Contract analysis

1. Paragraph 1 of the Complaint alleges that Plaintiff is Darren K. Maciejewski, an individual residing in the State of Illinois. RESPONSE: Defendant admits that Plaintiff Darren K. Maciejewski is an individual. Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation regarding Plaintiff's current residence, and therefore denies the same. To the extent that Paragraph 1 co

2. Paragraph 2 of the Complaint alleges that Defendant Nexford Industrial Holdings Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware and authorized to do business in the State of Illinois, with its principal place of business in Schaumburg, Illinois. RESPONSE: Admitted. Defendant Nexford Industrial Holdings Inc. is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware

3. Paragraph 3 of the Complaint alleges that jurisdiction and venue are proper in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. RESPONSE: Admitted. Defendant admits that the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois possesses subject matter jurisdiction over this matter and that venue is proper in Cook County, Illinois, pursuant to applicable provisions of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure.

4. Paragraph 4 of the Complaint alleges that Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a Quality Assurance Supervisor at Defendant's manufacturing facility located in Elgin, Illinois, from approximately June 2017 until his termination on September 24, 2021. RESPONSE: Admitted in part and denied in part. Defendant admits that Plaintiff was employed by Nexford at its manufacturing facility located at 2700 Industrial Parkw

5. Paragraph 5 of the Complaint alleges that Plaintiff's annual salary at the time of termination was $78,400. RESPONSE: Admitted. Defendant admits that Plaintiff's annual base salary at the time of his termination on September 24, 2021 was $78,400.00.

6. Paragraph 6 of the Complaint alleges that Defendant operates manufacturing facilities in the greater Chicago area and is engaged in the manufacture of industrial components. RESPONSE: Admitted. Defendant admits that Nexford is an industrial manufacturing company that operates manufacturing facilities in the greater Chicago metropolitan area. Defendant further clarifies that Nexford specializes in the design, engin

7. Paragraph 7 of the Complaint alleges that, beginning in or about April 2021, Plaintiff made multiple internal reports to his supervisor and to Defendant's Environmental Health & Safety department concerning unsafe chemical storage conditions in Building C of the Elgin Facility. RESPONSE: Admitted in part and denied in part. Defendant admits that Plaintiff communicated concerns regarding chemical storage conditions

8. Paragraph 8 of the Complaint alleges that, on or about June 8, 2021, Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration ("OSHA") regarding the chemical storage conditions in Building C. RESPONSE: Admitted. Defendant admits that Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, designated as OSHA Complaint No. 1734892, on or about June 8, 2021, with

9. Paragraph 9 of the Complaint alleges that OSHA conducted an inspection of Building C at the Elgin Facility. RESPONSE: Admitted. Defendant admits that OSHA conducted an on-site inspection of Building C at the Elgin Facility on July 12, 2021, in connection with Plaintiff's OSHA Complaint No. 1734892. Defendant further states, upon information and belief, that the substance of the complaint pertained to the alleged i

10. Paragraph 10 of the Complaint alleges that, in retaliation for Plaintiff's protected activity in reporting safety violations internally and to OSHA, Defendant terminated Plaintiff's employment on September 24, 2021. RESPONSE: Denied. Defendant specifically and categorically denies that Plaintiff's termination on September 24, 2021 was in any way motivated by, connected to, or taken in retaliation for Plaintiff's

11. Paragraph 11 of the Complaint alleges that Defendant issued disciplinary warnings to Plaintiff as a pretext for termination. RESPONSE: Denied. Defendant denies that any disciplinary action taken against Plaintiff was pretextual, contrived, or motivated by any improper purpose. Defendant admits the following facts regarding the progressive discipline administered to Plaintiff: (a) On May 24, 2021, Nexford issued a

12. Paragraph 12 of the Complaint alleges that the temporal proximity between Plaintiff's protected activities and his termination demonstrates retaliatory intent. RESPONSE: Denied. Defendant denies that any temporal relationship between Plaintiff's alleged protected activities and his termination, to the extent one exists, establishes or is probative of retaliatory intent or causation. Any perceived temporal relatio

13. Paragraph 13 of the Complaint alleges that, as a result of Defendant's retaliatory conduct, Plaintiff has suffered lost wages, emotional distress, and other damages. RESPONSE: Denied. Defendant denies that Plaintiff's termination was retaliatory, unlawful, or wrongful in any respect. Defendant further denies that Plaintiff has suffered any cognizable injury, loss, or damage attributable to any act or omission of

14. Paragraph 14 of the Complaint purports to incorporate by reference all prior paragraphs. RESPONSE: Defendant incorporates by reference its responses to all prior paragraphs of this Answer as though fully set forth herein.

15. Paragraph 15 of the Complaint alleges that Plaintiff's termination violated the clearly mandated public policy of the State of Illinois protecting employees who report workplace safety violations. RESPONSE: Denied. Defendant denies that Plaintiff's termination violated any clearly mandated public policy of the State of Illinois or any other jurisdiction. Plaintiff was terminated for documented and repeated violat

16. Paragraph 16 of the Complaint alleges that Plaintiff seeks back pay, front pay, compensatory damages for emotional distress in the amount of $150,000, punitive damages in the amount of $500,000, and attorneys' fees and costs. RESPONSE: Denied. Defendant denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any relief whatsoever under Count I of the Complaint, including but not limited to back pay, front pay, compensatory damages,

17. Paragraph 17 of the Complaint purports to incorporate by reference all prior paragraphs. RESPONSE: Defendant incorporates by reference its responses to all prior paragraphs of this Answer as though fully set forth herein.

18. Paragraph 18 of the Complaint alleges that Defendant retaliated against Plaintiff for filing OSHA Complaint No. 1734892 in violation of Section 11(c) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, 29 U.S.C. § 660(c). RESPONSE: Denied. Defendant categorically denies that Plaintiff's termination was in any way related to, motivated by, or taken in retaliation for Plaintiff's filing of OSHA Complaint No. 1734892 or any

19. Paragraph 19 of the Complaint alleges that Plaintiff seeks the same categories of damages as set forth in Count I. RESPONSE: Denied. Defendant denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any relief whatsoever under Count II of the Complaint, for the reasons set forth in Defendant's response to Paragraph 18 and throughout this Answer. To the extent Paragraph 19 states legal conclusions or requests for relief to which no

20. Paragraph 20 of the Complaint purports to incorporate by reference all prior paragraphs. RESPONSE: Defendant incorporates by reference its responses to all prior paragraphs of this Answer as though fully set forth herein.

21. Paragraph 21 of the Complaint alleges that Defendant retaliated against Plaintiff in violation of the Illinois Whistleblower Act, 740 ILCS 174/1 et seq., for reporting or threatening to report activities of Defendant that Plaintiff had reasonable cause to believe were in violation of a law, rule, or regulation. RESPONSE: Denied. Defendant denies that Plaintiff's termination was retaliatory or that it violated the

22. Paragraph 22 of the Complaint alleges that Plaintiff seeks the same categories of damages as set forth in the prior Counts, plus any additional remedies available under 740 ILCS 174/1 et seq. RESPONSE: Denied. Defendant denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any relief whatsoever under Count III of the Complaint, including but not limited to any remedies provided under the Illinois Whistleblower Act or otherwise. T

Section 11(c) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act requires that a complaint of retaliation or discrimination be filed with the Secretary of Labor within thirty (30) days of the date of the alleged discriminatory act. See 29 U.S.C. § 660(c)(2). Upon information and belief, Plaintiff did not file a timely complaint with the Secretary of Labor alleging retaliation or discrimination in connection with his terminati

1. Dismissing Plaintiff's Complaint in its entirety, with prejudice, and on the merits;

2. Entering judgment in favor of Defendant Nexford Industrial Holdings Inc. and against Plaintiff Darren K. Maciejewski on all Counts of the Complaint;

3. Awarding Defendant its costs of suit and reasonable attorneys' fees to the extent permitted by applicable law;

4. Denying Plaintiff any and all relief requested in the Complaint; and

5. Granting such other and further relief as this Court deems just, equitable, and proper. Respectfully submitted, NEXFORD INDUSTRIAL HOLDINGS INC., By its Attorneys, CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP By: ________ Bernard Crawford (ARDC No. 6312487) CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP 227 West Monroe Street, Suite 3600 Chicago, Illinois 60606 Telephone: (312) 555-4200 Facsimile: (312) 555-4201 Email: bcrawford@calderwoodharkness.com A