Case: 4:23-cv-01030-MTS Doc. #: 38 Filed: 08/27/24 Page: 1 of 26 PageID #:
`424
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
`EASTERN DIVISION
`
`THOMAS WHITEHILL,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
` Civil Action No. 4:23-cv-01030
`
`ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS
`LP,
`
`Defendant.
`
`DEFENDANT ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP’S ANSWER TO
`PLAINTIFF’S PETITION AND OTHER DEFENSES
`
`Defendant AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP (“AstraZeneca” or “Defendant”), pursuant to
`Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby answers the allegations contained in the
`Petition (Dkt. 6) filed by Plaintiff Thomas Whitehill (“Whitehill” or “Plaintiff”), as limited by
`Plaintiff’s withdrawal of his Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Claims for Relief
`(see Dkt. 21 at 2, the “Withdrawal”) and the Court’s order of August 13, 2024, dismissing
`Plaintiff’s Third Claim for Relief (Dkt. 36, the “Order”),1 This Answer does not include responses
`to any headings or subheading. To the extent any of the headings or subheadings in the Petition
`contain factual averments, AstraZeneca denies those allegations. AstraZeneca states as follows.
`GENERAL DENIAL
`Defendant denies each and every allegation of the Petition not specifically admitted herein.
`
`1 Pursuant to the Withdrawal and the Order, Plaintiff only has one remaining claim: his First Claim
`for Relief alleging religious discrimination under the Missouri Human Rights Act, Section 312.010
`et seq.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case: 4:23-cv-01030-MTS Doc. #: 38 Filed: 08/27/24 Page: 2 of 26 PageID #:
`425
`
`PARTIES, VENUE, AND JURISDICTION2
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff Whitehill’s date of birth is February 15, 1966.
`
`RESPONSE: Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny the
`
`allegations in this Paragraph. Moreover, Plaintiff has withdrawn his Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth,
`
`Seventh, and Eighth Claims for Relief, see Withdrawal at 2, and the Court has dismissed Plaintiff’s
`
`Third Claim for Relief, see Order at 5. Therefore, no response to allegations or portions thereof
`
`unrelated to Plaintiff’s religious discrimination claim under the Missouri Human Rights Act,
`
`Section 312.010 et seq., is required.
`
`2.
`
`On April 29, 2022, Mr. Whitehill was 56 years old.
`
`RESPONSE: Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny the
`
`allegations in this Paragraph. Moreover, Plaintiff’s only remaining viable claim is his religious
`
`discrimination claim; because these allegations or portions thereof are unrelated to Plaintiff’s
`
`religious discrimination claim, no response is required.
`
`He is a white, Caucasian, adult male and is and was at all relevant times a believer
`3.
`in Jesus Christ.
`
`RESPONSE: Defendant admits that Plaintiff identifies as and appears to be a white
`Caucasian, adult male. Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny the
`remaining allegations in this Paragraph, and therefore denies the remaining allegations in this
`Paragraph. Moreover, Plaintiff’s only remaining viable claim is his religious discrimination claim;
`because these allegations or portions thereof are unrelated to Plaintiff’s religious discrimination
`claim, no response is required.
`
`2 The Petition contains various headings and/or subheadings. Defendant does not consider these
`to be substantive allegations to which a response is required. However, to the extent that a
`responsive pleading is required, Defendant denies any and all allegations within any such heading
`or sub-heading. Additionally, the allegations are copied verbatim from the Petition, inclusive of
`any typographical errors in the Petition.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case: 4:23-cv-01030-MTS Doc. #: 38 Filed: 08/27/24 Page: 3 of 26 PageID #:
`426
`
`4.
`
`Mr. Whitehill is a member of Peine Ridge Reformed Baptist Church.
`
`RESPONSE: Defendant admits that when Plaintiff submitted his request for an
`
`exemption to Defendant’s vaccine mandate in approximately February 2022, Plaintiff purported
`
`to be a member of the Peine Ridge Reformed Baptist Church. Defendant lacks knowledge or
`
`information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 4, and therefore
`
`denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 4.
`
`Defendant AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP (“Defendant” or “AZ”) is a limited
`5.
`partnership organized under the laws of the State of Delaware.
`
`RESPONSE: Admitted.
`
`This claim arose in Saint Charles County, State of Missouri where Plaintiff worked
`6.
`for Defendant at all relevant times, and where Plaintiff was discriminated against, retaliated
`against, and terminated by Defendant.
`
`RESPONSE: Defendant admits that Plaintiff worked for Defendant from approximately
`
`December 23, 1996 to April 29, 2022 and that Plaintiff was based in Missouri. Defendant denies
`
`any remaining allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to Mo. Rev. Stat. § 508.010.4 in that
`7.
`Plaintiff’s claim arose in Saint Charles County, Missouri.
`
`RESPONSE: This Paragraph asserts legal conclusions that require no response. To the
`
`extent a response is required, Defendant admits that venue is proper in this district. Defendant
`
`denies any remaining allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`FACTS
`
`Mr. Whitehill worked for Defendant AZ for nearly 25 years until his wrongful
`8.
`termination on April 29, 2022.
`
`RESPONSE: Defendant admits that Plaintiff worked for Defendant from approximately
`
`December 23, 1996 to April 29, 2022 and that it terminated his employment effective April 29,
`
`2022. Defendant denies any remaining allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case: 4:23-cv-01030-MTS Doc. #: 38 Filed: 08/27/24 Page: 4 of 26 PageID #:
`427
`
`At the time of his termination, AZ employed Mr. Whitehill as the manager of its
`9.
`Renal Metabolic Specialty Sales Team.
`
`RESPONSE: Denied. Answering further, Plaintiff’s title at the time of his termination
`
`was Executive District Sales Manager (Diabetes Specialty).
`
`In August of 2021, AZ began requiring its employees to submit to testing for
`10.
`COVID-19 infection on a weekly basis.
`
`RESPONSE: Defendant admits that in August 2021, it made announcements related to
`
`its COVID-19 vaccine mandate for U.S. employees. The remaining allegations in this Paragraph
`
`purport to characterize a written document that speaks for itself, and Defendant denies those
`
`allegations to the extent they mischaracterize and do not fully represent the written document.
`
`Defendant denies the remaining allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`11. Mr. Whitehill was tested weekly for the virus and submitted his test results to AZ
`from August 27, 2021 until his unlawful termination on April 29, 2022.
`
`RESPONSE: Defendant denies that Plaintiff’s termination was unlawful. Defendant
`
`lacks knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in this
`
`Paragraph, and therefore denies the remaining allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`In January of 2022, AZ announced what it described as a “100% COVID
`12.
`vaccination policy” for its United States division and that all employees would need to receive a
`COVID-19 mRNA vaccination for continued employment.
`
`RESPONSE: Defendant admits that on or about January 2022, it made announcements
`
`related to its COVID-19 vaccine mandate for U.S. employees. The remaining allegations in this
`
`Paragraph purport to characterize written documents that speak for themselves, and Defendant
`
`denies those allegations to the extent they mischaracterize and do not fully represent the written
`
`documents. Defendant denies the remaining allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`Employees that could not show proof of vaccination by March 31, 2022 would have
`13.
`their employment terminated with no severance pay.
`
`RESPONSE: Denied.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case: 4:23-cv-01030-MTS Doc. #: 38 Filed: 08/27/24 Page: 5 of 26 PageID #:
`428
`
`14.
`
`However, this new policy had exceptions.
`
`RESPONSE: The allegations in this Paragraph are vague and ambiguous as to
`
`“exceptions.” Answering further, Defendant’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate for U.S. employees
`
`allowed employees to request an exemption through the reasonable accommodations process or
`
`pursuant to applicable state law. Defendant denies any remaining allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`On February 10, 2022, AZ informed employees that they could apply for medical
`15.
`or religious exceptions to the vaccination policy.
`
`RESPONSE: Defendant admits that its COVID-19 vaccine mandate for U.S. employees
`
`provided information to employees on how to apply for medical and religious accommodations or
`
`an exemption under applicable state law and that this information was communicated to its
`
`employees in February 2022. Defendant denies any remaining allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`If AZ approved the exemption request, the exempted employee could be tested for
`16.
`COVID-19 weekly in lieu of receiving the mRNA vaccination.
`
`RESPONSE: Defendant admits that certain employees applied for and were granted an
`
`accommodation to Defendant’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate for U.S. employees that allowed for
`
`weekly COVID-19 testing. Defendant denies any remaining allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`On February 15, AZ sent its employees an email with instructions on how to
`17.
`complete a “Religious Accommodation Request Form.”
`
`RESPONSE: Defendant admits that on February 15, 2022, it provided employees with
`
`additional information on the COVID-19 vaccine mandate that included instructions on how to
`
`complete a “Religious Accommodation Request Form.” Defendant denies any remaining
`
`allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`18.
`
`AZ set a deadline of February 28, 2022 to apply for the exemption.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case: 4:23-cv-01030-MTS Doc. #: 38 Filed: 08/27/24 Page: 6 of 26 PageID #:
`429
`
`RESPONSE: Defendant admits that its announcements regarding the COVID-19
`
`vaccine mandate set February 28, 2022 as the deadline for employees to submit a request for an
`
`exception or for an accommodation. Defendant denies any remaining allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`19. Mr. Whitehill submitted his application in a timely manner.
`
`RESPONSE: Admitted.
`
`The application included a letter from the pastor of Peine Ridge Reformed Baptist
`20.
`Church, explaining that Mr. Whitehill believes that “he must submit every area of his life to the
`teaching of the Christian scriptures” and that he strives to do so “in a manner that is consistent
`with the doctrines of our church and the dictates of his conscience.” (See Religious Reasonable
`Accommodation Request Form, attached hereto as Exhibit 1 and incorporated as though fully
`restated and set forth herein.)
`
`RESPONSE: This Paragraph characterizes and/or quotes a written document that
`
`speaks for itself; therefore, no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendant
`
`admits that the language quoted in this Paragraph appears in Exhibit 1 to the Petition. Defendant
`
`denies any remaining allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`In his application for exemption, Mr. Whitehill described how his religious beliefs
`21.
`required accommodation, going so far as to provide citations to specific quotations from Scripture
`supporting his beliefs. (See Exhibit 1.)
`
`RESPONSE: This Paragraph characterizes a written document that speaks for itself;
`
`therefore, no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendant admits that
`
`Exhibit 1 to the Complaint purports to be Plaintiff’s religious reasonable accommodation request
`
`form which purports to cite scripture. Defendant denies any remaining allegations in this
`
`Paragraph.
`
`In his application, Mr. Whitehill further explained that he does not take any
`22.
`vaccines or any type of medication because God created his immune system and he objects to “the
`intrusion of any medical intervention designed to modify God’s design of his immune system.”
`
`RESPONSE: This Paragraph characterizes and/or quotes a written document that
`
`speaks for itself; therefore, no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendant
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case: 4:23-cv-01030-MTS Doc. #: 38 Filed: 08/27/24 Page: 7 of 26 PageID #:
`430
`
`admits that Exhibit 1 to the Complaint purports to be Plaintiff’s religious reasonable
`
`accommodation request form and that the language quoted in this Paragraph appears in it.
`
`Defendant denies any remaining allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`He also expressed objection to weekly PCR COVID testing because of fears that
`23.
`the substances contained in the test could injure his body. (See Exhibit 1.) However, while he
`objected to the PCR COVID testing requirement, Mr. Whitehill expressed his willingness to do
`weekly testing in lieu of vaccination.
`
`RESPONSE: This Paragraph characterizes and/or quotes a written document that
`
`speaks for itself; therefore, no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendant
`
`admits that Exhibit 1 to the Complaint purports to be Plaintiff’s reasonable accommodation request
`
`form. Defendant denies any remaining allegations in this Paragraph, including that Plaintiff ever
`
`expressed to Defendant “his willingness to do weekly testing in lieu of vaccination.”
`
`On March 31, 2022, AZ rejected his accommodation request, stating that he was
`24.
`“not qualified for a reasonable accommodation.”
`
`RESPONSE: This Paragraph characterizes and/or quotes a written document that
`
`speaks for itself; therefore, no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendant
`
`admits that it did not grant Plaintiff his requested accommodation to its COVID-19 vaccine
`
`mandate for U.S. employees and one reason was because he was not qualified for an
`
`accommodation based on his request, and that this decision was communicated to Plaintiff on
`
`March 31, 2022. Defendant denies any remaining allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`AZ also stated that it was rejecting his request because it would cause AZ “undue
`25.
`hardship” in that it could lead to “business disruption/increased costs resulting from illness-related
`absences.”
`
`RESPONSE: This Paragraph characterizes and/or quotes a written document that
`
`speaks for itself; therefore, no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendant
`
`admits that providing accommodation requests can cause Defendant undue hardships and lead to
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case: 4:23-cv-01030-MTS Doc. #: 38 Filed: 08/27/24 Page: 8 of 26 PageID #:
`431
`
`business disruption/increased costs resulting from illness-related absences. Defendant denies any
`
`remaining allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`AZ’s rejection additionally stated that the decision was “final and not subject to
`26.
`appeal” and that Mr. Whitehill’s employment would be “terminated without severance” on April
`29, 2022 if he chose not to get vaccinated. (See March 31, 2022 Email from AZ to Plaintiff,
`attached as Exhibit 2 and incorporated as though fully restated and set forth herein.)
`
`RESPONSE: This Paragraph characterizes and/or quotes a written document that
`
`speaks for itself; therefore, no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendant
`
`admits that its denial of Plaintiff’s accommodation request as submitted was final and not subject
`
`to appeal and that if Plaintiff chose to remain out of compliance with Defendant’s COVID-19
`
`vaccine mandate for U.S. employees, he would be terminated without severance on April 29, 2022.
`
`AZ improperly and incorrectly concluded that Mr. Whitehill’s accommodation
`27.
`request was based on personal, and not religious, beliefs.
`
`RESPONSE: Denied.
`
`Despite AZ’s conclusion that granting Mr. Whitehill’s accommodation request
`28.
`would cause it undue hardship, it approved a substantially similar accommodation request from a
`33-year-old employee who was twenty-three years younger than Mr. Whitehill. The younger
`employee was permitted to be tested for COVID-19 every week rather than get vaccinated for it.
`
`RESPONSE: Denied.
`
`Upon information and belief, the other employee did not belong to the same church
`29.
`as Mr. Whitehill.
`
`RESPONSE:
`
`Plaintiff’s only remaining viable claim is his religious discrimination
`
`claim; because these allegations or portions thereof are unrelated to Plaintiff’s religious
`
`discrimination claim, no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendant
`
`lacks knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in this
`
`Paragraph, and therefore denies the allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`As represented in AZ’s correspondence rejecting Mr. Whitehill’s accommodation
`30.
`request, he was terminated from his employment with no severance on April 29, 2022.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case: 4:23-cv-01030-MTS Doc. #: 38 Filed: 08/27/24 Page: 9 of 26 PageID #:
`432
`
`RESPONSE: Defendant admits that when Plaintiff refused to get vaccinated after his
`
`request for an accommodation was denied, it terminated his employment effective April 29, 2022
`
`and it did not offer Plaintiff severance. Defendant denies any remaining allegations in this
`
`Paragraph.
`
`On or about May 28, 2022, Mr. Whitehill filed a charge of discrimination against
`31.
`Defendant with the Missouri Commission on Human Rights (“MCHR”). (See Charge of
`Discrimination, attached hereto as Exhibit 3 and incorporated as though fully restated and set forth
`herein.)
`
`RESPONSE: This Paragraph characterizes a written document that speaks for itself;
`
`therefore, no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendant admits that
`
`Exhibit 3 purports to be a charge of discrimination Plaintiff filed on May 28, 2022 with the
`
`Missouri Commission on Human Rights (“MCHR”).
`
`Upon information and belief, on June 1, 2022, MCHR notified Defendant that
`32.
`Plaintiff had filed his charge of discrimination.
`
`RESPONSE: Denied.
`
`33.
`
`As noted, Plaintiff Whitehill was 56 years old at the time of his termination.
`
`RESPONSE:
`
`Plaintiff’s only remaining viable claim is his religious discrimination
`
`claim; because these allegations or portions thereof are unrelated to Plaintiff’s religious
`
`discrimination claim, no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendant
`
`lacks knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations in this Paragraph, and
`
`therefore denies the allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`At all points during his employment, Plaintiff was a highly qualified, high-
`34.
`performing employee and highly competent in executing his required duties.
`
`RESPONSE: The allegations in this Paragraph are vague and ambiguous as to “highly
`
`qualified,” “highly performing employee,” and “highly competent in executing his required
`
`duties.” Answering further, Defendant admits that Plaintiff’s performance prior to the COVID-19
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case: 4:23-cv-01030-MTS Doc. #: 38 Filed: 08/27/24 Page: 10 of 26 PageID #:
`433
`
`vaccine mandate was unrelated to his termination. Defendant denies any remaining allegations in
`
`this Paragraph.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant replaced Plaintiff with a younger, less
`35.
`qualified employee.
`
`RESPONSE: Denied.
`
`On March 27, 2023, MCHR issued Plaintiff Whitehill a Right to Sue. (See Right to
`36.
`Sue, attached hereto as Exhibit 4 and incorporated as though fully restated and set forth herein.)
`
`RESPONSE: This Paragraph characterizes a written document that speaks for itself;
`
`therefore, no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendant admits that
`
`Exhibit 4 purports to be a “Notice of Right to Sue” letter from the MCHR to Plaintiff dated March
`
`27, 2023.
`
`Plaintiff has filed this lawsuit within two years of his termination and within ninety
`37.
`days of receiving a right to sue letter from the Missouri Commission on Human Rights.
`
`RESPONSE: Defendant admits that Plaintiff filed this lawsuit within two years of his
`
`termination. Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny any remaining
`
`allegations in this Paragraph, and therefore denies any remaining allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`Plaintiff has incurred substantial economic and non-economic harm and seeks
`38.
`damages in excess of $25,000, to be determined at trial.
`
`RESPONSE: Defendant admits that Plaintiff purports to seek more than $25,000 in
`
`damages, specifically denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any damages, and denies the remaining
`
`allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`
`Discrimination – Religion – Violation of Missouri Human Rights Act,
`Section 213.010 et seq., RSMo 1986
`
`39.
`
`Plaintiff reasserts the prior allegations of this Complaint as though set forth fully
`
`herein.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case: 4:23-cv-01030-MTS Doc. #: 38 Filed: 08/27/24 Page: 11 of 26 PageID #:
`434
`
`RESPONSE: Defendant restates and incorporates its answers to all prior allegations as
`
`though fully set forth herein.
`
`Defendant, by its actions and failures to act, including but not limited to those
`40.
`described above, discriminated against Plaintiff because of his religion in violation of the Missouri
`Human Rights Act.
`
`RESPONSE: Denied.
`
`Plaintiff was treated less favorably than other similarly situated employees who did
`41.
`not share his faith.
`
`RESPONSE: Denied.
`
`Plaintiff’s religious beliefs were a motivating factor in Defendant’s decision to take
`42.
`all adverse actions against Plaintiff, including terminating Plaintiffs’ employment.
`
`RESPONSE: Denied.
`
`As a result of Defendant’s discriminatory actions and failures to act as described
`43.
`herein, Plaintiff has suffered non-diagnosed emotional pain, suffering, humiliation, inconvenience,
`mental anguish, and loss of enjoyment of life.
`
`RESPONSE: Denied.
`
`In addition, Plaintiff has lost income and benefits of employment and has incurred
`44.
`and will continue to incur attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses of suit.
`
`RESPONSE: Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny the
`
`allegations in this Paragraph, and therefore denies the allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`Defendant’s conduct was outrageous because of its evil motive or reckless
`45.
`indifference to the rights of Plaintiff and, as such, warrants an award of punitive damages in such
`sum as will serve to punish Defendant and to deter it and others from like conduct.
`
`RESPONSE: Denied.
`
`SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`
`Discrimination – Sex – Violation of Missouri Human Rights Act,
`Section 213.010 et seq., RSMo 1986
`
`46.
`
`Plaintiff reasserts the prior allegations of this Complaint as though set forth fully
`
`herein.
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case: 4:23-cv-01030-MTS Doc. #: 38 Filed: 08/27/24 Page: 12 of 26 PageID #:
`435
`
`RESPONSE: Defendant restates and incorporates its answers to all prior allegations as
`
`though fully set forth herein.
`
`Defendant, by its actions and failures to act, including but not limited to those
`47.
`described above, discriminated against Plaintiff because of his sex in violation of the Missouri
`Human Rights Act.
`
`RESPONSE:
`
`Pursuant to the Withdrawal, Plaintiff withdrew this claim and therefore
`
`no response to this Paragraph is required.
`
`Upon information and belief, Plaintiff was treated less favorably than other
`48.
`similarly situated female employees, who were not terminated.
`
`RESPONSE:
`
`Pursuant to the Withdrawal, Plaintiff withdrew this claim and therefore
`
`no response to this Paragraph is required.
`
`Plaintiff’s sex was a motivating factor in Defendant’s decision to take all adverse
`49.
`actions against Plaintiff, including terminating Plaintiffs’ employment.
`
`RESPONSE:
`
`Pursuant to the Withdrawal, Plaintiff withdrew this claim and therefore
`
`no response to this Paragraph is required.
`
`As a result of Defendant’s discriminatory actions and failures to act as described
`50.
`herein, Plaintiff has suffered non-diagnosed emotional pain, suffering, humiliation, inconvenience,
`mental anguish, and loss of enjoyment of life.
`
`RESPONSE:
`
`Pursuant to the Withdrawal, Plaintiff withdrew this claim and therefore
`
`no response to this Paragraph is required.
`
`In addition, Plaintiff has lost income and benefits of employment and has incurred
`51.
`and will continue to incur attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses of suit.
`
`RESPONSE:
`
`Pursuant to the Withdrawal, Plaintiff withdrew this claim and therefore
`
`no response to this Paragraph is required.
`
`Defendant’s conduct was outrageous because of its evil motive or reckless
`52.
`indifference to the rights of Plaintiff and, as such, warrants an award of punitive damages in such
`sum as will serve to punish Defendant and to deter it and others from like conduct.
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case: 4:23-cv-01030-MTS Doc. #: 38 Filed: 08/27/24 Page: 13 of 26 PageID #:
`436
`
`RESPONSE:
`
`Pursuant to the Withdrawal, Plaintiff withdrew this claim and therefore
`
`no response to this Paragraph is required.
`
`THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`
`Discrimination – Age – Violation of Missouri Human Rights Act,
`Section 213.010 et seq., RSMo 1986
`
`53.
`
`Plaintiff reasserts the prior allegations of this Complaint as though set forth fully
`
`herein.
`
`RESPONSE: Defendant restates and incorporates its answers to all prior allegations as
`
`though fully set forth herein.
`
`Defendant, by its actions and failures to act, including but not limited to those
`54.
`described above, discriminated against Plaintiff because of his age in violation of the Missouri
`Human Rights Act.
`
`RESPONSE:
`
`Pursuant to the Order, the Court dismissed this claim and therefore no
`
`response to this Paragraph is required.
`
`Plaintiff was treated less favorably than other similarly situated younger
`55.
`employees, who were not terminated.
`
`RESPONSE:
`
`Pursuant to the Order, the Court dismissed this claim and therefore no
`
`response to this Paragraph is required.
`
`Plaintiff’s age was a motivating factor in Defendant’s decision to take all adverse
`56.
`actions against Plaintiff, including terminating Plaintiffs’ employment.
`
`RESPONSE:
`
`Pursuant to the Order, the Court dismissed this claim and therefore no
`
`response to this Paragraph is required.
`
`As a result of Defendant’s discriminatory actions and failures to act as described
`57.
`herein, Plaintiff has suffered non-diagnosed emotional pain, suffering, humiliation, inconvenience,
`mental anguish, and loss of enjoyment of life.
`
`RESPONSE:
`
`Pursuant to the Order, the Court dismissed this claim and therefore no
`
`response to this Paragraph is required.
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case: 4:23-cv-01030-MTS Doc. #: 38 Filed: 08/27/24 Page: 14 of 26 PageID #:
`437
`
`In addition, Plaintiff has lost income and benefits of employment and has incurred
`58.
`and will continue to incur attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses of suit.
`
`RESPONSE:
`
`Pursuant to the Order, the Court dismissed this claim and therefore no
`
`response to this Paragraph is required.
`
`Defendant’s conduct was outrageous because of its evil motive or reckless
`59.
`indifference to the rights of Plaintiff and, as such, warrants an award of punitive damages in such
`sum as will serve to punish Defendant and to deter it and others from like conduct.
`
`RESPONSE:
`
`Pursuant to the Order, the Court dismissed this claim and therefore no
`
`response to this Paragraph is required.
`
`FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`
`Discrimination – Race and Color – Violation of Missouri Human Rights Act,
`Section 213.010 et seq., RSMo 1986
`
`60.
`
`Plaintiff reasserts the prior allegations of this Complaint as though set forth fully
`
`herein.
`
`RESPONSE: Defendant restates and incorporates its answers to all prior allegations as
`
`though fully set forth herein.
`
`Defendant, by its actions and failures to act, including but not limited to those
`61.
`described above, discriminated against Plaintiff because of his race and color in violation of the
`Missouri Human Rights Act.
`
`RESPONSE:
`
`Pursuant to the Withdrawal, Plaintiff withdrew this claim and therefore
`
`no response to this Paragraph is required.
`
`Plaintiff was treated less favorably than other similarly situated non-white/
`62.
`Caucasian employees.
`
`RESPONSE:
`
`Pursuant to the Withdrawal, Plaintiff withdrew this claim and therefore
`
`no response to this Paragraph is required.
`
`Plaintiff’s race and color were a motivating factor in Defendant’s decision to take
`63.
`all adverse actions against Plaintiff, including terminating Plaintiffs’ employment.
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case: 4:23-cv-01030-MTS Doc. #: 38 Filed: 08/27/24 Page: 15 of 26 PageID #:
`438
`
`RESPONSE:
`
`Pursuant to the Withdrawal, Plaintiff withdrew this claim and therefore
`
`no response to this Paragraph is required.
`
`As a result of Defendant’s discriminatory actions and failures to act as described
`64.
`herein, Plaintiff has suffered non-diagnosed emotional pain, suffering, humiliation, inconvenience,
`mental anguish, and loss of enjoyment of life.
`
`RESPONSE:
`
`Pursuant to the Withdrawal, Plaintiff withdrew this claim and therefore
`
`no response to this Paragraph is required.
`
`In addition, Plaintiff has lost income and benefits of employment and has incurred
`65.
`and will continue to incur attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses of suit.
`
`RESPONSE:
`
`Pursuant to the Withdrawal, Plaintiff withdrew this claim and therefore
`
`no response to this Paragraph is required.
`
`Defendant’s conduct was outrageous because of its evil motive or reckless
`66.
`indifference to the rights of Plaintiff and, as such, warrants an award of punitive damages in such
`sum as will serve to punish Defendant and to deter it and others from like conduct.
`
`RESPONSE:
`
`Pursuant to the Withdrawal, Plaintiff withdrew this claim and therefore
`
`no response to this Paragraph is required.
`
`FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`
`Retaliation - Violation of Missouri Human Rights Act, Section 213.010 et seq.,
`and Section 213.070.1(2), RSMo 1986
`
`67.
`
`Plaintiff reasserts the prior allegations of the Complaint as though set forth fully
`
`herein.
`
`RESPONSE: Defendant restates and incorporates its answers to all prior allegations as
`
`though fully set forth herein.
`
`Defendant, by its actions and failures to act, including but not limited to those
`68.
`described above, retaliated against Plaintiff for opposing Defendant’s illegal discriminatory
`practices as more fully described above, all in violation of the Missouri Human Rights Act.
`
`RESPONSE:
`
`Pursuant to the Withdrawal, Plaintiff withdrew this claim and therefore
`
`no response to this Paragraph is required.
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case: 4:23-cv-01030-MTS Doc. #: 38 Filed: 08/27/24 Page: 16 of 26 PageID #:
`439
`
`Plaintiff’s opposition to AZ’s illegal discrimination, was a motivating factor in
`69.
`Defendant’s decision to retaliate and take all adverse actions against Plaintiff complained of
`herein, including terminating Plaintiffs’ employment.
`
`RESPONSE:
`
`Pursuant to the Withdrawal, Plaintiff withdrew this claim and therefore
`
`no response to this Paragraph is required.
`
`As a result of Defendant’s retaliation, Plaintiff has suffered non-diagnosed
`70.
`emotional pain, suffering, humiliation, inconvenience, mental anguish, and loss of enjoyment of
`life.
`
`RESPONSE:
`
`Pursuant to the Withdrawal, Plaintiff withdrew this claim and therefore
`
`no response to this Paragraph is required.
`
`In addition, Plaintiff has lost income and benefits of employment and has incurred
`71.
`and will continue to incur attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses of suit.
`
`RESPONSE:
`
`Pursuant to the Withdrawal, Plaintiff withdrew this claim and therefore
`
`no response to this Paragraph is required.
`
`Defendant’s conduct was outrageous because of its evil motive or reckless
`72.
`indifference to the rights of Plaintiff and, as such, warrants an award of punitive damages in such
`sum as will serve to punish Defendant and to deter it and others from like conduct.
`
`RESPONSE:
`
`Pursuant to the Withdrawal, Plaintiff withdrew this claim and therefore
`
`no response to this Paragraph is required.
`
`SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`Negligent Hiring, Supervision, and Retention
`
`73.
`
`Plaintiff reasserts the prior allegations of the Complaint as though set forth fully
`
`herein.
`
`RESPONSE: Defendant restates and incorporates its answers to all prior allegations as
`
`though fully set forth herein.
`
`Plaintiff Whitehill was entitled to a lawful and productive work environment. He
`74.
`was additionally entitled to have his accommodation request considered by persons who would
`not discriminate or retaliate against him for making it.
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case: 4:23-cv-01030-MTS Doc. #: 38 Filed: 08/27/24 Page: 17 of 26 PageID #:
`440
`
`RESPONSE:
`
`Pursuant to the Withdrawal, Plaintiff withdrew this claim and therefore
`
`no response to this Paragraph is required.
`
`75. When AZ employees, officers, and/or ag