IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

GREENSBORO DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO.: 1:23-cv-722-CCE-JLW

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT )
OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO
vs. )
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
)
HOOTERS OF AMERICA, LLC, )
)
Defendants. )

NOW COMES Defendant Hooters of America, LLC (“Defendant”), by and

through its undersigned counsel, and files Defendant’s Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint

and Affirmative Defenses, and in response to the allegations contained in the Complaint

(“Complaint”) filed by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“Plaintiff”),

Defendant states as follows:

ANSWER TO JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. The allegations contained in Paragraph 1 of the Complaint call for legal

conclusions to which no response is necessary. To the extent a response is required,

Defendant admits this Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of Plaintiff’s claims

alleged against Defendant pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331, 1337, 1343 and 1345.

2. The allegations contained in Paragraph 2 of the Complaint call for legal

conclusions to which no response is necessary. To the extent a response is required,

Case 1:23-cv-00722-CCE-JLW Document 15 Filed 12/20/23 Page 1 of 12

Defendant admits Plaintiff purports to bring claims pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights

Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), but denies those claims have any merit.

3. The allegations contained in Paragraph 3 of the Complaint call for legal

conclusions to which no response is necessary. To the extent a response is required,

Defendant admits this Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of Plaintiff’s claims

and that venue is proper in this Court, but denies it engaged in any violations of law as

alleged in Paragraph 3 of the Complaint.

ANSWER TO PARTIES

4. The allegations contained in Paragraph 4 of the Complaint call for legal

conclusions to which no response is necessary. To the extent a response is required,

Defendant admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 4 of the Complaint.

5. Defendant admits that it is a Georgia corporation, and franchisor and operator

of a national chain of restaurants, commonly known as “Hooters,” with locations in

multiple states within the United States and multiple countries, including, but not limited

to, a restaurant located at 3031 W. Gate City Blvd., Greensboro, NC 27403.

6. Defendant admits it does business in the State of North Carolina and in

Guilford County, but denies it has “continuously” done business in State of North Carolina

and in Guilford County without any temporal limits on that allegation. Defendant admits it

currently has at least 15 employees, but denies it has “continuously” employed at least 15

employees without any temporal limits on that allegation.

Case 1:23-cv-00722-CCE-JLW Document 15 Filed 12/20/23 Page 2 of 12

 7. The allegations contained in Paragraph 7 of the Complaint call for legal

conclusions to which no response is necessary. To the extent a response is required,

Defendant admits that, at all times relevant to this complaint, Defendant has continuously

been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce under Sections 701(b), (g)

and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(b), (g) and (h).

ANSWER TO ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

8. Defendant admits that Ms. Daughtridge filed a charge with the EEOC more

than 30 days prior to the filing of this lawsuit. Defendant denies that charge had any merit,

and denies all remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph 8.

9. Defendant admits that the Commission issued a letter of determination

referenced in Paragraph 9. Defendant denies all remaining allegations set forth in

Paragraph 9. Defendant expressly denies any and all allegations that Defendant engaged

in discriminatory practices as alleged in the Complaint.

10. Defendant admits the Commission issued a letter of determination referenced

in Paragraph 10. Defendant denies all remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph 10.

11. Defendant lacks information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth or falsity of the allegations in Paragraph 11 and therefore denies the allegations

set forth in Paragraph 11.

12. Defendant admits that the Commission issued the letter referenced in

Paragraph 12. Defendant denies all remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph 12.

Case 1:23-cv-00722-CCE-JLW Document 15 Filed 12/20/23 Page 3 of 12

 13. The allegations contained in Paragraph 13 of the Complaint call for legal

conclusions to which no response is necessary. To the extent a response is required, these

allegations are denied. Defendant specifically denies it engaged in any violations of law

as alleged in the Complaint.

ANSWER TO GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

14. Defendant denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 14.

15. Defendant admits the allegations set forth in Paragraph 15.

16. Defendant admits the allegations set forth in Paragraph 16.

17. Defendant lacks information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth or falsity of the allegations in Paragraph 17 and therefore denies the allegations

set forth in Paragraph 17. Defendant further states that the characterization regarding skin

tone is subjective, relative and not capable of objective determination and therefore is

denied.

18. Defendant lacks information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth or falsity of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 18 as to alleged Class Members

and, therefore, denies those allegations.

19. Defendant lacks information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth or falsity of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 19 as to alleged Class Members

and, therefore, denies those allegations. Defendant further states that the characterization

regarding skin tone is subjective, relative and not capable of objective determination and

therefore is denied.

Case 1:23-cv-00722-CCE-JLW Document 15 Filed 12/20/23 Page 4 of 12

 20. Defendant denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 20.

21. Defendant denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 21.

22. Defendant denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 22.

23. Defendant admits the allegations set forth in Paragraph 23.

24. Defendant admits the allegations set forth in Paragraph 24.

25. Defendant lacks information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth or falsity of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 25 as to alleged Class Members

and, therefore, denies those allegations.

26. Defendant denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 26. Defendant further

states that whether or not Ms. Daughtridge was qualified at the time of the COVID layoff

is irrelevant to this action.

27. Defendant denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 27.

28. Defendant denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 28.

29. Defendant denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 29.

30. Defendant denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 30.

31. Defendant admits that Daughtridge was not recalled to the Greensboro

Restaurant in or about mid-May 2020. Defendant lacks information or knowledge

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations set forth in Paragraph

31 as to alleged Class Members, therefore, denies those allegations.

Case 1:23-cv-00722-CCE-JLW Document 15 Filed 12/20/23 Page 5 of 12

 32. Defendant states that the characterization regarding skin tone is subjective,

relative and not capable of objective determination and therefore Defendant denies the

allegations set forth in Paragraph 32.

33. Defendant states that the characterization regarding skin tone is subjective,

relative and not capable of objective determination and therefore Defendant denies the

allegations set forth in Paragraph 33.

34. Defendant states that the characterization regarding skin tone is subjective,

relative and not capable of objective determination and therefore Defendant denies the

allegations set forth in Paragraph 34.

COUNT I:

Alleged Failure to Recall and/or Rehire on the Basis of Race in Violation of Title VII

35. In response to Paragraph 35 of the Complaint, Defendant incorporates by

reference its responses to the allegations in Paragraphs 1-34 as if fully set forth herein.

36. Defendant denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 36.

37. Defendant denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 37.

38. Defendant denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 38.

39. Defendant denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 39.

COUNT II:
Alleged Failure to Recall and/or Rehire on the Basis of Color in Violation of Title
VII

40. In response to Paragraph 40 of the Complaint, Defendant incorporates by

reference its responses to the allegations in Paragraphs 1-39 as if fully set forth herein.

Case 1:23-cv-00722-CCE-JLW Document 15 Filed 12/20/23 Page 6 of 12

 41. Defendant denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 41.

42. Defendant denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 42.

43. Defendant denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 43.

44. Defendant denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 44.

ANSWER TO PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Defendant denies Plaintiff is entitled to any of the relief sought in its “Prayer for

Relief” Paragraph immediately following Paragraph 45 of the Complaint, including

subparagraphs A-H.

GENERAL DENIAL

Defendant denies each and every statement or allegation contained in the Complaint not

specifically admitted herein.

AFFIRMATIVE AND OTHER DEFENSES1

In addition to the foregoing admissions and denials, Defendant asserts the

following affirmative and other defenses. These defenses are applicable to the individual

claims of Ms. Daughtridge as well as the claims of any other purported class members on

whose behalf Plaintiff purports to assert a claim.

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

At all times, Defendant’s actions were lawful, justified and made in good faith.

1
By pleading any matter as a defense, Defendant does not concede that it bears the burden of
proof with regard to such matter.
7

Case 1:23-cv-00722-CCE-JLW Document 15 Filed 12/20/23 Page 7 of 12

 SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Some or all of Plaintiff’s claims are or may be barred by Plaintiff’s failure to engage

in good faith conciliation efforts with Defendant.

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Plaintiff’s claims are not actionable because the challenged employment decisions

are justified by legitimate, non-discriminatory, non-retaliatory, and non-pretextual

business reasons unrelated to Daughtridge’s (or any other potential class member or

employees’) alleged protected class.

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Plaintiff’s claims are or may be barred by Daughtridge’s (and any other potential

class member/employees’) and/or Plaintiff’s failure to satisfy administrative prerequisites,

to the extent that Daughtridge (or any other potential class member/employees’) claims

exceed the scope of the charge filed with the EEOC and/or to the extent the charge was not

timely filed.

FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Plaintiff’s claims with respect to any “Class Members” are barred because Plaintiff

and/or the alleged “Class Members” have not and cannot met the jurisdictional

prerequisites for filing a claim under Title VII.

Case 1:23-cv-00722-CCE-JLW Document 15 Filed 12/20/23 Page 8 of 12

 SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Some or all of Plaintiff’s claims are barred because they are beyond the scope of

Daughtridge’s underlying charge of discrimination, were not subject to administrative

investigation, and were not included in any determination by the EEOC.

SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Plaintiff’s claims are or may be barred by Daughtridge’s (or any alleged/potential

class member’s) failure to mitigate any alleged damages.

EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

To the extent the EEOC seeks to recover for alleged discrimination which occurred

more than 180 days before the underlying filed EEOC charge, such claims are time-barred

and should be dismissed.

NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Defendant cannot be vicariously liable for punitive damages in light of its good faith

efforts to comply with the anti-discrimination statutes at issue in this case. See Kolstad v.

American Dental Ass’n, 527 U.S. 526 (1999).

TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Defendant pleads all applicable statute of limitations as a bar, in whole or in part, to

recovery by Plaintiff, Daughtridge and/or any potential putative class member(s).

ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Some or all of the relief sought by Plaintiff in the Complaint may be barred by the

doctrines of unclean hands, laches, and/or estoppel.

Case 1:23-cv-00722-CCE-JLW Document 15 Filed 12/20/23 Page 9 of 12

 TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Plaintiff’s claims are or may be barred in that the actions of Defendant related to

Daughtridge’s (or any alleged class member’s) were a just and proper exercise of

management discretion, which were undertaken for fair and honest reasons regulated by

good faith under the circumstances then existing.

THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Notwithstanding the general denials and previous defenses set forth herein, to the

extent that Plaintiff establishes that any prohibited criteria was a motivating factor for any

employment decision challenged by Plaintiff, Defendant would have taken the same action

in the absence of such an impermissible motivating factor.

FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

The claims of Plaintiff, Daughtridge and/or any potential putative class member(s)

are barred to the extent that the Complaint fails, in whole or in part, to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted or for which the damages sought can be awarded.

FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

The claims alleged in the Complaint are barred to the extent Plaintiff seeks to assert

claims on behalf of potential/putative class members who are not similarly situated with

respect to matters alleged in the Complaint.

10

Case 1:23-cv-00722-CCE-JLW Document 15 Filed 12/20/23 Page 10 of 12

 SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Plaintiff’s attempt to assert claims on behalf of a purported class fails because the

characterization regarding skin tone is subjective, relative and not capable of objective

determination and therefore such claims are not subject to determination on a class basis.

SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Plaintiff’s attempt to assert claims on behalf of a purported class in the alternative

(i.e. “because of their race (Black) and/or color (dark skin tone)”), fails because such

alternative claims are not subject to determination on a class wide basis.

ADDITIONAL DEFENSES

Defendant reserves the right to designate additional defenses as they become

apparent through the course of discovery, investigation, or otherwise.

WHEREFORE, having fully answered and responded to the allegations contained

in the Complaint, Defendant hereby requests that:

1. Each of Plaintiff’s claims be dismissed with prejudice in their entirety;

2. Each and every prayer for relief contained in Plaintiff’s Complaint be denied;

3. Judgment be entered in favor of Defendant;

4. All costs, including attorneys’ fees, be awarded to Defendant and against

Plaintiff pursuant to applicable law; and,

5. Defendant be granted such other and further relief as this Court may deem

just and proper.

11

Case 1:23-cv-00722-CCE-JLW Document 15 Filed 12/20/23 Page 11 of 12

 Respectfully submitted this the 20th day of December, 2023.

JACKSON LEWIS P.C.

s/ M. Robin Davis
M. Robin Davis
N.C. State Bar No. 21655
Local Civil Rule 83.1(d) Counsel for Defendant
Email: Robin.Davis@jacksonlewis.com
3737 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 450
Raleigh, NC 27612
Phone: 919-760-6460

Damón Gray II
N.C. State Bar No. 50740
Email: Damon.Gray@jacksonlewis.com
3737 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 450
Raleigh, NC 27612
Phone: 984-263-3610

Richard J. Mrizek
ARDC No. 6237730
*Special Appearance per L.R. 83.1(d)(1)
Email: Richard.Mrizek@jacksonlewis.com
150 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 2500
Chicago, IL 60601
Phone: 312-803-2569

Attorneys for Defendant4890-4915-4711, v. 2

12

Case 1:23-cv-00722-CCE-JLW Document 15 Filed 12/20/23 Page 12 of 12