IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
`WESTERN DIVISION
`CIVIL ACTION NO. ________
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ANTHONY VINES,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MOUNTAIRE FARMS, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ANSWER AND DEFENSES
`
`
`
`COMES NOW Mountaire Farms, Inc. (“Mountaire”), Defendant in the above-
`
`styled action, by and through counsel, and responds to the Complaint filed by Anthony Vines, as
`
`follows:
`
`FIRST DEFENSE
`
`Defendant answers the allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint, as follows:
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`
`
`Paragraph 1 is admitted in part and denied in part. Defendant admits that this is a civil
`
`action seeking damages and equitable relief from Defendant Mountaire Farms, Inc. on behalf of
`
`Plaintiff Anthony Vines. Defendant denies that Plaintiff’s claims have any merit whatsoever, and
`
`specifically denies any violation of the Retaliatory Employment Discrimination Act ("REDA"),
`
`N.C. Gen. Stat. § 95-240, et seq. Defendant denies that it wrongfully discharged Plaintiff in
`
`
`
`Case 5:21-cv-00059-BO Document 3 Filed 02/04/21 Page 1 of 11
`
`1
`
`
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
`WESTERN DIVISION
`CIVIL ACTION NO. ________
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ANTHONY VINES,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MOUNTAIRE FARMS, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ANSWER AND DEFENSES
`
`
`
`COMES NOW Mountaire Farms, Inc. (“Mountaire”), Defendant in the above-
`
`styled action, by and through counsel, and responds to the Complaint filed by Anthony Vines, as
`
`follows:
`
`FIRST DEFENSE
`
`Defendant answers the allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint, as follows:
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`
`
`Paragraph 1 is admitted in part and denied in part. Defendant admits that this is a civil
`
`action seeking damages and equitable relief from Defendant Mountaire Farms, Inc. on behalf of
`
`Plaintiff Anthony Vines. Defendant denies that Plaintiff’s claims have any merit whatsoever, and
`
`specifically denies any violation of the Retaliatory Employment Discrimination Act ("REDA"),
`
`N.C. Gen. Stat. § 95-240, et seq. Defendant denies that it wrongfully discharged Plaintiff in
`
`
`
`Case 5:21-cv-00059-BO Document 3 Filed 02/04/21 Page 1 of 11
`
`1
`
`
`
`violation of North Carolina public policy. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 1 are
`
`denied.
`
`Paragraph 2 is admitted.
`
`PARTIES
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Paragraph 3 is admitted in part and denied in part. It is denied that Mountaire is a company
`
`
`
`
`
`organized under North Carolina law. Mountaire is a Delaware corporation. It is admitted that
`
`Mountaire owns and operates a business in North Carolina and that it is a “person” and “employer.”
`
`All other allegations contained in Paragraph 3 are denied.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`4.
`
`
`
`Paragraph 4 is admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that this Court has
`
`jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties to this action pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat § 95-
`
`243. It is admitted that venue for this type of case is proper in Wake County under N.C. Gen.
`
`Stat. §§l-79(a)(l) and 95-243(a). It is denied that Plaintiff asserts claims with any merit
`
`whatsoever, and therefore that this matter is properly before this Court.
`
`FACTS
`
`5.
`
`
`
`To the extent that a response to Paragraph 5 is required, it is admitted that the
`
`Complaint’s allegations may be incorporated by reference.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:21-cv-00059-BO Document 3 Filed 02/04/21 Page 2 of 11
`
`2
`
`
`
`Paragraph 6 is admitted.
`
`Paragraph 7 is admitted.
`
`Paragraph 8 is denied.
`
`Paragraph 9 is admitted.
`
`Paragraph 10 is denied.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`10.
`
`11.
`
`Paragraph 11 is admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that one of the jobs to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`which Plaintiff was assigned involved packing chicken in dry ice. All other allegations contained
`
`in Paragraph 11 are denied.
`
`12.
`
`
`
`Defendant is without knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the allegations contained in
`
`Paragraph 12 and therefore denies same and demands strict proof thereof.
`
`13.
`
`
`
`Paragraph 13 is admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that on March 7, 2019
`
`Plaintiff expressed concerns about CO2 exposure to Ms. Campbell. It is further admitted that he
`
`expressed no such concerns prior to that date. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 13 are
`
`denied.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:21-cv-00059-BO Document 3 Filed 02/04/21 Page 3 of 11
`
`3
`
`
`
`14.
`
`
`
`Paragraph 14 is admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that two employees on
`
`each production shift were assigned to packing chicken in dry ice during each shift. It is further
`
`admitted that different employees were assigned to these positions from time to time. All other
`
`allegations contained in Paragraph 14 are denied.
`
`Paragraph 15 is admitted.
`
`15.
`
`16.
`
`Paragraph 16 is admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that when Plaintiff
`
`
`
`
`
`requested additional personal protective equipment (PPE) he was supplied with appropriate
`
`equipment. It is further admitted that Plaintiff was not allowed to supply his own PPE. All other
`
`allegations contained in paragraph 16 are denied.
`
`17.
`
`
`
`Defendant lacks sufficient information either to admit or deny the allegations contained
`
`in Paragraph 17 and therefore denies same and demands strict proof thereof.
`
`18.
`
`
`
`Paragraph 18 is admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiff was absent
`
`from work on several days prior to March 7, 2019 for undisclosed reasons. All other allegations
`
`contained in paragraph 18 are denied.
`
`Paragraph 19 is denied.
`
`19.
`
`4
`
`Case 5:21-cv-00059-BO Document 3 Filed 02/04/21 Page 4 of 11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`20.
`
`
`
`Paragraph 20 is admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiff had 13
`
`unexcused absences, which Defendant denominates as “occurrences,” prior to the meeting on
`
`March 7, 2019. It is admitted that normally an employee is subject to discharge after accumulating
`
`8 unexcused absences or occurrences. It is further admitted that some of Plaintiff’s absences
`
`subsequently were changed from unexcused to excused as an accommodation to Plaintiff and that
`
`his employment was not terminated that day for excessive absenteeism. All other allegations
`
`contained in Paragraph 20 are denied.
`
`21.
`
`
`
`Paragraph 21 is admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that on March 5, 2019
`
`NCOSH inspected a portion of Defendant’s Lumber Bridge facility. It is further admitted that the
`
`area inspected was not the area where Plaintiff worked. All other allegations contained in
`
`Paragraph 21 are denied.
`
`Paragraph 22 is admitted.
`
`Paragraph 23 is denied.
`
`22.
`
`23.
`
`24.
`
`Paragraph 24 is admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that on or about March
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7, 2019 Plaintiff met with managers and members of Defendant’s HR department to address
`
`Plaintiff’s safety concerns. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 24 are denied.
`
`Paragraph 25 is denied.
`
`25.
`
`5
`
`Case 5:21-cv-00059-BO Document 3 Filed 02/04/21 Page 5 of 11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paragraph 26 is denied.
`
`26.
`
`27.
`
`Paragraph 27 is admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiff returned
`
`
`
`
`
`to work on March 11, 2019. All other allegations in Paragraph 27 are denied.
`
`28.
`
`
`
`Paragraph 28 is admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiff requested
`
`and was granted leaves of absence from March 12 – 22, 2019, and again from March 25 – April
`
`12, 2019. All other allegations contained in paragraph 28 are denied.
`
`29.
`
`
`
`Paragraph 29 is admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that NCOSH visited the
`
`Lumber Bridge plant on March 12, 2019. All other allegations in Paragraph 29 are denied.
`
`Paragraph 30 is denied.
`
`Paragraph 31 is denied.
`
`Paragraph 32 is admitted.
`
`30.
`
`31.
`
`32.
`
`33.
`
`Paragraph 33 is admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that on or about June
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`17, 2019 Plaintiff filed a charge with NCDOL. It is denied that the charge had merit. All other
`
`allegations contained in Paragraph 33 are denied.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 5:21-cv-00059-BO Document 3 Filed 02/04/21 Page 6 of 11
`
`
`
`Paragraph 34 is denied.
`
`Paragraph 35 is admitted.
`
`34.
`
`35.
`
`36.
`
`Defendant lacks sufficient information either to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`36 and therefore denies same and demands strict proof thereof.
`
`Paragraph 37 is admitted.
`
`37.
`
`FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`
`(Violation of REDA, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 95-240 etseq.)
`
`38.
`
`Defendant’s Answers to the preceding paragraphs are incorporated by reference.
`
`Paragraph 39 is denied.
`
`Paragraph 40 is denied.
`
`Paragraph 41 is denied.
`
`Paragraph 42 is denied.
`
`39.
`
`40.
`
`41.
`
`42.
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`Case 5:21-cv-00059-BO Document 3 Filed 02/04/21 Page 7 of 11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`43.
`
`
`
`Paragraph 43 is admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiff’s charge
`
`was timely. It is denied that Plaintiff’s charge had any merit whatsoever. All other allegations
`
`contained in Paragraph 43 are denied.
`
`Paragraph 44 is admitted.
`
`Paragraph 45 is admitted.
`
`Paragraph 46 is denied.
`
`Paragraph 47 is denied.
`
`44.
`
`45.
`
`46.
`
`47.
`
`SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`
`(Wrongful Discharge in Violation of Public Policy)
`
`48.
`
`Defendant’s Answers to the preceding paragraphs are incorporated by reference.
`
`49.
`
`Paragraph 49 is admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that North Carolina
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`public policy protects employees against retaliatory action and discrimination. It is denied that
`
`Plaintiff was retaliated against. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 49 are denied.
`
`Paragraph 50 is denied.
`
`50.
`
`8
`
`Case 5:21-cv-00059-BO Document 3 Filed 02/04/21 Page 8 of 11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paragraph 51 is denied.
`
`Paragraph 52 is denied.
`
`51.
`
`52.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`
`
`To the extent that a response to Plaintiff’s Prayer for Relief is required, Defendant
`
`denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any relief whatsoever.
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`Defendant denies that Plaintiff is entitled to trial by jury.
`
`SECOND DEFENSE
`
`Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
`
`THIRD DEFENSE
`
`Plaintiff has not been damaged or has failed to take reasonable actions to mitigate his
`
`damages.
`
`FOURTH DEFENSE
`
`Plaintiff is not entitled to compensatory, exemplary, punitive, or treble damages.
`
`FIFTH DEFENSE
`
`Any and all actions by Defendant were taken for legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`[REST OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
`
`
`
`Case 5:21-cv-00059-BO Document 3 Filed 02/04/21 Page 9 of 11
`
`9
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted this 4th day of February 2021.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ M. Lee Daniels, Jr.
`
`M. Lee Daniels, Jr. (N.C. Bar No.: 10300)
`M. LEE DANIELS, JR., P.C.
`OF COUNSEL TO WIMBERLY LAWSON
`SCHNEIDER STECKEL & STINE, P.C.
`1200 Woodruff Road, Suite A-3
`Greenville, SC 29607
`864-242-9484 - Phone
`864-288-7937 - Fax
`mld@wimlaw.com
`
`Local Civil Rule 83.1(d) Counsel for Defendant
`
`
`
`J. Larry Stine
`Special Notice of Appearance Pending
`Elizabeth K. Dorminey
`Special Notice of appearance Pending
`WIMBERLY, LAWSON, STECKEL,
`SCHNEIDER & STINE, P.C.
`Suite 400, Lenox Towers
`3400 Peachtree Road, N.E.
`Atlanta, Georgia 30326
`Phone: (404) 365-0900
`Fax: (404) 261-3707
`ekd@wimlaw.com
`jls@wimlaw.com
`
`Lead Counsel for Defendant
`
`Case 5:21-cv-00059-BO Document 3 Filed 02/04/21 Page 10 of 11
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
`WESTERN DIVISION
`CIVIL ACTION NO. _________
`
`
`
`
`ANTHONY VINES,
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MOUNTAIRE FARMS, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`THIS IS TO CERTIFY that I have this day served the foregoing ANSWER AND
`
`DEFENSES via email and by depositing a copy of same in the United States Mail, with
`sufficient postage thereon, addressed as follows:
`
`
`Claremont Ripley
`N.C. Justice Center
`P.O. Box 28068
`Raleigh, NC 27611
`Email: clermont@ncjustice.org
`
`DATED this 4th day of February, 2021.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ M. Lee Daniels, Jr.
`M. Lee Daniels, Jr.
`NC Bar No. 10300
`M. LEE DANIELS, JR., P.C.
`OF COUNSEL TO WIMBERLY, LAWSON,
`STECKEL, SCHNEIDER & STINE, P.C.
`1200 Woodruff Road
`Suite A-3
`Greenville, South Carolina 29607
`(864) 242-9484 - Phone
`(864) 288-7937 – Fax
`mld@wimlaw.com
`
`Case 5:21-cv-00059-BO Document 3 Filed 02/04/21 Page 11 of 11
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
