Gull Lake Country Club's Answer To Discrimination Lawsuit

Case 1:17-cv-01141-PLM-RSK ECF No. 7 filed 02/05/18 PageID.
24 Page 1 of 13
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
_________________________
THOMAS WOODRUFF, an
individual,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 1:17-cv-1141
vs.
Hon. Paul L. Maloney
GULL LAKE COUNTRY CLUB,
a corporation, and PETE RIGGINS,
an individual,
Defendants.
William F. Piper (P38636) Sarah K. Willey (P57376)

WILLIAM F. PIPER, PLC. Matthew M. O’Rourke (P79019)
Attorney for Plaintiff MILLER JOHNSON
1611 W. Centre Ave., Suite 209 Attorneys for Defendants
Portage, MI 49024 100 West Michigan Avenue
(269) 321-5008 Suite 200
wpiper@wpiperlaw.com Kalamazoo, MI 49007
(269) 226-2957
willeys@millerjohnson.com
orourkem@millerjohnson.com
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

WITH AFFIRMATIVE AND OTHER DEFENSES
The Defendants, by and through their attorneys, Miller Johnson, hereby answer Plaintiff’s
First Amended Complaint as follows:
JURISDICTIONAL ALLEGATIONS
1. The plaintiff Thomas Woodruff is an African-American man who resides in the
County of Kalamazoo, State of Michigan, and he resided therein at all times relevant to this
complaint.
Case 1:17-cv-01141-PLM-RSK ECF No. 7 filed 02/05/18 PageID.25 Page 2 of 13
ANSWER: Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations in Paragraph 1.
2. The defendant Gull Lake Country Club is a corporation that did business in the
County of Kalamazoo, State of Michigan, at all times relevant to this complaint, and it employs
mostly white workers and has mostly white members.
ANSWER: Admitted that Defendant Gull Lake Country Club (“GLCC”) is a

corporation that does business in Kalamazoo County, Michigan. All other
allegations are denied as untrue.
3. The defendant Pete Riggins is a white man who, upon information and belief,
resided in the County of Kalamazoo, State of Michigan, at all times relevant to this complaint.
ANSWER: Admitted.
4. This matter arises out of Mr. Woodruff’s employment by the defendant from July
through October 2017.
ANSWER: Admitted that Defendant GLCC employed Plaintiff from July 22, 2017
through October 31, 2017. Denied that Plaintiff has a cause of action against
Defendants. All other allegations are denied as untrue.
5. This case arises in particular under 42 U.S.C. §1981.
ANSWER: Denied that Plaintiff has a cause of action against Defendants.
6. Jurisdiction arises under 28 U.S.C. §1331 and 28 U.S.C. §1343.
ANSWER: Denied that Plaintiff has a cause of action against Defendants, but
Defendants do not deny that jurisdiction is proper with this Court.
7. Certain claims in this action arise under this court’s supplemental jurisdiction to
hear and decide state law claims arising out of the same transactions and occurrences as the
federal law claims.
ANSWER: Denied that Plaintiff has a cause of action against Defendants, but
Defendants do not deny that jurisdiction is proper with this Court.
2
COMMON ALLEGATIONS
8. The plaintiff restates and realleges as though fully set forth herein paragraphs 1-7
of this complaint.
ANSWER: Defendants incorporate Paragraphs 1 through 7 as though fully restated

herein.
9. The defendant Gull Lake Country Club hired Mr. Woodruff to work for it in July
2017 as a custodial/maintenance worker.
ANSWER: Admitted that GLCC hired Plaintiff, and that Plaintiff started working for
GLCC in a maintenance/housekeeping position on July 22, 2017. All other
allegations are denied as untrue.
10. The defendant assigned Pete Riggins to be Mr. Woodruff’s supervisor.
ANSWER: Admitted that Defendant Riggins (“Riggins”) generally assigned and

oversaw Plaintiff’s work when Riggins and Plaintiff worked the same days.
All other allegations are denied. In further answer, Plaintiff and Riggins
were friends prior to Plaintiff working at GLCC, and Plaintiff was also
supervised by GLCC’s General Manager, Mike Rossen.
11. There was perhaps two other African-Americans who worked for the defendant.
ANSWER: Admitted that at least three African Americans worked for GLCC in the
summer and fall of 2017. All other allegations are denied as untrue. In
further answer, Defendants state that GLCC employs a number of seasonal
employees during the summer and fall, and the demographics of those
employees change each year.
12. Mr. Riggins was quite unfriendly to Mr. Woodruff from the beginning of Mr.
Woodruff’s employment, including in front of members, and he treated Mr. Woodruff in a
demeaning fashion.
ANSWER: Denied as untrue.
13. On or about September 7, 2017, at Mr. Riggins’ request, Mr. Riggins and Mr.
Woodruff drove to a member’s home.
3
ANSWER: Admitted that Riggins and Plaintiff drove a golf cart to a member’s home,
which was adjacent to GLCC. Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge to form
a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 13. In further answer,
Riggins asked Plaintiff to ride in a golf cart from the GLCC clubhouse to the
member’s house that is located next door to the clubhouse. Riggins and
Plaintiff went to the member’s house to help her move boxes from her vehicle
to the second floor of the house.
14. Mr. Woodruff gave a quote for some work at the member’s home to Mr. Riggins
for the benefit of the member.
ANSWER: Denied as untrue. In further answer, the member had previously asked
Riggins if Riggins could do work on her house, including painting, in his off
time. While Plaintiff and Riggins were at the member’s house, Plaintiff
quoted the member a price to paint her house, in an apparent effort to take
the work from Riggins.
15. On the way back from the member’s home to the Gull Lake Country Club, Mr.
Riggins snapped, calling Mr. Woodruff a “fucking nigger.”
16. Also, on the way back to the club, Mr. Riggins also told Mr. Woodruff “How dare
you try to take the job.” He also told him, “I’m going to beat your fucking ass.”
ANSWER: Admitted that Riggins said “How dare you try to take the job.” Defendants
lack sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in
Paragraph 16.
17. Mr. Riggins stranded Mr. Woodruff at work, and Mr. Woodruff had to walk
home.
ANSWER: Denied as untrue. In further answer, upon information and belief, Plaintiff
did not own a car. Thus, Riggins occasionally gave Plaintiff a ride home
after work on the days when they both worked and when they were prepared
to leave work at the same time. On the day in question, Riggins finished his
work and left before Plaintiff was done with his work.
18. On or about September 10, 2017 Mr. Woodruff complained about Mr. Riggins’
conduct to a female assistant manager named Kirsten.
4
ANSWER: Denied as untrue. In further answer, Plaintiff and Riggins quarreled in the
GLCC clubhouse in early-to-mid September 2017. Kristin Kuball
(“Kuball”), an assistant manager, stepped in between Plaintiff and Riggins
and told them that the clubhouse was not the place for their quarrel. Kuball
also told Plaintiff that Riggins was Plaintiff’s manager; that Riggins was in
charge; and if Plaintiff had something that he wanted to discuss, Kuball
could engage in that discussion or they could call Mike Rossen (“Rossen”),
GLCC’s General Manager. Both Plaintiff and Riggins declined and
returned to work.
19. The defendant Gull Lake Country Club did nothing effective to Mr. Riggins as a
result of Mr. Woodruff’s complaint to stop his racial harassment of Mr. Woodruff.
ANSWER: Denied as untrue. In further answer, Defendants deny that Riggins racially
harassed Plaintiff. Defendants also deny that Plaintiff complained to Rossen
that Riggins was harassing him on the basis of his race in early September
2017.
20. Later on September 10, 2017, during a set up at the water front, at work, Mr.
Riggins called Mr. Woodruff a “fucking nigger.”
21. Mr. Woodruff complained to Mr. Riggins’ supervisor Mike about Mr. Riggins’
conduct set forth above.
ANSWER: Admitted that Plaintiff complained to Mike Rossen that Riggins called
Plaintiff a “fucking nigger.” All other allegations are denied as untrue.
22. Mr. Woodruff asked Mike if he was going to be fired, and he answered “no.”
23. On September 15, 2017 Mr. Riggins left Mr. Woodruff a voice mail message that
accused Mr. Woodruff of lying.
ANSWER: Admitted that Riggins left Plaintiff a voice mail, and that the voice mail
speaks for itself. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to
the truth of the remaining allegation in Paragraph 23.
5
24. Mr. Riggins also told Mr. Woodruff, in the voice mail message, in a hostile and
threatening tone, “You are a lying fuck dude. I called yourself a black ass lazy bitch; that’s all I
called you so you better get your shit straight, boy.”
ANSWER: Admitted that the voice mail speaks for itself. The remaining allegations are
denied as untrue.
25. On September 15, 2017, Mr. Woodruff complained about Mr. Riggins’ conduct
referenced above to Mike, including letting him listen to the voice mail message.
ANSWER: Admitted that Plaintiff sent text messages to Rossen on September 15, 2015,
and that the messages speak for themselves. All other allegations are denied
as untrue. In further answer, Plaintiff sent to Rossen a text message with an
audio file attached on September 18, 2017.
26. Mr. Riggins’ wife told Mr. Woodruff on September 20, 2017 that, “I can’t wait
until the first when your ass is gone.”
ANSWER: Denied as untrue upon information and belief.
27. Thereafter the defendant and Mike did not take prompt and appropriate
disciplinary action against Mr. Riggins.
28. Mike told Mr. Woodruff both that he would have to learn to get along with Mr.
Riggins as his supervisor and that it was his job to do so.
ANSWER: Admitted that Rossen told Plaintiff that he would have to get along with
Riggins as part of his job. All other allegations are denied as untrue.
29. Afterwards, Mr. Riggins was hostile to Mr. Woodruff, and he barely spoke to
him.
30. On October 9, 2017, in retaliation against Mr. Woodruff because of his
complaints, the defendants cut Mr. Woodruff’s hours from six days a week to three days a week.
6
ANSWER: Denied as untrue. In further answer, at the start of his employment with
GLCC, Plaintiff was scheduled to work five days a week from Wednesday
through Sunday. In early October 2017, Plaintiff asked to be placed on
layoff so that he could leave the state for the birth of his grandchild. Upon
receiving Plaintiff’s notice, Rossen scheduled Plaintiff to work three days a
week. This change in Plaintiff’s schedule allowed GLCC to train another
employee in Plaintiff’s duties to ensure a smooth transition after Plaintiff’s
departure.
31. The defendants moved a white man from the kitchen to a custodial, maintenance
position to take some of Mr. Woodruff’s hours, upon information and belief.
ANSWER: Admitted that, after Plaintiff requested to be placed on layoff, GLCC

assigned Dwight Bechtel (“Bechtel”) to perform some of Plaintiff’s duties on
Plaintiff’s days off. Further admitted that Bechtel primarily worked in
GLCC’s kitchen prior to Plaintiff’s announcement of his resignation. Upon
information and belief, admitted that Bechtel is white. All other allegations
are denied as untrue.
32. On October 15, 2017, Mr. Riggins told Mr. Woodruff that he was going to beat
his ass, and he called him a “fucking faggot.”
33. Mr. Woodruff, in frustration, swore at Mr. Riggins and told him he did not have
to take it.
ANSWER: Defendants lack sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations in Paragraph 33.
34. The incident was reported to Mike, and Mike made Mr. Woodruff apologize to
Mr. Riggins.
35. Mike told Mr. Woodruff that he would have to prove to Mr. Riggins that he could
do the job and that he had to do whatever Pete told him to do.
ANSWER: Admitted that Rossen told Plaintiff that Riggins was Plaintiff’s boss, and that
Plaintiff needed to do what Riggins told him to do. All other allegation are
denied as untrue.
7
36. In late October the defendants retaliated against Mr. Woodruff because of his
complaints, telling him that they were laying him off.
37. Upon information and belief, the defendants gave Mr. Woodruff’s hours to others,
including the white man who had been transferred from the kitchen to a custodial/maintenance
position.
ANSWER: Admitted that, after Plaintiff asked to placed on layoff effective October 31,
GLCC assigned Bechtel to perform some of Plaintiff’s duties on Plaintiff’s
day off. This allowed GLCC to train Bechtel in Plaintiff’s duties and
ensured a smooth transition after Plaintiff’s resignation.
38. The defendant Gull Lake Country Club did not lay off other custodians when it
laid off Mr. Woodruff.
ANSWER: Denied as untrue. Plaintiff was GLCC’s only employee who could be
classified as a “custodian.” In further answer, Plaintiff asked to be placed on
layoff effective October 31, 2017.
39. On or about October 27, 2017 Mr. Riggins constructed a gallows and noose in a
room at the Gull Lake Country Club, ostensibly as part of a Halloween display.
ANSWER: Denied as untrue. In further answer, GLCC constructs a “spook house” for
its members every Halloween, and a gallows is part of the “spook house.”
Riggins was not responsible for the “spook house,” and did not construct it.
40. Mr. Woodruff complained about the display at work to the NAACP and in a post
on social media.
ANSWER: Admitted that Plaintiff posted to his Facebook account about the display.
Defendants lack sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the
remaining allegations in Paragraph 40.
8
41. The defendant Gull Lake Country Club, in retaliation against Mr. Woodruff
because of his opposition activity, then indicated Mr. Woodruff was not eligible to be rehired
because he had violated the social media policy of the defendant.
ANSWER: Denied as untrue. In further answer, GLCC indicated on Plaintiff’s “Notice

of Employee Change Form” maintained in his personnel file that Plaintiff
should not be “hire[d] back after 10.31.17 end of season” because he violated
GLCC’s social media policy.
42. The reason given for indicating that Mr. Woodruff was not eligible for rehire is a
pretext in addition to being unlawful and retaliatory, because white persons, including Mr.
Riggins, have committed much more serious violations, but the defendant Gull Lake Country
Club retained them as employees.
43. As a result of the actions set forth above, Mr. Woodruff has suffered and will
continue to suffer a loss of income and benefits, emotional distress, a loss of enjoyment of life,
and other damages.
ANSWER: Denied as untrue. Defendants further deny that Plaintiff is entitled to any
damages, costs, fees, or equitable relief.
COUNT I – RACIAL HARASSMENT
44. The plaintiff restates and realleges as though fully set forth herein paragraphs 1-
43 of this complaint.

herein.
45. The actions of the defendants Gull Lake Country Club and Pete Riggins created a
hostile, offensive and intimidating work environment for Mr. Woodruff because of his race.
9
46. The defendant Gull Lake Country Club did not take prompt and appropriate
remedial measures to stop the harassment by Mr. Riggins, and it continued.
47. As a result of the harassment, Mr. Woodruff suffered and will continue to suffer
emotional distress and a loss of enjoyment of life.
48. This claim is actionable under 42 U.S.C. §1981, 42 U.S.C. §1981a, and the
Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, MCL 37.2101 et. seq.
COUNT II – RACE DISCRIMINATION AND RETALIATION

herein.
50. The defendant cut Mr. Woodruff’s hours, terminated his employment and refused
to make him eligible for rehire both because of his race and his complaints about race
discrimination and racial harassment, including Mr. Woodruff’s complaint on social media.
51. As a result of this race discrimination and retaliation, Mr. Woodruff has suffered
and will continue to suffer the damages set forth above.
52. This claim is actionable under 42 U.S.C. §1981, 42 U.S.C. §1981a, and the
Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, MCL 37.2101 et. seq., including MCL 37.2701.
10
COUNT III – ETHNIC INTIMIDATION

herein.
54. The acts described in this complaint by the defendants constitute ethnic
intimidation.
55. As a result of the ethnic intimidation set forth above, Mr. Woodruff suffered and
will continue to suffer the damages set forth above.
56. This claim is actionable under MCL 750.147(b)3.
WHEREFORE, Defendants request that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended
Complaint in its entirety and with prejudice, enter judgment in favor of Defendants and
against Plaintiff, and award Defendants their costs and attorney fees incurred in defense of
this action.
Respectfully submitted,
Miller Johnson
Attorneys for Defendants
Date: February 5, 2018 By: /s/ Sarah K. Willey

Sarah K. Willey (P57376)
Matthew M. O’Rourke (P79019)
100 West Michigan Avenue, Suite 200
Kalamazoo, MI 49007-3960
(269) 226-2950
11
AFFIRMATIVE AND OTHER DEFENSES

Defendants may rely on one or more of the following affirmative and other
defenses:
1. Plaintiff has failed to state a claim on which relief may be granted with
respect to all or any Counts in his Complaint.
2. Plaintiff has failed to mitigate his alleged damages, if any. Alternatively,
Plaintiff has mitigated his damages in whole or in substantial part.
3. Plaintiff did not suffer an adverse employment action.
4. All actions complained of by Plaintiff were taken for legitimate and
nondiscriminatory business reasons.
5. Defendants reserve the right to plead additional affirmative and other
defenses as they become known.
WHEREFORE, Defendants request that judgment be entered in their favor
against Plaintiff’s Complaint, and that they be awarded costs, including reasonable attorneys’
fees, and such other relief as the Court shall deem just.
Respectfully submitted,
Miller Johnson
Attorneys for Defendants

(269) 226-2950
12
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on February 5, 2018 the foregoing document was

electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing
document is being served this day on all counsel of record via transmission of Notices of
Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or by U.S. first class mail for those counsel or parties
who are not authorized to receive electronic Notices of Electronic Filing.

(269) 226-2950
13
MJ_DMS 29413056v1 15469-123

Gull Lake Country Club's Answer To Discrimination Lawsuit

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Gull Lake Country Club's Answer To Discrimination Lawsuit

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Case 1:17-cv-01141-PLM-RSK ECF No. 7 filed 02/05/18 PageID.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

William F. Piper (P38636) Sarah K. Willey (P57376)

DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

First Amended Complaint as follows:

1. The plaintiff Thomas Woodruff is an African-American man who resides in the

mostly white workers and has mostly white members.

ANSWER: Admitted that Defendant Gull Lake Country Club (“GLCC”) is a

through October 2017.

5. This case arises in particular under 42 U.S.C. §1981.

ANSWER: Denied that Plaintiff has a cause of action against Defendants.

6. Jurisdiction arises under 28 U.S.C. §1331 and 28 U.S.C. §1343.

federal law claims.

ANSWER: Defendants incorporate Paragraphs 1 through 7 as though fully restated

2017 as a custodial/maintenance worker.

10. The defendant assigned Pete Riggins to be Mr. Woodruff’s supervisor.

ANSWER: Admitted that Defendant Riggins (“Riggins”) generally assigned and

Woodruff’s employment, including in front of members, and he treated Mr. Woodruff in a

ANSWER: Denied as untrue.

Woodruff drove to a member’s home.

for the benefit of the member.

Riggins snapped, calling Mr. Woodruff a “fucking nigger.”

ANSWER: Denied as untrue.

conduct to a female assistant manager named Kirsten.

Riggins called Mr. Woodruff a “fucking nigger.”

ANSWER: Denied as untrue.

conduct set forth above.

ANSWER: Denied as untrue.

accused Mr. Woodruff of lying.

called you so you better get your shit straight, boy.”

until the first when your ass is gone.”

ANSWER: Denied as untrue upon information and belief.

disciplinary action against Mr. Riggins.

ANSWER: Denied as untrue.

Riggins as his supervisor and that it was his job to do so.

ANSWER: Denied as untrue.

30. On October 9, 2017, in retaliation against Mr. Woodruff because of his

ANSWER: Admitted that, after Plaintiff requested to be placed on layoff, GLCC

his ass, and he called him a “fucking faggot.”

ANSWER: Denied as untrue.

ANSWER: Denied as untrue.

complaints, telling him that they were laying him off.

ANSWER: Denied as untrue.

laid off Mr. Woodruff.

because he had violated the social media policy of the defendant.

ANSWER: Denied as untrue. In further answer, GLCC indicated on Plaintiff’s “Notice

Club retained them as employees.

ANSWER: Denied as untrue.

and other damages.

COUNT I – RACIAL HARASSMENT

ANSWER: Defendants incorporate Paragraphs 1 through 43 as though fully restated

ANSWER: Denied as untrue.

remedial measures to stop the harassment by Mr. Riggins, and it continued.

ANSWER: Denied as untrue.

emotional distress and a loss of enjoyment of life.

ANSWER: Denied as untrue.

Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, MCL 37.2101 et. seq.

ANSWER: Denied as untrue.

COUNT II – RACE DISCRIMINATION AND RETALIATION

ANSWER: Defendants incorporate Paragraphs 1 through 48 as though fully restated

ANSWER: Denied as untrue.

and will continue to suffer the damages set forth above.

ANSWER: Denied as untrue.