UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Nefi Ibarra, Court File No. 012-cv-03027 JRT-FLN

Plaintiff,

v.

City of Willmar and Willmar Municipal Utilities,

Defendants.

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

Defendants City of Willmar and Willmar Municipal Utilities (hereinafter

Defendants) for their Answer to Plaintiffs Complaint, state and allege as follows.

1. Unless hereafter admitted, qualified or otherwise answered, these

answering Defendants deny each and every thing, matter and particular alleged in

Plaintiffs Complaint.

2. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraph 1 of Plaintiffs

Complaint, Defendants admit at the time Mr. Ibarra was employed by Willmar Municipal

Utilities, Mr. Ibarra was a Minnesota resident. Defendants, however, are without

sufficient information to admit or deny whether Mr. Ibarra is currently a Minnesota

resident.

2

3. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraph 2 of Plaintiffs

Complaint, Defendants admit the City of Willmar is a city located in Kandiyohi County,

Minnesota.

4. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraph 3 of Plaintiffs

Complaint, Defendants admit Willmar Municipal Utilities principal place of business is

located at 700 Litchfield Avenue S.W., Willmar, Minnesota.

5. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraph 4 of Plaintiffs

Complaint, Defendants admit Plaintiff was an employee at the Willmar Municipal

Utilities. Furthermore, Defendants admit Willmar Municipal Utilities was Mr. Ibarras

employer.

6. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of

Plaintiffs Complaint, Defendants admit this Court has jurisdiction to hear this matter.

7. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraph 8 of Plaintiffs

Complaint, Defendants admit Plaintiff began working for Willmar Municipal Utilities in

July 2011 as a coal handler. Defendants further admit Mr. Ibarra was hired in a

probationary capacity.

8. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraph 9 of Plaintiffs

Complaint, Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny Plaintiffs

place of birth. Defendants are furthermore without sufficient information to admit or

deny whether Mr. Ibarra was the only employee of Hispanic descent at the Willmar

Municipal Utilities.

3

9. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraph 10 of Plaintiffs

Complaint, Defendants admit at this time they now know Mr. Ibarra participates in the

Mormon faith. Defendants further admit at the time Mr. Ibarra worked for the Willmar

Municipal Utilities there were other employees who also participated in the Mormon

faith.

10. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraph 11 of Plaintiffs

Complaint, Defendants admit as part of the hiring process, Defendant was required to

show documentation of eligibility to work.

11. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraphs 12, 13 and 14 of

Plaintiffs Complaint, Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny said

allegations.

12. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraphs 15, 16, 17 and 18 of

Plaintiffs Complaint, Defendants deny said allegations.

13. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraph 19 of Plaintiffs

Complaint, Defendants deny Mr. Ibarra was treated less favorably at work because he is

Hispanic and/or Mormon. Rather, Mr. Ibarra failed to meet the job requirements for his

position.

14. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraph 20 of Plaintiffs

Complaint, Defendants admit on December 12, 2011, the Willmar Municipal Utilities

commissioners held a closed meeting. Furthermore, Defendants deny there was a

discussion at the meeting about whether or not Plaintiff was in this country legally.

4

15. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraph 21 of Plaintiffs

Complaint, Defendants deny there was a discussion at the December 12, 2011 meeting

about the fact the last two out of three hires at the Willmar Municipal Utilities were

Mormon.

16. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraph 22 of Plaintiffs

Complaint, Defendants admit general manager Bruce Gomm was placed on

administrative leave following the December 12, 2011 closed commissioners meeting.

Defendants further admit former general manager Bruce Gomm was ultimately

terminated by the Willmar Municipal Utilities following an investigation of his actions.

17. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraph 23 of Plaintiffs

Complaint, Defendants admit Plaintiff was terminated on January 6, 2012.

18. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraph 24 of Plaintiffs

Complaint, Defendants deny Mr. Ibarra was the first employee of Willmar Municipal

Utilities to be terminated in approximately 13 years.

19. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraph 25 of Plaintiffs

Complaint, Defendants admit Mr. Ibarra was terminated because he was not meeting the

job duties for a coal handler. Furthermore, Defendants deny Mr. Ibarra had been told by

a direct supervisor a week prior to his termination that he had met his job expectations.

20. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraph 26 of Plaintiffs

Complaint, Defendants admit two employees of Willmar Municipal Utilities were also

terminated in 2012. Defendants specifically deny their termination was related to their

religious affiliation.

5

21. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraph 27 of Plaintiffs

Complaint, Defendants admit former general manager Bruce Gomm submitted a

statement to the public regarding his termination and actions for the Willmar Municipal

Utilities. Defendants specifically deny Plaintiffs other allegations.

22. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraphs 28 through 37 of

Plaintiffs Complaint, Defendants specifically deny said allegations.

23. These answering Defendants specifically deny Plaintiff has set forth any

cognizable claim for relief under state or federal law or under 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2.

24. These answering Defendants affirmatively allege Plaintiffs claims are

barred by the legal doctrines of absolute, quasi judicial, qualified, statutory and official

immunity.

25. These answering Defendants affirmatively allege Plaintiffs Complaint fails

to state a cause of action upon which relief may be granted and claims are barred by the

applicable statute of limitations.

26. These answering Defendants are without sufficient information to form a

belief as to the truth of Plaintiffs alleged damage claim and therefore deny the same and

demand strict proof thereof.

WHEREFORE, Defendants pray Plaintiff take nothing by his pretended claim for

relief and the Complaint be dismissed, together with costs, disbursements and such other

relief as the Court deems just and equitable.

6

IVERSON REUVERS

Dated: December 26, 2012 By /s Jason J. Kuboushek Paul D. Reuvers, #217700 Jason J. Kuboushek, #0304037 Attorneys for Defendants 9321 Ensign Avenue South Bloomington, MN 55438 (952) 548-7200