1 Defendant Unity Technologies (“Unity”) hereby answers the first amended complaint

2 (“FAC”) filed by Plaintiff Anne Evans as follows:

3 GENERAL DENIAL
4 Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 431.30(d), Unity denies
generally
5 each and every material allegation of the FAC and further denies that Plaintiff has
been damaged
6 in the manner or amount by reason of any act or omission on the part of Unity or any
agent or
7 employee of Unity. Unity further denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any relief from Unity.
Unity
8 denies that it retaliated against Plaintiff in any matter, terminated Plaintiff in violation of
the Fair
9 Employment and Housing Act, violated its obligation to take reasonable steps to
prevent
10 retaliation or discrimination from occurring, wrongfully terminated Plaintiff’s
employment, or
11 defamed Plaintiff.
12 FACTS SUPPORTING AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
13 Unity further alleges the following facts in support of its specific defenses set forth
below:
14 Unity maintainsged in serious misconduct and demonstrated
9 dishonesty a sexual conduct towards her.
7 Unity terminated Plaintiff’s employment because, after an investigation by a third
party, it
8 concluded that Plaintiff, a senior leader, enga
21
22
23
24
25
26 8. As a separate defense to the FAC and to each cause of action therein, Unity
alleges
3. As a separate defense to the FAC and to each cause of action therein, Unity alleges
that recovery by Plaintiff is barred in whole or in part by the doctrines of after-acquired
evidence, in pari delicto, and/or unclean hands. For example, Plaintiff improperly wiped
her Unity laptop prior to returning it to Unity and engaged in sexual conduct towards her.
7 Unity terminated Plaintiff’s employment because, after an investigation by a third
party, it
8 concluded that Plaintiff, a senior leader, enga
21
22
23
24
25
26 8. As a separate defense to the FAC and to each cause of action therein, Unity
alleges
3. As a separate defense to the FAC and to each cause of action therein, Unity alleges
that recovery by Plaintiff is barred in whole or in part by the doctrines of after-acquired
evidence, in pari delicto, and/or unclean hands. For example, Plaintiff improperly wiped
her Unity laptop prior to returning it to Unity and engaged in intentional spoliation of
evidence.
4. As a separate defense to the FAC and to each cause of action therein, Unity alleges
that Plaintiff consented to and/or ratified some or all of the actions now complained of.
5. As a separate defense to the FAC and to each cause intentional spoliation of
evidence.
4. As a separate defense to the FAC and to each cause of action therein, Unity alleges
that Plaintiff consented to and/or ratified some or all of the actions now complained of.
5. As a separate defense to the FAC and to each cause nd gross lapses sexual conduct
towards her.
7 Unity terminated Plaintiff’s employment because, after an investigation by a third
party, it
8 concluded that Plaintiff, a senior leader, enga
21
22
23
24
25
26 8. As a separate defense to the FAC and to each cause of action therein, Unity
alleges
3. As a separate defense to the FAC and to each cause of action therein, Unity alleges
that recovery by Plaintiff is barred in whole or in part by the doctrines of after-acquired
evidence, in pari delicto, and/or unclean hands. For example, Plaintiff improperly wiped
her Unity laptop prior to returning it to Unity and engaged in intentional spoliation of
evidence.
4. As a separate defense to the FAC and to each cause of action therein, Unity alleges
that Plaintiff consented to and/or ratified some or all of the actions now complained of.
5. As a separate defense to the FAC and to each cause in judgment on multiple
occasions. Unity discovered Plaintiff’s
10 misconduct when one of Plaintiff’s subordinates quit unexpectedly. The subordinate,
who was not
11 open about her sexual orientation (and who Plaintiff outed in her lawsuit), revealed
she quit out of
12 fear of employees learning of her secret relationship with Plaintiff. Unity immediately
launched
13 an investigation and ultimately concluded that Plaintiff had a secret on-again, off-
again
14 manipulative and inappropriate sexual relationship with her subordinate over the
course of several
15 years, while married and also in a public and disclosed relationship with another
senior leader at
16 Unity. In addition, Plaintiff previously demonstrated poor judgment and inappropriate
behavior,
17 and had a pattern of making sexual advances to and/or expressing sexual interest in
Unity
18 employees and others at work events. Two other employees previously made
separate complaints
19 about Plaintiff during her Unity tenure, resulting in two prior investigations. As a result
of those
20 complaints and investigations, which occurred in fall 2017 and early 2018, Unity
disciplined
21 Plaintiff for excessive drinking, hot tubbing with her subordinates, favoritism, and
repeated poor
22 judgment. Unity denies that a message to its employees relaying the reasons for
Plaintiff’s
23 termination, or any other statements, defamed Plaintiff. Rather, the statements were
truthful and
24 expressed Unity’s opinions.
25 Unity specifically denies that it maintains a highly sexualized workplace and denies
that
26 CEO John Riccitiello made sexual comments to Plaintiff. Unity denies that Mr.
Riccitiello and
27 other men in management positions spoke openly about women in a sexual manner,
made sexist
28 jokes and engaged in unwelcome flirting, as alleged in the FAC. Unity also denies
that Mr.
-2-
DEFENDANT UNITY TECHNOLOGIES’ ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1 Riccitiello and other men in management positions engaged in the unwelcome

pursuit of sexual
2 relationships with female employees and contractors, as alleged in the FAC. Mr.
Riccitiello did
3 not invite Plaintiff to events to “curry favor” with her, did not invite her to his hotel room
for
4 inappropriate purposes, and did not proposition employees for a threesome. Unity
also denies
5 Plaintiff’s allegations of inappropriate or unwelcome conduct in Paris in 2016, as
alleged in the
6 FAC. Mr. Riccitiello did not lure Plaintiff to dinner, did not proposition her in his hotel
room, did
7 not make the comments Plaintiff alleges, did not instruct Plaintiff to keep quiet about
any events
8 and did not threaten her in any way.
9 Unity further denies that Mr. Riccitiello gave inappropriate or improper gifts to
Elizabeth
10 Brown. Mr. Riccitiello and Ms. Brown appropriately disclosed their relationship to the
Unity
11 Board of Directors. Unity denies that the relationship between Mr. Riccitiello and Ms.
Brown
12 “long predated” their disclosure to the Board, as alleged in the FAC. Unity denies that
Mr.
13 Riccitiello and Ms. Brown regularly discussed inappropriate topics with other Unity
employees,
14 as alleged in the FAC.
15 Unity further denies that any Unity employee improperly accessed, viewed or shared
the
16 raw survey data from a company-wide anonymous Engagement Survey, which
solicited feedback
17 from employees on topics like the work environment and opportunities for growth. No
one at
18 Unity has access to the names or employee IDs associated with the survey
comments or
19 responses. When Plaintiff alerted Unity that an employee may have improperly seen
survey
20 information, Unity promptly investig sexual conduct towards her.
7 Unity terminated Plaintiff’s employment because, after an investigation by a third
party, it
8 concluded that Plaintiff, a senior leader, enga
21
22
23
24
25
26 8. As a separate defense to the FAC and to each cause of action therein, Unity
alleges
3. As a separate defense to the FAC and to each cause of action therein, Unity alleges
that recovery by Plaintiff is barred in whole or in part by the doctrines of after-acquired
evidence, in pari delicto, and/or unclean hands. For example, Plaintiff improperly wiped
her Unity laptop prior to returning it to Unity and engaged in intentional spoliation of
evidence.
4. As a separate defense to the FAC and to each cause of action therein, Unity alleges
that Plaintiff consented to and/or ratified some or all of the actions now complained of.
5. As a separate defense to the FAC and to each cause ated and took appropriate
action. Plaintiff never stated or
21 suggested that she believed the conduct was illegal, and Unity did not terminate or
retaliate
22 against Plaintiff because she alerted Unity that survey information may have been
accessed. Unity
23 further denies that an employee threatened to “bring [Plaintiff] down,” and “accuse
[Plaintiff] of
24 sexual harassment,” or otherwise threatened Plaintiff as alleged in the FAC.
25 As noted above, Unity generally denies any other allegation or suggestion in the FAC
that
26 Plaintiff was unlawfully treated in any way whatsoever.
27 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
28 Unity asserts the following specific defenses to the FAC and its purported causes of
-3-
DEFENDANT UNITY TECHNOLOGIES’ ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

123456789
action. By setting forth the defenses below, Unity does not assume the burden of
proving any facts, issues or elements of a claim where such burden properly belongs to
Plaintiff.
1. As a separate defense to the FAC and to each cause of action therein, Unity alleges
that Plaintiff has sued in the incorrect forum and her claims, which she has contractually
agreed to submit to arbitration, must be asserted in an arbitration forum consistent with
the Federal Arbitration Act and the principles articulated in AT&T Mobility LLC v.
Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (2011).
27 28
that Plaintiff’s claims are barred by payment, setoff, and/or accord and satisfaction.
-4-
DEFENDANT UNITY TECHNOLOGIES’ ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
2. As a separate defense to the FAC and to each cause of action therein, Unity alleges
that the FAC and each purported cause of action therein fails to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20 robust anti-discrimination, harassment and retaliation policies, and
15 strictly prohibits discrimination, harassment and retaliation. Unity expects respectful
treatment of
16 all employees and its policies reflect its commitment to creating a respectful
workplace.
17 Consistent with its policies, Unity encourages employees to immediately report any
form of
18 discrimination, harassment or retaliation to any member of management with whom
they feel
19 comfortable discussing the matter. Employees may also raise concerns to Human
Resources or to
20 Unity’s Legal department, and also have the option of using an anonymous,
confidential third-
21 party hotline, available via phone or email.
22 Unity hired Plaintiff in September 2015 as a Senior Director of Recruiting and then
23 promoted her in August 2017 to Vice President, Global Talent Acquisition. In her
roles, Plaintiff
24 was a Unity manager and senior leader, with a team of employees reporting to her.
Plaintiff
25 completed Unity’s respectful workplace training for managers twice. The training
covers Unity’s
26 policies with respect to discrimination, retaliation and harassment and explains how
employees
27 can report complaints. Plaintiff also had access to Unity’s policies prohibiting
discrimination,
28 harassment and retaliation, which included information about reporting complaints.
At no point
1
DEFENDANT UNITY TECHNOLOGIES’ ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1 during her employment did Plaintiff use any of Unity’s various confidential reporting
2 mechanisms to make a complaint about harassment, discrimination or retaliation or
about
3 experiencing any unwelcome conduct. Nor did Plaintiff ever complain about any
perceived illegal
4 conduct. Plaintiff had multiple opportunities to share concerns during her employment,
including
5 during one-on-one meetings with Unity’s General Counsel, but never shared concerns
that Mr.
6 Riccitiello or others engaged in of action therein, Unity alleges that no conduct by or
attributable to Unity was the cause in fact or legal cause of the damages, if any, suffered
by Plaintiff.
6. As a separate defense to the FAC and to each cause of action therein, Unity alleges
that, should it be determined that Plaintiff has been damaged, then said damages were
proximately caused by her own conduct.
7. As a separate defense to the FAC and to each cause of action therein, Unity alleges
that Plaintiff released, relinquished, waived and is estopped from asserting the claims
upon which Plaintiff now seeks relief.

1 9. As a separate defense to the FAC and to each cause of action therein, Unity
alleges
2 that Plaintiff has failed to comply with California Labor Code sections 2854, 2856,
2858 and
3 2859, respectively, to the extent that Plaintiff failed to use ordinary care and diligence
in the
4 performance of her duties, failed to substantially comply with the reasonable
directions of her
5 employer, and failed to exercise a reasonable degree of skill in performing her job
duties.
6 10. As a separate defense to the FAC and to each cause of action therein, Un