Ahmer Inam v. Nike - Nike Answer

5/23/2019 12:49 PM
19CV12898
4 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON
5 FOR THE COUNTY OF MULTNOMAH
6 AHMER INAM, No. 19CV12898

7 Plaintiff, ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSES TO FIRST AMENDED
8 v. COMPLAINT
9 NIKE, INC., an Oregon corporation, NOT SUBJECT TO MANDATORY
ARBITRATION
760 SW Ninth Avenue, Suite 3000, Portland, OR 97205
10 Defendant.
ORS 21.160(1)(c) Filing Fee: $560
Fax 503.220.2480
11
STOEL RIVES LLP
12
13 In response to plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, Defendant Nike, Inc. (“Nike”)
14 admits, denies and alleges as follows:

Main 503.224.3380
15 INTRODUCTION
16 1.
17 No response is needed to paragraph 1.
18 JURISDICTION
19 2.
20 In response to paragraph 2, Nike admits that this Court has jurisdiction over
21 plaintiff’s claims.
22 VENUE
23 3.
24 In response to paragraph 3, Nike admits that venue is proper in this Court.
25 ///
26 ///
Page 1 - ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
101720721.5 0063718-00337
1 PARTIES
2 4.
3 In response to paragraph 4, Nike admits that plaintiff was formerly employed by Nike
4 and represented during his employment that he lived in Portland, Oregon. Except as
5 expressly admitted, Nike denies the allegations in paragraph 4.
6 5.
7 In response to paragraph 5, Nike admits that it is an American multinational sports
8 apparel and equipment company. Except as expressly admitted, Nike denies the allegations
9 in paragraph 5.
10 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
Fax 503.220.2480
11 6.
In response to paragraph 6, Nike admits that plaintiff’s summary of his educational

STOEL RIVES LLP
12
13 background is consistent with what he represented to Nike. Except as expressly admitted,
14 Nike denies the allegations in paragraph 6.

Main 503.224.3380
15 7.
16 In response to paragraph 7, Nike admits that plaintiff had previous data analytics
17 experience and that his summary of his previous experience is consistent with what he
18 represented to Nike. Except as expressly admitted, Nike denies the allegations in
19 paragraph 7.
20 8.
21 In response to paragraph 8, Nike admits that in or around July 2015, a Nike recruiter
22 contacted plaintiff, who represented that he was then working with an analytics advisory firm
23 in Charlotte, North Carolina. Except as expressly admitted, Nike denies the allegations in
24 paragraph 8.
25 ///
26 ///
101720721.5 0063718-00337
1 9.
2 In response to paragraph 9, Nike admits that it offered and plaintiff accepted a
3 position with Nike, and that plaintiff relocated to Oregon and began work on or about
4 October 19, 2015. Except as expressly admitted, Nike denies the allegations in paragraph 9.
5 10.
6 In response to paragraph 10, Nike admits that plaintiff reported to Ms. Paulson for
7 about two years, and that plaintiff successfully met the 30, 60, and 90 day performance goals
8 that Ms. Paulson gave him. Nike further admits that plaintiff received mostly successful
9 performance reviews and that plaintiff at times received positive feedback from the
10 individuals with whom he worked, although there were certain areas in which he needed to
Fax 503.220.2480
11 improve. Except as expressly admitted, Nike denies the allegations in paragraph 10.
11.
STOEL RIVES LLP
12
14 12.
Main 503.224.3380
15 In response to paragraph 12, Nike admits that Mr. Carpenter was working in a
16 different area of analytics and had no role in plaintiff’s chain of command. Except as
18 13.
19 In response to paragraph 13, Nike admits that there was a reorganization within the
20 analytics group in or around August 2017, and that plaintiff, along with two other Senior
21 Directors, began reporting to Ms. Cornelius, the Senior Director of Marketplace Analytics.
22 Nike further admits that Mr. Carpenter and Ms. Cornelius are white. Except as expressly
23 admitted, Nike denies the allegations in paragraph 13.
24 14.
25 In response to paragraph 14, Nike admits that Mr. Carpenter met with plaintiff on or
26 about August 31, 2017. Except as expressly admitted, Nike denies the allegations in
101720721.5 0063718-00337
1 paragraph 14, including the assertion that Mr. Carpenter (who, as noted above, had
2 previously worked in a different area of analytics and had no role in plaintiff’s chain of
3 command) had done anything or threatened to do anything to interfere with plaintiff’s
4 employment.
5 15.
6 In response to paragraph 15, Nike admits that Mr. Davis, who worked as the head of
7 global advanced analytics and reported to Mr. Carpenter before the reorganization, continued
8 working in that role after the reorganization. Nike further admits that Mr. Davis is white,
9 was born in the United States, and has a Bachelor’s degree. Except as expressly admitted,
10 Nike denies the allegations in paragraph 15, including the assertion that plaintiff (who, unlike
Fax 503.220.2480
11 Mr. Davis, had not worked in global analytics) was more qualified than Mr. Davis for a
12 global analytics job.

STOEL RIVES LLP
13 16.
14 In response to paragraph 16, Nike admits that plaintiff received a Performance Action
Main 503.224.3380
15 Plan (“PAP”) in May 2018 to help him address multiple, ongoing performance issues that
16 had continued despite coaching. Nike further admits that Mr. Davis became plaintiff’s dotted
17 line manager after the reorganization. Except as expressly admitted, Nike denies the
18 allegations in paragraph 16.
19 17.
20 Nike denies the allegations in paragraphs 17 and 18.
21 18.
22 Nike denies the allegations in paragraph 19, including the suggestion that plaintiff
23 had ownership over forecasting and the statement that he provided Mr. Davis a “nearly
24 complete project.”
25 ///
26 ///
101720721.5 0063718-00337
1 19.
2 In response to paragraph 20, Nike admits that, as with any other manager, plaintiff
3 may have at times had open positions underneath him for which hiring was frozen due to
4 resource constraints. Except as expressly admitted, Nike denies the allegations in paragraph
5 20, including the suggestion that plaintiff was ignored or that Ms. Cornelius designed
6 plaintiff’s team without his input, and the assertion that “other resources and funding” were
7 transitioned to Mr. Davis’ team.
8 20.
9 In response to paragraph 21, Nike admits that the team with which plaintiff worked
10 included numerous employees of color who were also in Ms. Cornelius’ and Mr. Carpenter’s
Fax 503.220.2480
11 chain of command. Except as expressly admitted, Nike denies the allegations in paragraph
12 21, including the assertion that Ms. Cornelius or Mr. Carpenter treated employees differently
STOEL RIVES LLP
13 based on their race - an allegation that employees of color, when interviewed by Nike’s
14 investigator, flatly denied.

Main 503.224.3380
15 21.
17 22.
18 Nike denies the allegations in paragraph 23, including the assertion that other
19 employees of color (who were interviewed by Nike’s investigator at plaintiff’s request)
20 experienced discrimination by Mr. Carpenter - a claim that they flatly denied.
21 23.
22 In response to paragraph 24, Nike admits that Mr. Bradley is white. Except as
23 expressly admitted, Nike denies the allegations in paragraph 24, including that assertion that
24 Mr. Bradley, who has a specialized skillset that plaintiff does not have, was comparable to
25 plaintiff.
26 ///
101720721.5 0063718-00337
1 24.
2 In response to paragraphs 25 and 26, Nike admits that plaintiff asked Ms. Cornelius
3 for a raise on more than one occasion, including in April 2018, and that she declined his
4 requests in light of plaintiff’s performance problems and the fact that his salary was already
5 within market range. Except as expressly admitted, Nike denies the allegations in paragraphs
6 25 and 26.
7 25.
8 In response to paragraphs 27 and 28, Nike admits that plaintiff, who was on a PAP
9 due to his ongoing performance problems, was not interviewed for a position under
10 Mr. Bruich. Except as expressly admitted, Nike denies the allegations in paragraphs 27 and
Fax 503.220.2480
11 28.
26.
STOEL RIVES LLP
12
14 27.
Main 503.224.3380
15 In response to paragraph 31, Nike admits that plaintiff spoke to Ms. Paulson about
16 Ms. Cornelius and Mr. Carpenter, and that Ms. Paulson recommended he follow Nike’s
17 internal processes to report his concerns. Except as expressly admitted, Nike denies the
19 28.
20 In response to paragraphs 32 and 33, Nike admits that Ms. McCoy was initially slated
21 to report to plaintiff, but that she ultimately reported to Ms. Cornelius instead. Except as
22 expressly admitted, Nike denies the allegations in paragraphs 32 and 33, including the
23 assertions that Mr. Carpenter deliberately excluded plaintiff from a meeting or that plaintiff
24 recruited Ms. McCoy.
25 ///
26 ///
101720721.5 0063718-00337
1 29.
2 In response to paragraph 34, Nike admits that plaintiff met with Ms. Brown in early
3 May 2018, and that she appropriately recommended that plaintiff speak with Employee
4 Relations. Except as expressly admitted, Nike denies the allegations in paragraph 34.
5 30.
6 In response to paragraph 35, Nike admits that Mr. Parker spoke at a Company-wide
7 meeting in May 2018 and made a statement consistent with what is in quotation marks.
8 Except as expressly admitted, Nike denies the allegations in paragraph 35.
9 31.
10 In response to paragraph 36, Nike admits that plaintiff made a complaint to Nike’s
Fax 503.220.2480
11 Human Resources department in early May 2018 and also spoke with Mr. Elder, who
12 listened to plaintiff’s concerns and provided him with numerous resources, including Nike’s
STOEL RIVES LLP
13 Employee Relations department, Employee Assistance Program, leave of absence
14 administrator, and Anonymous Alertline. Except as expressly admitted, Nike denies the
Main 503.224.3380
16 32.
17 In response to paragraph 37, Nike admits that Ms. Strader met with plaintiff on or
18 about May 10, 2018. Except as expressly admitted, Nike denies the allegations in paragraph
19 37, including the suggestion that Ms. Strader did not provide constructive feedback to help
20 address plaintiff’s concerns.
21 33.
22 Nike denies the allegations in paragraph 38, including the suggestion that
23 Ms. Cornelius somehow referred or alluded to plaintiff’s complaints.
24 34.
26 ///
101720721.5 0063718-00337
1 35.
2 In response to paragraph 40, Nike admits that plaintiff sent an email to Ms. Brown in
3 mid-May 2018, providing his assessment of his own performance. Nike also admits that
4 plaintiff emailed Employee Relations in mid-May 2018. Except as expressly admitted, Nike
5 denies the allegations in paragraph 40.
6 36.
7 In response to paragraph 41, Nike admits that Ms. Cornelius met with plaintiff and
8 gave him a PAP on or about May 25, 2018, which outlined specific problems in the areas of
9 product ownership, communication, stakeholder management and problem solving, and data
10 quality that had persisted despite Ms. Cornelius’ efforts to coach plaintiff. Nike further
Fax 503.220.2480
11 admits that plaintiff was required to reach certain goals to successfully complete the PAP,
12 which was designed to bring his performance to a successful level, and that Ms. Cornelius
STOEL RIVES LLP
13 requested that plaintiff set up weekly meetings with her and Mr. Davis so they could support
14 plaintiff and ensure he was able to meet the PAP requirements. Except as expressly
Main 503.224.3380
16 37.
17 Nike denies the allegations in paragraph 42, including the suggestion that
18 Ms. Cornelius did not obtain input about plaintiff’s performance from individuals with whom
19 he worked.
20 38.
21 In response to paragraph 43, Nike admits that Mr. Davis was plaintiff’s dotted-line
22 manager following the reorganization. Except as expressly admitted, Nike denies the
24 39.
26 ///
101720721.5 0063718-00337
1 40.
2 In response to paragraph 46, Nike admits that plaintiff met with Mr. Elder, along with
3 Nike investigator Katie Clark, on or about June 5, 2018, and that he spoke about his concerns
4 with Ms. Cornelius during that meeting. Except as expressly admitted, Nike denies the
6 41.
7 In response to paragraph 47, Nike admits that Ms. Clark, a licensed attorney and
8 experienced investigator who was new to Nike at the time, was assigned to further
9 investigate plaintiff’s complaint. Except as expressly admitted, Nike denies the allegations in
10 paragraph 47.
Fax 503.220.2480
11 42.
In response to paragraph 48, Nike admits that plaintiff continued to provide

STOEL RIVES LLP
12
13 information about his complaints against Ms. Cornelius, as well as the names of potential
14 witnesses, to Ms. Clark and Mr. Elder. Nike further admits that Mr. Elder and Ms. Clark
Main 503.224.3380
15 repeatedly referred plaintiff to resources, such as the Employee Assistance Program, that
16 could help address plaintiff’s mental health concerns while Ms. Clark conducted a thorough
17 investigation into his complaints and interviewed approximately 35 witnesses. Except as
19 43.
20 In response to paragraph 49, Nike admits that plaintiff and Ms. Cornelius spoke about
21 plaintiff’s impression that he was a Chief Product Owner in or about July 2018. Except as
23 44.
24 In response to paragraph 50, Nike admits that plaintiff reported to Ms. Clark and
25 Mr. Elder that Ms. Cornelius had said he was not a Chief Product Owner, and that Ms. Clark
26 investigated this issue but was unable to substantiate plaintiff’s assertion that what
101720721.5 0063718-00337
1 Ms. Cornelius had said was false. Nike further admits that plaintiff at times provided Ms.
2 Clark with additional witnesses, which resulted in Ms. Clark speaking to approximately 35
3 individuals who did not substantiate plaintiff’s claims. Except as expressly admitted, Nike
4 denies the allegations in paragraph 50.
5 45.
6 In response to paragraphs 51 and 52, Nike admits that plaintiff spoke with
7 Ms. Morning, Employee Relations Director, in person and via email about his concerns in
8 July 2018, and that Nike approved plaintiff’s request for two weeks of leave. Except as
9 expressly admitted, Nike denies the allegations in paragraphs 51 and 52.

10 46.
Fax 503.220.2480
11 Nike lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or
12 falsity of plaintiff’s allegations in paragraph 53, and therefore denies them.

STOEL RIVES LLP
13 47.
14 In response to paragraph 54, Nike admits that plaintiff returned from leave on or
Main 503.224.3380
15 about August 1, 2018. Except as expressly admitted, Nike denies the allegations in
16 paragraph 54.
17 48.
18 In response to paragraph 55, Nike admits that, due to his ongoing performance
19 problems that Nike was attempting to remedy through a PAP, plaintiff was going to receive
20 an “Inconsistent” performance rating and a 1% merit increase for the 2018 fiscal year. Nike
21 further admits that plaintiff made several complaints about Ms. Cornelius to Ms. Morning.
22 Except as expressly admitted, Nike denies the allegations in paragraph 55.
23 49.
24 In response to paragraph 56, Nike admits that plaintiff spoke to Ms. Morning on
25 August 8, 2018, and that Ms. Morning told him that Nike was continuing to investigate his
26 complaints. Except as expressly admitted, Nike denies the allegations in paragraph 56.
101720721.5 0063718-00337
1 50.
2 Nike admits the allegations in paragraph 57.
3 51.
4 Nike lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or
5 falsity of plaintiff’s allegations in paragraph 58, and therefore denies them.
6 52.
7 In response to paragraph 59, Nike admits that plaintiff initially represented that he
8 would return from parental leave on October 8, 2018, and that plaintiff contacted
9 Ms. Morning on or about August 27, 2018. Except as expressly admitted, Nike denies the
10 allegations in paragraph 59, including the suggestion that Nike should have contacted
Fax 503.220.2480
11 plaintiff while he was on leave, which would have been contrary to Nike’s practice.
53.
STOEL RIVES LLP
12
13 In response to paragraph 60, Nike admits that plaintiff submitted a request for
14 additional leave on or about October 1, 2018. Except as expressly admitted, Nike denies the
Main 503.224.3380
16 54.
17 In response to paragraph 61, Nike admits that plaintiff emailed Ms. Matheson about
18 his concerns on October 4, 2018. Except as expressly admitted, Nike denies the allegations
19 in paragraph 61.
20 55.
22 56.
23 In response to paragraph 63, Nike admits that it received a demand letter from
24 plaintiff’s attorney on or about October 12, 2018. Except as expressly admitted, Nike denies
25 the allegations in paragraph 63.
26 ///
101720721.5 0063718-00337
1 57.
2 In response to paragraph 64, Nike admits that its attorneys began investigating the
3 matter after receiving the demand letter from plaintiff’s attorney. Except as expressly
5 58.
6 In response to paragraph 65, Nike admits that it appropriately investigated the
7 allegations in the demand letter from plaintiff’s attorney before responding, and that it
8 informed plaintiff’s attorney that it was doing so, despite plaintiff’s attorney’s repeated
9 attempts to unilaterally impose a deadline for Nike’s response. Except as expressly admitted,

Fax 503.220.2480
11 59.
In response to paragraph 66, Nike admits that its short-term disability provider, which
STOEL RIVES LLP
12
13 is an independent entity and makes coverage decisions without Nike’s involvement, denied
14 plaintiff’s request for short-term disability. Except as expressly admitted, Nike denies the
Main 503.224.3380
16 60.
18 61.
19 In response to paragraph 68, Nike admits that plaintiff voluntarily resigned from his
20 position via a letter to Ms. Matheson on December 7, 2018. Except as expressly admitted,
21 Nike denies the allegations in paragraph 68, including plaintiff’s false assertion that his non-
22 competition agreement (which, as communicated to plaintiff, Nike specifically declined to
23 enforce) would have required plaintiff to accept employment out of his industry.
24 62.
26 ///
101720721.5 0063718-00337
1 FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Violation of ORS 659A.030(1)(a)-(b)
2 Race Discrimination – Disparate Treatment
3 63.
4 In response to paragraph 70, Nike incorporates by reference its responses to
5 paragraphs 1 through 69 above.
6 64.
7 Paragraphs 71 and 72 contain legal conclusions to which no response is required.
8 65.

10 66.
Fax 503.220.2480
11 In response to paragraphs 74 and 75, Nike admits that it strives to promptly and
12 thoroughly investigate all complaints, including plaintiff’s. Nike further admits that it
STOEL RIVES LLP
13 promptly and thoroughly investigated plaintiff’s complaints, and was unable to substantiate
14 his allegations. Except as expressly admitted, Nike denies the allegations in paragraphs 74
Main 503.224.3380
15 and 75.
16 67.
17 Nike denies the allegations in paragraphs 76-80.
18 SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Violation of ORS 659A.030(1)(a)-(b)
19 Race Discrimination – Hostile Work Environment
20 68.
23 69.
24 Paragraphs 82 and 83 contain legal conclusions to which no response is required.
25 70.
101720721.5 0063718-00337
1 71.
2 In response to paragraph 85, Nike admits that it promptly and thoroughly investigated
3 plaintiff’s complaints, and was unable to substantiate his allegations. Except as expressly
5 72.
7 THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Violation of ORS 659A.030(1)(f)
8 Retaliation for Opposing Unlawful Practices
9 73.

Fax 503.220.2480

74.
STOEL RIVES LLP
12
13 Paragraph 92 contains legal conclusions to which no response is required.
14 75.
Main 503.224.3380
15 In response to paragraph 93, Nike admits that plaintiff reported concerns about his
16 treatment to management and Human Resources. The remainder of paragraph 93 contains
17 legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent facts are alleged, Nike
18 denies them.
19 76.
21 77.
22 Except as expressly admitted above, Nike denies each and every allegation in
23 plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint and the whole thereof.
24 ///
25 ///
26 ///
101720721.5 0063718-00337
1 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
2 Without assuming plaintiff’s burden of proof on any issue, Nike asserts the following
3 affirmative defenses:
4 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
5 (Failure to State a Claim)
6 78.
7 Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
8 SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
9 (Reasonable Care/Preventative Measures/Failure to Report)

10 79.
Fax 503.220.2480
11 Nike exercised reasonable care to prevent unlawful retaliation in its workplace and to
12 promptly correct any inappropriate employment actions. Plaintiff unreasonably failed to take
STOEL RIVES LLP
13 advantage of corrective opportunities provided by Nike.
14 THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Main 503.224.3380
15 (Legitimate, Non-Discriminatory, Non-Retaliatory Reasons)
16 80.
17 Every action taken regarding plaintiff’s employment was taken for legitimate, non-
18 discriminatory and non-retaliatory reasons.
19 FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
20 (Good Faith Efforts)
21 81.
22 Any alleged damages, including any claim for punitive damages, are inappropriate or
23 barred because Nike made good faith efforts to comply with applicable law.
24 ///
25 ///
26 ///
101720721.5 0063718-00337
1 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 (Failure to Mitigate)
3 82.
4 Plaintiff has failed to mitigate his damages, if any.
5 SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
6 (Damages Capped Under ORS 31.710)
7 83.
8 Without conceding that plaintiff is entitled to any damages, plaintiff’s claim for non-
9 economic damages is limited by ORS 31.710.

10 SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Fax 503.220.2480
11 (Lack of Good Faith)
84.
STOEL RIVES LLP
12
13 Plaintiff makes allegations in his First Amended Complaint that he knows are false.
14 EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Main 503.224.3380
15 (Statute of Limitations)
16 85.
17 All or part of plaintiff’s claims are barred by the applicable statutes of limitations to
18 the extent his claims are premised on events occurring outside the statutory limitations
19 period.
20 ///
21 ///
22 ///
23
24
25
26
101720721.5 0063718-00337
1 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
2 Wherefore, on plaintiff’s claims for relief, Nike prays for judgment as follows:
3 1. Dismissing all of plaintiff’s claims with prejudice;
4 2. Awarding Nike its costs, disbursements, and attorneys’ fees in defending this
5 action, and
6 3. For such other relief as deemed just and equitable.
7 DATED: May 23, 2019. STOEL RIVES LLP

8
s/ Melissa J. Healy
9 AMY JOSEPH PEDERSEN, OSB No. 853958
[email protected]
10 MELISSA J. HEALY, OSB No. 102176

[email protected]
Fax 503.220.2480
11
Attorneys for Defendant
STOEL RIVES LLP
12
13
14
Main 503.224.3380
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
101720721.5 0063718-00337
1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
2 I hereby certify that I served the foregoing ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE
3 DEFENSES TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT on the following named person(s) on
4 the date indicated below by
5  mailing with postage prepaid

6  by hand delivery
7  email (courtesy copy only)
8  Odyssey file and serve
9 to said person(s) a true copy thereof, contained in a sealed envelope if by mail, addressed to
10 said person(s) at his or her last-known address(es) indicated below.

Fax 503.220.2480
11 Dana L. Sullivan
Kristine Lambert
STOEL RIVES LLP
12 Buchanan Angeli Altschul & Sullivan LLP

921 S.W. Washington Street, Suite 516
13 Portland, OR 97205
[email protected]
14
Main 503.224.3380
[email protected]
15 Attorneys for Plaintiff
16
17 DATED: May 23, 2019. STOEL RIVES LLP

18
s/ Melissa J. Healy
19 AMY JOSEPH PEDERSEN, OSB No. 853958
[email protected]
20 MELISSA J. HEALY, OSB No. 102176
[email protected]
21
Attorneys for Defendant
22
23
24
25
26
Page 1 - CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
101720721.5 0063718-00337

Ahmer Inam v. Nike - Nike Answer

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ahmer Inam v. Nike - Nike Answer

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ahmer Inam v. Nike - Nike Answer

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

5/23/2019 12:49 PM

4 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON

5 FOR THE COUNTY OF MULTNOMAH

6 AHMER INAM, No. 19CV12898

13 In response to plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, Defendant Nike, Inc. (“Nike”)

14 admits, denies and alleges as follows:

17 No response is needed to paragraph 1.

24 In response to paragraph 3, Nike admits that venue is proper in this Court.

Page 1 - ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

5 expressly admitted, Nike denies the allegations in paragraph 4.

7 In response to paragraph 5, Nike admits that it is an American multinational sports

In response to paragraph 6, Nike admits that plaintiff’s summary of his educational

13 background is consistent with what he represented to Nike. Except as expressly admitted,

14 Nike denies the allegations in paragraph 6.

18 represented to Nike. Except as expressly admitted, Nike denies the allegations in

Page 2 - ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

2 In response to paragraph 9, Nike admits that it offered and plaintiff accepted a

13 Nike denies the allegations in paragraph 11.

17 expressly admitted, Nike denies the allegations in paragraph 12.

23 admitted, Nike denies the allegations in paragraph 13.

Page 3 - ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

3 command) had done anything or threatened to do anything to interfere with plaintiff’s

12 global analytics job.

18 allegations in paragraph 16.

20 Nike denies the allegations in paragraphs 17 and 18.

Page 4 - ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

7 transitioned to Mr. Davis’ team.

14 investigator, flatly denied.

16 Nike denies the allegations in paragraph 22.

19 employees of color (who were interviewed by Nike’s investigator at plaintiff’s request)

20 experienced discrimination by Mr. Carpenter - a claim that they flatly denied.

Page 5 - ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

13 Nike denies the allegations in paragraphs 29 and 30.

18 allegations in paragraph 31.

24 recruited Ms. McCoy.

Page 6 - ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

8 Except as expressly admitted, Nike denies the allegations in paragraph 35.

13 Employee Relations department, Employee Assistance Program, leave of absence

15 allegations in paragraph 36.

20 address plaintiff’s concerns.

23 Ms. Cornelius somehow referred or alluded to plaintiff’s complaints.

25 Nike denies the allegations in paragraph 39.

Page 7 - ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

5 denies the allegations in paragraph 40.

15 admitted, Nike denies the allegations in paragraph 41.

23 allegations in paragraph 43.

25 Nike denies the allegations in paragraphs 44 and 45.

Page 8 - ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

5 allegations in paragraph 46.

In response to paragraph 48, Nike admits that plaintiff continued to provide

17 investigation into his complaints and interviewed approximately 35 witnesses. Except as

18 expressly admitted, Nike denies the allegations in paragraph 48.

22 expressly admitted, Nike denies the allegations in paragraph 49.

Page 9 - ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

4 denies the allegations in paragraph 50.

9 expressly admitted, Nike denies the allegations in paragraphs 51 and 52.

11 Nike lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or

12 falsity of plaintiff’s allegations in paragraph 53, and therefore denies them.

22 Except as expressly admitted, Nike denies the allegations in paragraph 55.

Page 10 - ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT