Mason's Counterclaim

Case: 1:17-cv-06512 Document #: 23 Filed: 11/21/17 Page 1 of 19 PageID #:74
30022.00/dnd/1261219
UNITED STATE DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
JOHN BEAR, )
)
Plaintiff, ) Case No. 17-cv-06512
)
v. )
)
JEFF MASON and THE UNIVERSITY OF )
CHICAGO, )
)
Defendants. )
__________________________________________)
JEFF MASON )
)
Counter-Plaintiff )
)
v. )
)
JOHN BEAR )
)
Counter-Defendant )
DEFENDANT JEFF MASON’S ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIM

TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
Defendant, Jeff Mason, by and through his attorneys, Williams Montgomery and John
LTD., hereby state as his answer to Plaintiff’s, John Bear (“Bear”), Complaint as follows:
PARTIES
1. Coach Bear is an individual residing in Lombard, Illinois.
ANSWER: Defendant Mason states that Plaintiff Bear is an individual but lacks
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations
contained in paragraph 1 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.
2. Mason is an individual residing in Indianapolis, Indiana. Upon information and
belief, Mason transacts business regularly in Chicago, Illinois.

ANSWER: Defendant Mason states that he is an individual that resides in Indianapolis,
Indiana and denies the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 2 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.
3. The U of C is a private university in Chicago, Illinois.
ANSWER: The facts stated in paragraph 3 of Plaintiff’s Complaint are correct.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
4. This Court has jurisdiction over Count I under the express provisions of Title VII,
§ 2000e-5(f)(3) and 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
ANSWER: Defendant Mason states that the allegations contained in paragraph 4 of
Plaintiff’s Complaint constitute a legal conclusion to which no answer is required. To the extent
an answer is required, Defendant Mason states that the allegations contained in paragraph 4 of
Plaintiff’s Complaint are correct.
5. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Counts II through VI under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1367 as the allegations in Counts II through VI are so related to the claims in the other counts
that they form part of the same case or controversy.
an answer is required, Defendant Mason states that this Court has supplemental jurisdiction over
Count II pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Defendant Mason denies the remaining allegations
6. Venue is proper in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1391, because all the significant events giving rise to the claims occurred in this
judicial district.
2
an answer is required, Defendant Mason states that venue is proper in the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391, because the alleged events giving rise to
the claims allegedly occurred in this judicial district. As set forth more specifically in this answer,
Defendant Mason denies that certain events alleged by Bear actually occurred. Defendant Mason
lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining
allegations contained in paragraph 6 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.
7. Venue is also proper in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division because
Defendant does business and has employees located within this judicial district.
an answer is required, Defendant Mason states that the U of C does business and has employees
located within this judicial district. Defendant Mason denies the remaining allegations contained
in paragraph 7 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
Employment with the U of C
8. Coach Bear was hired by the U of C in June 2016 as an assistant football coach.
ANSWER: Defendant Mason states that Bear was an assistant football coach at the U
of C but lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth as to when and
under what terms or circumstances Bear held that position.
3
9. When being recruited for the position, Coach Bear was told by the U of C’s head
football coach, Chris Wilkerson (“Wilkerson”), that the U of C had a strong athletic department
and that he had the support of an “up and coming athletic director.”
ANSWER: Defendant Mason lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
about the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 9 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.
10. Wilkerson made multiple statements to Coach Bear regarding the U of C’s
commitment to excellence and desire to have a winning football team to entice him to work at the
U of C.
11. For example, Wilkerson told Coach Bear that the football team was focused on
winning and that the job would give his career upward momentum, one day propelling him to be
a head coach.
12. After Coach Bear began working at the U of C, he realized that the female Athletic
Director, Erin McDermott (“McDermott”), had little interest in either treating male coaches fairly
or building a strong football team.
13. The U of C has a pattern of treating male coaches differently than female coaches.
For example, there was a loud verbal incident in the 2015-2016 school year with a female coach,
Amy Reifert, which resulted in a policy change and not a termination of her employment.
4
Excessive tailgates
14. While the U of C has little interest in supporting the football team, they did have a
vested interest in profiting off the football team.
15. To that end, McDermott would direct tables and tents to be set out around the
football field and specifically on 56th Street and its surrounding sidewalk and then allowing
unrestricted alcohol consumption by the students, alumni, and students’ parents that would attend
the games. 56th Street is in the Hyde Park neighborhood of Chicago.
ANSWER: Defendant Mason states that 56th Street is in the Hyde Park neighborhood
of Chicago and that tables and tents would at times be set out at and around U of C football games
for fans, including students, alumni and parents but lacks knowledge or information sufficient to
form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 15 of Plaintiff’s
Complaint.
16. At these tailgates, excessive drinking by students, alumni, and parents of students
occurred.
17. The excessive drinking led to dangerous incidents. For example, on one occasion,
some of the students’ parents began shouting racial slurs at some of the other parents and a fight
almost broke out.
5
18. Despite the unruliness and trespassing that occurred, the U of C refused to staff any
security at the tailgates in order to maintain order.
ANSWER: Defendant Mason states that he is unaware of unruliness and trespassing
that occurred and lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the
19. On multiple occasions, the football coaching staff expressed concerns about the
danger that the tailgates threatened, but McDermott, on behalf of the U of C, failed to take any
action or have any security measures in place at football games.
Mason’s history with the U of C
20. Mason is a parent of one of the students at the U of C.
ANSWER: As of November 2016, the facts stated in paragraph 20 of Plaintiff’s
Complaint are correct.
21. Upon information and belief, Mason had a long history of disruptive behavior
during tail gates at the U of C campus in Chicago.
ANSWER: Defendant Mason denies all the allegations contained in paragraph 21 of
Plaintiff’s Complaint.
22. Upon information and belief, such behavior included excessive drinking, personal
insults, and complaints and threats against the coaching staff for refusing to allow his son to play
more during games.
6
23. Mason would regularly email other parents of students and express frustration and
disappointment with the football coaching staff.
24. Mason made repeated complaints throughout the 2016 football season to other
parents regarding both Coach Bear and the other members of the coaching staff, blaming the team’s
inability to win every game on poor coaching and their refusal to play Mason’s son more often.
ANSWER: Defendant Mason states that at times in the 2016 football season he made
statements to other parents that may have been critical of the coaching staff and denies all the
remaining allegations contained in paragraph 24 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.
25. Upon information and belief, some of the students’ parents began avoiding Mason
given his tendency to get drunk and unruly at tailgates and engage in derogatory treatment of the
football coaching staff.
26. Wilkerson, Coach Bear, and other members of the football coaching staff discussed
their concerns and frustrations with Mason repeatedly and made the issue known to McDermott
and the U of C.
ANSWER: Defendant Mason denies that Wilkerson, Bear, or any other member of the
football coaching staff ever discussed with Mason any concerns or frustrations about Mason,
denies that that they had concerns and frustrations with Mason, and lacks knowledge or
7
information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations contained in
paragraph 26 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.
27. Upon information and belief, the U of C was aware that Mason was a threat to the
safety of the football coaching staff, but took no remedial action to end the risk.
ANSWER: Defendant Mason denies that he was a threat to the safety of the football
coaching staff and denies all the allegations contained in paragraph 27 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.
The Incident
28. On November 12, 2016, the U of C men’s football team played a game against
Washington University’s team.
ANSWER: The facts stated in paragraph 28 of Plaintiff’s Complaint are correct.
29. Prior to this game, McDermott, an authorized agent of the U of C, had set up a
tailgate on 56th Street. Mason attended the tailgate.
ANSWER: Defendant Mason states that he attended a “tailgate” on and around 56th
Street, that he believes U of C personnel dropped off tables and trash cans in the tailgate area, that
the tables were set up in an appropriate setting by the football parents, and lacks knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations contained in
30. Upon information and belief, Mason drank excessive amounts of alcohol during the
game and became increasingly disorderly. He did not return to the game after the second half but
elected to stay at the tailgate and continue drinking.
8
31. After the game, Coach Bear was in a restricted section of the stadium with other
coaches, player, and members of his family.
32. Upon information and belief, after the game, Mr. Mason was drunk and shouting
belligerently at U of C employees to be let into the stadium.
33. Upon information and belief, as there was no security at the football game, Mason
was able to force his way into this restricted section.
ANSWER: Defendant Mason denies that he forced his way into a restricted section of
the stadium and denies that at the time alleged Bear was in a restricted area, but rather the area was
populated by parents, players and coaches of each team, and denies all the remaining allegations
34. Mason approached Coach Bear, violently grabbed him by the wrist, spun Coach
Bear towards himself and then began shouting at Coach Bear.
35. During the assault and battery of Coach Bear, Mason shouted the following:
a. “How dare you show sportsmanship to the other team!”
b. “You don’t care about the players!”
c. You don’t really care about the football team’s concussion protocol!”
9
ANSWER: Defendant Mason denies an assault and battery of Bear and lacks knowledge
or information sufficient to form a belief about the exact words he spoke to Bear, but recalls that
it was a single statement and believes it questioned Coach Bear on how he can show sportsmanship
to the other team and why he did not respect the university’s concussion protocol for his own
players, and denies all the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 35 of Plaintiff’s
Complaint.
36. Coach Bear verbally defended himself from Mason’s remarks, while reasonably
believing he was being attacked and assaulted by Mason.
ANSWER: Defendant Mason denies attacking or assaulting Bear or making any
remarks that required Bear to verbally defend himself. Instead, Bear was physically aggressive
toward Mason and had to be restrained and removed from the area. Defendant Mason denies the
remaining allegations contained in paragraph 36 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.
37. Coach Bear then left the area and returned to his office.
ANSWER: Defendant Mason states that Bear was physically aggressive toward Mason
and had to be restrained and removed from the area. After Bear’s removal, Mason lacks knowledge
or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of where he went or the remaining
38. Coach Bear waited in his office for over an hour, assuming that someone from the
athletic department would speak to him about the incident.
10
39. Wilkerson reached out to Coach Bear to question what happened. During that
conversation, Wilkerson told Coach Bear that he had done a great job all season and that he loved
working with him.
40. As no one else from the U of C reached out to Coach Bear while he was in his office
after the game, Coach Bear went home.
41. On November 14, 2016, the U of C acting through McDermott told Coach Bear that
he was being placed on “investigative suspension.”
42. During the course of the “investigation,” another parent of a U of C student sent an
email to McDermott in which he outlined the long, violent history of Mason’s behavior at football
games and his history of harassing other parents, students, and football coaches. A copy of a
redacted version of this email is attached as Exhibit A.
ANSWER: Defendant Mason denies any history of violent behavior or of harassing
other parents, students, and football coaches at football games and lacks knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 42
of Plaintiff’s Complaint.
43. Other parents and coaches also voiced support for Coach Bear, acknowledging that
Mason assaulted and grabbed him.
11
ANSWER: Defendant Mason denies assaulting and grabbing Bear and lacks knowledge
or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations contained in
44. Despite this support, McDermott told Coach Bear that he could either resign his
position with the U of C or else have his position terminated. Coach Bear elected to resign under
duress and to protect his effort to find other employment.
COUNT I
Violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
(U of C)
Count I of Plaintiff’s Complaint is not directed to Defendant Mason and therefore he makes
no answer thereto. To the extent that any answer is called for, Defendant Mason makes a general
denial to all the allegations contained in Count I of Plaintiff’s Complaint.
COUNT II
Premises Liability
(U of C)
Count II of Plaintiff’s Complaint is not directed to Defendant Mason and therefore he
makes no answer thereto. To the extent that any answer is called for, Defendant Mason makes a
general denial to all the allegations contained in Count II of Plaintiff’s Complaint.
COUNT III
Assault
(Mason)
61. Coach Bear incorporates Paragraphs 1-44 as if fully stated herein.
ANSWER: Defendant Mason reasserts his answers to paragraphs 1-44 as and for his
answer to this paragraph 61 as if fully set forth herein.
12
62. On November 12, 2016, Mason forced his way into a restricted section of the U of
C football stadium and began violently screaming and harassing Coach Bear with the intent to
harm and/or frighten Coach Bear.
63. Due to Mason’s outrageous threatening conduct, Coach Bear reasonably felt that
there was an imminent threat of harm.
ANSWER: Defendant Mason denies engaging in any outrageous threatening conduct
and denies all the allegations contained in paragraph 63 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.
64. Mason then grabbed Coach Bear’s wrist, spun him toward himself, and continued
screaming at him. Coach Bear was concerned for his safety.
65. As a direct result of Mason’s actions, Coach Bear has suffered physical, economic,
and emotional damages.
ANSWER: Defendant Mason denies the actions alleged and denies all the allegations
WHEREFORE, Defendant Mason denies that Bear is entitled to any relief whatsoever and
prays that judgment enter in favor of Defendant Mason and against Bear and that the court grant
such further relief it deems just, including the award of costs.
COUNT IV
Battery
(Mason)
66. Coach Bear incorporates Paragraph 1-44 as if fully stated herein.
13
67. On November 12, 2016, Mason forced his way into a restricted section of the
football stadium and began screaming at Coach Bear.
68. Mason then grabbed Coach Bear’s wrist, spun him toward himself, and continued
screaming at him.
69. Mason’s grabbing of Coach Bear was unauthorized.
70. The violent grabbing of Coach Bear’s wrist injured Coach Bear both physically and
emotionally, and Coach Bear has been damaged as a result.
ANSWER: Defendant Mason denies a violent grabbing of Bear’s wrist and denies all
the allegations contained in paragraph 70 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.
COUNT V
Tortious Interference with Business Contracts
(Mason)
71. Plaintiff incorporates Paragraphs 1-44 as if fully stated herein.
14
72. Coach Bear had a reasonable anticipation of continued career advancement towards
becoming a head football coach when he accepted the position of assistant football coach at the U
of C.
73. Upon information and belief, Mason was aware of Coach Bear’s professional
ambitions to become a head coach.
74. Mason had a history of misguided frustration with Coach Bear, as Coach Bear
would not allow Mason’s son to get more football playing time.
75. As such, Mason began contacting other parents to complain about Coach Bear and
other members of the U of C football coaching staff, seeking to have them replaced.
76. On November 12, 2016, Mason violently confronted Coach Bear in an unjustified
attempt to embarrass him and hurt his professional reputation and employment with the U of C.
15
77. Because of this incident, Coach Bear’s employment with the U of C was terminated
and Coach Bear’s chances at becoming a head football coach in the near future have been
substantially diminished.
about the truth of the allegations as to why Bear’s employment with U of C ended but denies that
he was the cause of the termination and denies the remaining allegations contained in paragraph
77 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.
78. Mason’s interference with Coach Bear’s business prospects was intentional,
willful, reckless, and unjustified.
ANSWER: Defendant Mason denies any interference with Bear’s business prospects
and denies the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 78 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.
COUNT VI
Defamation
(Mason)
79. Plaintiff incorporate Paragraphs 1-44 as if fully stated herein.
80. On November 12, 2016, Mason forced his way into a restricted section of the
football stadium and began screaming at Coach Bear.
16
81. At the time, Coach Bear was surrounded by other members of the coaching staff,
football players, and his family.
ANSWER: Defendant Mason denies the premise of the allegations contained in
paragraph 81 of Plaintiff’s Complaint and therefore those allegations are denied. Defendant
Mason lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining
82. In front of multiple witnesses, Mason shouted:
a. “How dare you show sportsmanship to the other team!”
b. “You don’t care about the players!”
c. You don’t really care about the football team’s concussion protocol!”
about the exact words he spoke to Bear, but recalls that it was a single statement and believes it
questioned coach Bear on how he can show sportsmanship to the other team and why he did not
respect the university’s concussion protocol for his own players, and denies all the remaining
83. Mason made these remarks knowing they were false.
84. Mason made these remarks with the intent of causing Coach Bear embarrassment
and harming his professional reputation.
17
85. Because of Mason’s actions, Coach Bear has suffered damages as his employment
with the U of C was terminated.
COUNTERCLAIM
Defendant, Jeff Mason, by his attorneys, states as follows for his Counterclaim against
John Bear:
COUNT I – ASSAULT
1. At the time and place alleged in the Plaintiff’s Complaint on November 12, 2016
following the U of C football game Counter-Defendant Bear was an assistant football coach for U
of C and Counter-Plaintiff Mason was a parent of one of the players on the U of C football team.
2. Counter-Defendant Bear, a former college football player, was approximately 32
years old and approximately 6 feet 3 inches tall and weighed approximately 260 pounds.
3. Counter-Plaintiff Mason, an investment professional, was 62 years old and
approximately 6 feet tall and weighed approximately 210 pounds.
4. While Mason was waiting with other parents and fans following the football game
Bear approached Mason in an aggressive manner, got face to face with him, and Bear shouted
“who the fuck are you?!” and continued to shout at Mason and had to be retrained and removed
from the area by others.
18
5. Although Bear and Mason did not have any physical contact at the time, other than
possibly incidental contact, Mason had a reasonable apprehension of an imminent battery by Bear
at the time.
6. The conduct of John Bear constitutes an assault.
7. Jeff Mason suffered damages as a direct result of the assault.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Plaintiff Jeff Mason prays that judgement enter in his favor and
against John Bear in an amount to be proven at trial, including punitive damages, and that the court
grant such further relief it deems just, including the award of costs.
Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/: Michael C. Bruck

Michael C. Bruck
Michael C. Bruck
William B. McAllister
WILLIAMS MONTGOMERY & JOHN LTD.
233 S. Wacker Dr., Suite 6100
Chicago, IL 60606
(312) 443-3235 / Fax: (312) 630-8535
Email: mcb@willmont.com
Email: wbm@willmont.com
Attorneys for Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff Jeff Mason
19

Mason's Counterclaim

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Mason's Counterclaim

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Case: 1:17-cv-06512 Document #: 23 Filed: 11/21/17 Page 1 of 19 PageID #:74

UNITED STATE DISTRICT COURT

DEFENDANT JEFF MASON’S ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIM

1. Coach Bear is an individual residing in Lombard, Illinois.

contained in paragraph 1 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

2. Mason is an individual residing in Indianapolis, Indiana. Upon information and

belief, Mason transacts business regularly in Chicago, Illinois.

ANSWER: Defendant Mason states that he is an individual that resides in Indianapolis,

3. The U of C is a private university in Chicago, Illinois.

ANSWER: The facts stated in paragraph 3 of Plaintiff’s Complaint are correct.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

§ 2000e-5(f)(3) and 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

ANSWER: Defendant Mason states that the allegations contained in paragraph 4 of

Plaintiff’s Complaint are correct.

that they form part of the same case or controversy.

ANSWER: Defendant Mason states that the allegations contained in paragraph 5 of

contained in paragraph 5 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

6. Venue is proper in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, pursuant to

ANSWER: Defendant Mason states that the allegations contained in paragraph 6 of

allegations contained in paragraph 6 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

ANSWER: Defendant Mason states that the allegations contained in paragraph 7 of

in paragraph 7 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

Employment with the U of C

under what terms or circumstances Bear held that position.

ANSWER: Defendant Mason lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief

about the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 9 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

ANSWER: Defendant Mason lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief

about the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 10 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

ANSWER: Defendant Mason lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief

about the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 11 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

or building a strong football team.

ANSWER: Defendant Mason lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief

about the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 12 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

ANSWER: Defendant Mason lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief

about the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 13 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

vested interest in profiting off the football team.

ANSWER: Defendant Mason lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief

about the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 14 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

the games. 56th Street is in the Hyde Park neighborhood of Chicago.

ANSWER: Defendant Mason lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief

about the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 16 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

almost broke out.

ANSWER: Defendant Mason lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief

about the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 17 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

security at the tailgates in order to maintain order.

ANSWER: Defendant Mason states that he is unaware of unruliness and trespassing

allegations contained in paragraph 18 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

action or have any security measures in place at football games.

ANSWER: Defendant Mason lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief

about the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 19 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

Mason’s history with the U of C

20. Mason is a parent of one of the students at the U of C.

ANSWER: As of November 2016, the facts stated in paragraph 20 of Plaintiff’s

Complaint are correct.

during tail gates at the U of C campus in Chicago.

ANSWER: Defendant Mason denies all the allegations contained in paragraph 21 of

more during games.

ANSWER: Defendant Mason denies all the allegations contained in paragraph 22 of

disappointment with the football coaching staff.

ANSWER: Defendant Mason denies all the allegations contained in paragraph 23 of

remaining allegations contained in paragraph 24 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

football coaching staff.

ANSWER: Defendant Mason denies all the allegations contained in paragraph 25 of