has pled enough facts to meet the minimum pleadings standards. For reasons which follow, we find that the four (4) newly proposed 'affirmative defenses are futile as a matter of law. 2. Legal Analysis. As a preliminary matter, the EEOC has submitted a Declaration, that is supported by several exhibits, with its Memorandum in Opposition. See, Docket Nos. 33-31. In its Memorandum, the EEOC challenges the accuracy of Hibbing Taconite’s factual assertions which serve as the underpinning of the four (4) affirmative defenses. See, EEOC Memo, supra at p. 13, n. 9. Of course, in evaluating the sufficiency of pled defenses or claims, the Court reviews the pleadings on their face—staying within their four (4) corners. See, Trostel & Sons Co. v. Notz, 536 F.Supp.2d 969, 974-75 (E.D.Wis.2008)(<HOLDING>). Of course, a Court may consider “materials
holding that where a court considering a rule 12b6 motion relies on matters outside the pleading the motion must be treated as a rule 56 motion for summary judgment holding that the standard for a motion for judgment on the pleadings is the same as the standard for a motion to dismiss recognizing this as the general rule holding that by considering matters outside of the pleadings the trial court converted a rule 12b6 motion to dismiss into a summary judgment motion recognizing the general rule that a rule 12f motion is decided on the pleadings but treating the motion as for summary judgment because the record had been developed by the parties as undisputed facts