt Regency
`skywalk in 1981. Zochodne rebuffed Ogden’s warning, “This conveyance project is on a strict
`timeline and we don’t have time for your old-man stories”.
`
`309536884v.5
`
`12
`
`

`

`1:23-cv-01415-JEH # 19 Filed: 05/13/24 Page 13 of 22
`
`ANSWER:
`
`Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 37.
`
`COMPLAINT ¶38:
`
`On or about January 5, 2022, Ogden was informed by a manager that “in today’s
`workplace, we don’t read emails on computer screens, so use more abbreviated communications
`with small picture files such as Slack”, and to “refrain from explaining why . . . younger
`engineers don’t read emails so don’t go into details”.
`
`ANSWER:
`
`Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 38.
`
`COMPLAINT ¶39:
`
`On the morning of June 7, 2022 Ogden was working in the EHS department’s open office
`area. Ogden engaged Andrew Wehr in a conversation regarding the new Rivian manufacturing
`facility in Georgia and that he (Ogden) would be happy to help with any on-site activities in
`Georgia. Wehr responded by commenting on Ogden’s hair color was “looking a little bit
`different” and suggested that “it looks like you are getting some white hair”.
`
`ANSWER:
`
`Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
`
`allegations in Paragraph 39, and therefore denies the same.
`
`COMPLAINT ¶40:
`
`The Defendant knew or should have known of this harassment.
`
`ANSWER:
`
`Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 40.
`
`COMPLAINT ¶41:
`
`The age harassment was severe or pervasive.
`
`ANSWER:
`
`Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 41.
`
`COMPLAINT ¶42:
`
`The age harassment was offensive subjectively and objectively.
`
`309536884v.5
`
`13
`
`

`

`1:23-cv-01415-JEH # 19 Filed: 05/13/24 Page 14 of 22
`
`ANSWER:
`
`Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 42.
`
`COMPLAINT ¶43:
`
`Plaintiff was 65 years of age at the time of these events and hence a member of a
`protected class under the Age Discrimination Act of 1964.
`
`ANSWER:
`
`Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
`
`allegations in Paragraph 43, and therefore denies the same.
`
`COMPLAINT ¶44:
`
`Defendant acted in willful and reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s protected rights. As a
`direct and proximate result of the discrimination described above, Plaintiff has suffered and
`continues to suffer loss of employment, loss of income, loss of other employment benefits and
`has suffered and continues to suffer mental anguish, distress, humiliation, and loss of enjoyment
`of life.
`
`ANSWER:
`
`Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 44.
`
`Count II
`
`Defendant Rivian subjected Petitioner to different standards than other employees and
`thus committed Age-based discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in
`Employment Act of 1967
`
`ANSWER:
`
`Defendant denies the allegations in this heading.
`
`COMPLAINT ¶45:
`
`Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 44 as if fully stated herein.
`
`ANSWER:
`
`Defendant reasserts and incorporates by reference its answers to Paragraphs 1-44 above
`
`as its answer to Paragraph 45 of this Count II.
`
`309536884v.5
`
`14
`
`

`

`1:23-cv-01415-JEH # 19 Filed: 05/13/24 Page 15 of 22
`
`COMPLAINT ¶46:
`
`The “Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, and amended in 1978, 1990, and
`1996 - 29 U.S. Code § 623(a) states “Employer practices - It shall be unlawful for an
`employer— (1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual or otherwise discriminate
`against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of
`employment, because of such individual’s age;
`
`ANSWER:
`
`Paragraph 46 contains two open quotation marks and no close quotation marks;
`
`accordingly, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to which
`
`text Plaintiff claims to be quoting from the ADEA, and therefore denies the same. Defendant
`
`admits that the ADEA states “(a) Employer practices It shall be unlawful for an employer— (1)
`
`to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual or otherwise discriminate against any
`
`individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment,
`
`because of such individual’s age”.
`
`COMPLAINT ¶47:
`
`On July 12, 2022 Rivian Motors dismissed Ogden for actions which were different than
`those expected by other employees. The Defendant’s conduct including but not limited to
`incidents described herein and leading to Ogden’s dismissal constitutes a pattern or practice of
`systemic age discrimination that constitutes illegal intentional age discrimination.
`
`ANSWER:
`
`Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 47.
`
`COMPLAINT ¶48:
`
`The Plaintiff was subjected to and harmed by Defendant’s systemic and individual
`discrimination.
`
`ANSWER:
`
`Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 48.
`
`COMPLAINT ¶49:
`
`Defendant’s unlawful conduct resulted in considerable harm and adverse employment
`actions to Plaintiff and he is therefore entitled to all legal and equitable remedies and full relief
`
`309536884v.5
`
`15
`
`

`

`1:23-cv-01415-JEH # 19 Filed: 05/13/24 Page 16 of 22
`
`which places him/her in the position s/he would have been in absent the agency’s discriminatory
`conduct. See Albermarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405, 418-419 (1975).
`
`ANSWER:
`
`Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 49.
`
`Count III - Defendant’s actions resulted in a “disparate impact” in violation of the Age
`Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
`
`ANSWER:
`
`Defendant denies the allegations in this heading.
`
`COMPLAINT ¶50:
`
`Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 49 as if fully stated herein.
`
`ANSWER:
`
`Defendant reasserts and incorporates by reference its answers to Paragraphs 1-49 above
`
`as its answer to Paragraph 50 of this Count III.
`
`COMPLAINT ¶51:
`
`According to 29 U.S.C. 623(a) “It shall be unlawful for an employer (2) to limit,
`segregate, or classify his employees in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any
`individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee,
`because of such individual’s age”
`
`ANSWER:
`
`Defendant admits the allegations in Paragraph 51.
`
`COMPLAINT ¶52:
`
`The use of statistics is well established as allowable in both Title VII and Age
`Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) cases (Schulz v. Hickok Mfg. Co., 358 F. Supp.
`1208, 1213 (N.D. Ga. 1973), citing Parham v. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co., 433 F.2d 421 (8th Cir.
`1970)).
`
`ANSWER:
`
`Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 52.
`
`309536884v.5
`
`16
`
`

`

`1:23-cv-01415-JEH # 19 Filed: 05/13/24 Page 17 of 22
`
`COMPLAINT ¶53:
`
`According to the EEOC handbook, CM-604 Theories of Discrimination, EEOC-CVG-
`1988-13, section 604.3 (b) Statistical Evidence — “Statistical evidence can be relevant in
`proving an individual case of disparate treatment because it is evidence of the presence of a
`discriminatory motive.” (See Teamsters v. United States 431 U.S. 324, 1977)
`
`ANSWER:
`
`Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 53.
`
`COMPLAINT ¶54:
`
`The statistical model appropriate to demonstrate age discrimination is often referred to as
`the “Five percent Rule”. This rule is based on the statistical data is significant when the
`coefficient of the relevant correlation is at least two standard deviations away from zero. In
`other words, unless there is no more than a 5 percent probability that a statistical correlation
`between the dependent variable (such as whether terminated) and the independent variable
`having legal significance (such as age) would be observed even if the variables were
`uncorrelated in the population from which the sample was drawn. (See Anderson v. Douglas
`Lomason Co., Inc., 26 F.3d 1277, 1291 n. 26 (5th Cir. 1994); Ottaviani v. State University of
`New York, 875 F.2d 365, 371-72 (2d Cir. 1989); Segar v. Smith, 738 F.2d 1249, 1282-83 (D.C.
`Cir. 1984); Bennett v. Total Minatome Corp., 138 F.3d 1053, 1062 (5th Cir. 1998); Schechner v.
`KPIX-TV and CBS Broadcasting, Inc. 686 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir. 2012))
`
`ANSWER:
`
`Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 54.
`
`COMPLAINT ¶55:
`
`By virtue of their organizational practices and policies to be demonstrated by an impartial
`statistical analysis of Rivian’s employee demographics versus the available workforce of the
`greater Bloomington-Normal Illinois area, and 2020 U.S. Census data, the Defendant
`discriminated against Plaintiff based on his age, in violation of 29 U.S.C. 623.
`
`ANSWER:
`
`Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 55.
`
`COMPLAINT ¶56:
`
`Defendant’s conduct toward Plaintiff illustrated a willful and/or reckless violation of Age
`Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 as amended, 29 U.S.C. 621 et sequentia.
`
`ANSWER:
`
`Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 56.
`
`309536884v.5
`
`17
`
`

`

`1:23-cv-01415-JEH # 19 Filed: 05/13/24 Page 18 of 22
`
`COMPLAINT ¶57:
`
`As a direct and proximate result of the above-alleged willful and/or reckless acts of
`Defendant, Plaintiff has suffered damages of a pecuniary and non-pecuniary nature, humiliation,
`and degradation.
`
`ANSWER:
`
`Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 57.
`
`COMPLAINT ¶58:
`
`By reason of Defendant’s discrimination, Plaintiff suffered severe harm and is entitled to
`all legal and equitable remedies. (See Albermarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405, 418-419,
`1975)
`
`ANSWER:
`
`Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 58.
`
`RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`COMPLAINT ¶59:
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court find in Plaintiff’s favor and
`against Defendant as follows:
`
`Back pay with interest;
`
`Payment of interest on all back pay recoverable;
`
`Compensatory and punitive damages;
`
`Reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs;
`
`Award pre judgment interest if