Civil Action No. DKC/96-2860
KEITH S. GIBBY, Plaintiff,
V.
Defendant.
ANSWER
Defendant International Business Machines Corporation ("IBM") answers plaintiff's Complaint as follows:
1. IBM lacks sufficient information to admit or deny paragraph 1 of the Complaint and on that basis denies paragraph 1.
2. IBM admits paragraph 2.
3. IBM admits that the "IBM Suggestion Plan" was in effect from 1986 until 1992 and that Exhibit A memorializes the Suggestion Plan as of the date listed on that Exhibit. IBM denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 3.
4. IBM admits that the brochure attached to the Complaint as Exhibit A uses the phrases "Your ideas have value,' and "help the company run its operations better, and perhaps save it money." IBM lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegation that "the Plaintiff received said brochure from the Defendant many years ago," and on that basis denies this allegation. IBM denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 4.
5. IBM admits that Section 1.0 of Exhibit A to the Complaint states: "[W]as it a specific solution to a specific problem[,] one that could help the company run its operations better, and perhaps save it money? If so, it may earn you an award from $50 to $150,000 under the IBM Suggestion Plan.," IBM denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 5.
6. IBM admits that plaintiff was an IBM manager from 1989 until 1990 and that he was authorized to have access to the Manager's Manual during that period of time. IBM further admits that plaintiff had access to the Evaluator's Guide. IBM lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations of paragraph 6 and on that basis denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 6.
7. IBM admits that the some of the documents attached as Exhibits B and C to the Complaint refer to suggestions by employees. IBM denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 7.
8. IBM admits that plaintiff submitted Suggestion Nos. 921420144 and 923090008. IBM further avers that the texts of these suggestions speak for themselves. IBM lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations of paragraph 8, and on that basis denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 8.
9. IBM admits that IBM personnel received Suggestion Nos. 921420144 and 923090008 and forwarded these suggestions to evaluators. IBM denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 9.
10. IBM denies that it implemented "Plaintiff's Suggestion No. l." IBM lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations of paragraph 10 and on that basis denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 10.
11. IBM denies paragraph 11.
12. IBM admits that on several occasions it denied plaintiff's requests for payment for Suggestion No. 921420144 on the ground that it was predated by another suggestion. IBM denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 12.
13. IBM lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the first and third sentences of paragraph 13 and on that basis denies the first and third sentences of paragraph 13.
14. IBM admits that plaintiff submitted Suggestion Nos. 923040100 and 9106SO023. IBM further avers that the texts of these suggestions speak for themselves. IBM denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 14.
15. IBIA denies paragraph 15.
16. IBM denies paragraph 16.
17. IBM lacks sufficient information to admit or deny that plaintiff submitted Suggestion No. 923040113 and on that basis denies this allegation of paragraph 17. IBM admits the remaining allegations of paragraph 17.
18. IBM avers that the texts of the suggestions referred to in the first sentence of paragraph 17 speak for themselves. IBM denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 18.
19. IBM avers that the texts of the suggestions referred to in the third sentence of paragraph 17 speak for themselves. IBM denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 19.
20. IBM denies paragraph 20.
21. IBM admits that plaintiff pursued his complaints with upper-level management. IBM lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations of paragraph 21 and on that basis denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 21.
COUNT I (Breach of Contract)
22. In response to paragraph 22, IBM incorporates its answers to paragraphs 1 through 21 above.
23. IBM denies paragraph 23.
24. IBM denies paragraph 24.
24[a]. In response to plaintiff's prayer for relief following paragraph 24, IBM denies that plaintiff is entitled to any relief.
COUNT 11 (Negligent Misrepresentation)
25. In response to paragraph 25, IBM incorporates its answers to paragraphs 1 through 24[a] above.
26. IBM denies paragraph 26.
27. IBM denies paragraph 27.
28. IBM denies paragraph 28.
29. IBM denies paragraph 29.
30. IBM denies paragraph 30.
31. in response to plaintiff's final prayer for relief, IBM denies that plaintiff is entitled to any relief.
32. IBM denies any allegation in the Complaint not specifically admitted herein.
FIRST DEFENSE
The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
SECOND DEFENSE
Plaintiff's claims are barred by the applicable statutes of limitations or by laches.
THIRD DEFENSE
Plaintiff's claims are barred because of a failure of consideration.
FOURTH DEFENSE
Plaintiff's claims are barred by the doctrines of waiver or release.
FIFTH DEFENSE
With respect to Count II of the Complaint, plaintiff is guilty of contributory or comparative negligence.
SIXTH DEFENSE
IBM reserves the right to amend its Answer to add any additional defenses as facts become known to it through discovery.
WHEREFORE, IBM requests that the Complaint be dismissed with prejudice, that plaintiff's prayers for relief be denied, that judgment be entered for IBM, and that the Court award IBM costs, including attorney's fees, and such other relief that the Court finds just and proper.
DATED this 16th day of September, 1996.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 16th day of September, 1996, I caused to be mailed, first class, postage prepaid, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Answer to counsel for plaintiff: