1

LYDECKER | DIAZ

www.lydeckerdiaz.com

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

Case No.: 3:20cv4698-TKW/HTC

MATHEW SELOVER,

Plaintiff,

v. 

ESCAMBIA COUNTY BOARD

OF COMMISSIONERS, and 

RAYME EDLER,

Defendants. 

_________________________________

DEFENDANT, ESCAMBIA COUNTY’S, ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE 

DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Defendant, Escambia County Board of County Commissioners 

(“Escambia” and/or “Defendant”) hereby submits its Answer and Affirmative 

Defenses in response to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint under Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure Rule 12(a)(1)(A)(i).

PARTIES

1. Escambia admits that Plaintiff was employed by Escambia County at 

all times material; however, Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or 

information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 

1 and therefore denies same and demands strict proof thereof.

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 39 Filed 07/06/20 Page 1 of 31
2

LYDECKER | DIAZ

www.lydeckerdiaz.com

2. Escambia admits the allegations in Paragraph 2

3. Escambia admits the allegations in Paragraph 3 to the extent that Dr. 

Edler resides in Florida and that she is employed by Escambia as its Medical 

Director. However, Escambia denies that Dr. Edler began serving as its Medical 

Director in April 2018—Dr. Edler began her employment on May 7, 2018.

4. Escambia is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a 

belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 4 and therefore denies same and 

demands strict proof thereof. 

5. Escambia admits that Plaintiff was employed by Escambia as a 

paramedic from February 2012 through April 9, 2020; however, Escambia denies

the remaining allegations of Paragraph 5 and demands strict proof thereof. 

6. Escambia admits the allegations within Paragraph 6.

7. Escambia denies the allegations within Paragraph 7 and demands strict 

proof thereof.

8. Escambia admits the allegations within Paragraph 8.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

9. Escambia admits the allegations within Paragraph 9.

10. Escambia admits the allegations within paragraph 10 to the extent that 

Plaintiff could be only be terminated for cause pursuant to the collective bargaining 

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 39 Filed 07/06/20 Page 2 of 31
3

LYDECKER | DIAZ

www.lydeckerdiaz.com

agreement. As to the remaining allegations within Paragraph 10, Escambia denies 

same and demands strict proof thereof.

11. Escambia admits Plaintiff claims he was advised by his colleague, 

Diana Chavers that Escambia County EMS employees Owens and Frando called in 

a false delay to have a smoke break. As to the remaining allegations in Paragraph 

11, Defendant denies same and demands strict proof thereof.

12. Escambia is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a 

belief as to the truth of the allegations within Paragraph 12 as Plaintiff fails to 

identify who Plaintiff reported to and demands strict proof thereof.

13. Escambia denies the allegations in Paragraph 13 as Plaintiff fails to 

identify and demands strict proof thereof.

14. Escambia admits that on March 20,2019 Plaintiff reported to his 

superiors that Escambia County EMS employee Shawn Hoopaugh had made 

inappropriate sexual comments directed at another employee; however, Escambia

denies that such comments were made. 

15. Escambia denies the allegations in Paragraph 15 and demands strict 

proof thereof.

QUALITY ASSURANCE MEETING

16. Escambia admits the allegations in Paragraph 16.

17. Escambia admits the allegations in Paragraph 17.

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 39 Filed 07/06/20 Page 3 of 31
4

LYDECKER | DIAZ

www.lydeckerdiaz.com

18. Escambia admits the allegations within Paragraph 18 to the extent that 

Plaintiff immediately contacted Escambia County Human Resources (HR) to discuss 

his concerns with attending the QA meeting, but denies the remaining allegations in 

Paragraph 18 and demands strict proof thereof.

19. Escambia admits the allegations within Paragraph 19 to the extent that 

the Quality Assurance Meeting (“QA Meeting”) was non-disciplinary and that Eric 

Kleinert contacted Plaintiff; however, as to the remaining allegations in Paragraph 

19, Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to 

the truth of the remaining allegations and therefore denies same and demands strict 

proof thereof.

20. Escambia admits the allegations within Paragraph 20 to the extent that 

Plaintiff brought Ivey Lett to the QA Meeting as a witness; Escambia denies the 

allegations that Ms. Lett is a union representative and demands strict proof thereof.

21. Escambia admits the allegations within Paragraph 21 to the extent the 

QA board was comprised of Defendant Edler, Hoopaugh, Captain Craig Ammons, 

Maddrey, and Bill Hopkins. As to the remaining allegations of Paragraph 21, 

Defendant is without knowledge to form a belief as to the 

22. Escambia admits the allegations within Paragraph 22.

23. Escambia admits the allegations within Paragraph 23.

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 39 Filed 07/06/20 Page 4 of 31
5

LYDECKER | DIAZ

www.lydeckerdiaz.com

24. Escambia is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a 

belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 24 and therefore denies same

and demands strict proof thereof.

25. Escambia denies the allegations in Paragraph 25 and demands strict 

proof thereof.

26. Escambia admits the allegations within Paragraph 26.

27. Escambia denies the allegations in Paragraph 27 and demands strict 

proof thereof.

PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FILED WITH HUMAN RESOURCES

28. Escambia admits the allegations in Paragraph 28 to the extent that 

Plaintiff filed a complaint with Human Resources and that the QA Meeting 

concerned matters that Plaintiff was well aware of. However, Escambia denies the 

remaining allegations within Paragraph 28 and demands strict proof thereof.

29. Escambia admits the allegations in Paragraph 29 to the extent that 

Plaintiff continued to work for Escambia after the QA Meeting in the same capacity 

as he did before the QA Meeting without any changes to his position, pay, benefits, 

or otherwise.

30. Escambia admits the allegations in Paragraph 30.

31. Escambia denies the allegations in Paragraph 31 and demands strict 

proof thereof.

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 39 Filed 07/06/20 Page 5 of 31
6

LYDECKER | DIAZ

www.lydeckerdiaz.com

32. Escambia denies the allegations in Paragraph 32 and demands strict 

proof thereof.

33. Escambia denies the allegations in Paragraph 33 and demands strict 

proof thereof.

34. Escambia admits that on or about May 15, 2019 Plaintiff was advised 

he was not able to work as a paramedic under Edler’s license. As to the remaining 

allegations of Paragraph 34, Escambia denies same and demands strict proof thereof.

35. Escambia denies the allegations in Paragraph 35 as Plaintiff was 

permitted to work as an EMT and Plaintiff did not suffer a reduction in rank, 

reduction in pay, abatement of benefits, and/or lose the opportunity to work 

overtime.

36. Escambia denies the allegations in Paragraph 36 and demands strict 

proof thereof.

DEFENDANT EDLER’S COMPLAINT TO THE FLORIDA

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH REGARDING PLAINTIFF

37. Escambia admits the allegations in Paragraph 37.

38. Escambia denies the allegations in Paragraph 38 and demands strict 

proof thereof.

39. Escambia admits the allegations within Paragraph 39 to the extent that,

based on information known to date, the Florida Department of Health has not 

completed its investigation of the complaint filed by Dr. Edler against Plaintiff; 

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 39 Filed 07/06/20 Page 6 of 31
7

LYDECKER | DIAZ

www.lydeckerdiaz.com

Escambia denies the remainder of the allegations within Paragraph 39 and demands

strict proof thereof.

ESCAMBIA COUNTY’S INVESTIGATION AND PROCESSES

40. Escambia admits the allegations in Paragraph 40.

41. Escambia denies the allegations in Paragraph 41 and demands strict 

proof thereof.

42. Escambia admits the allegations in Paragraph 42 to the extent that 

Coughlin asked the ECBOCC attorney, Charles Peppler, Esq., (“Peppler”) for his 

opinion concerning the extent of authority by Dr. Edler under Florida law. Escambia 

further admits that Peppler prepared a memo, a copy of which is attached to 

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint as Plaintiff’s Exhibit A. Escambia states that 

the document speaks for itself and therefore no response is needed. To the extent a 

response in needed, Escambia denies any and all remaining characterizations, 

averments, allegations, and conclusions contained within Paragraph 42 and demands 

strict proof thereof.

43. Escambia denies the allegations in Paragraph 43 and demands strict 

proof thereof.

44. Escambia admits the allegations in Paragraph 44 to the extent that 

Edward Spainhower, an employee in Escambia’s HR Department, was assigned to 

investigate the Plaintiff’s Complaint against Edler. Defendant further admits 

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 39 Filed 07/06/20 Page 7 of 31
8

LYDECKER | DIAZ

www.lydeckerdiaz.com

Plaintiff complained to Spainhower about allegedly being disciplined. As to the 

remaining allegations in Paragraph 44, Escambia denies same and demands strict 

proof thereof.

45. Escambia admits that in June 2019, Spainhower drafted a report. 

However, Escambia denies the allegations in Paragraph 45 to the extent that the 

report was not “on behalf of Defendant ECBCC” as it was a draft non-final report

and had not been reviewed. Plaintiff admits a copy of the draft report is attached to 

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint as Plaintiff’s Exhibit B. Escambia states that 

the document speaks for itself and therefore no response is needed. To the extent a 

response is needed, Escambia admits that the language cited in Paragraph 45 is an 

accurate citation of a portion of Exhibit B; however, Defendant denies any and all 

remaining characterizations, averments, allegations, and conclusions contained 

within Paragraph 45 and demands strict proof thereof.

46. Escambia states that the document speaks for itself and therefore no 

response is needed. To the extent a response is required, Escambia admits that the 

language cited in Paragraph 46 is an accurate citation of a portion of Exhibit B; 

Defendant denies any and all remaining characterizations, averments, allegations, 

and legal conclusions contained within Paragraph 46 and demands strict proof 

thereof.

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 39 Filed 07/06/20 Page 8 of 31
9

LYDECKER | DIAZ

www.lydeckerdiaz.com

47. Escambia states that the document speaks for itself and therefore no 

response is needed. To the extent a response is required, Escambia admits the 

allegations within Paragraph 47.

48. Escambia denies the allegations in Paragraph 48 and demands strict 

proof thereof.

49. Escambia denies the allegations in Paragraph 49 and demands strict 

proof thereof.

50. Defendant admits the allegations within the Complaint to the extent that 

Plaintiff was provided a copy of the Spainhower report on November 13, 2019. 

Escambia denies the allegations within Paragraph 50 to the extent that Spainhower’s 

report was not a final report and therefore Plaintiff was not entitled to it. Defendant 

is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the number of 

times Plaintiff contacted HR and the County administrator and what response he 

received every time. 

51. Escambia denies the allegations in Paragraph 51 to the extent that Mr. 

Spainhower’s report was a draft report and was not peer-reviewed and was not 

Escambia’s final opinion on Plaintiff’s allegations. As to the remaining allegations 

in Paragraph 51, Escambia is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a 

belief as to what Plaintiff’s thoughts were and thus, Escambia denies same and 

demands strict proof thereof.

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 39 Filed 07/06/20 Page 9 of 31
10

LYDECKER | DIAZ

www.lydeckerdiaz.com

52. Escambia denies the allegations in Paragraph 52 of the Complaint and

demands strict proof thereof.

53. Escambia admits that Dr. Edler would not draft the PIP. Defendant

admits a copy of an email dated July 12, 2019, to Edler is attached as Exhibit C to 

the First Amended Complaint. As to the remaining allegations in Paragraph 53, 

Escambia denies same and demands strict proof thereof.

54. Escambia admits the allegations in Paragraph 54 to the extent that Mr. 

Salter drafted a Performance Improvement Plan (“PIP”) for Plaintiff; Escambia 

denies the remainder of the allegations in Paragraph 54 and demands strict proof 

thereof.

55. Escambia denies the allegations in Paragraph 55 and demands strict 

proof thereof.

56. Escambia admits the allegations in Paragraph 56 of the Complaint.

57. Escambia admits the allegations in Paragraph 57 to the extent that 

Plaintiff was to work under a Field Training Officer (“FTO”) and the PIP was 

implemented in August 2019; however, Escambia denies the remainder of the 

allegations in Paragraph 57 and demands strict proof thereof.

58. Escambia denies the allegations in Paragraph 58 and demands strict 

proof thereof.

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 39 Filed 07/06/20 Page 10 of 31
11

LYDECKER | DIAZ

www.lydeckerdiaz.com

59. Escambia denies the allegations in Paragraph 59 and demands strict 

proof thereof.

60. Escambia denies the allegations in Paragraph 60 and demands strict 

proof thereof.

61. Escambia admits the allegations in Paragraph 61 to the extent according 

to the Escambia County Board of County Commissioners Human Resources policies 

(HR policies), Defendants are required to issue a Notice of Disciplinary Action in 

writing, which sets forth the nature of the allegations, the nature of the action to be

taken, the effective date of the action, and if suspension, the duration thereof, and 

that such notice should be served upon the affected employee. Defendant further 

admits a copy of the Escambia County Human Resources Policy is attached to the 

First Amended Complaint. However, as to the remaining allegations of Paragraph 

61, Defendant denies same and demands strict proof thereof. 

62. Escambia denies the allegations in Paragraph 62 and demands strict 

proof thereof.

63. Escambia admits the allegations in Paragraph 63 to the extent that 

Escambia may discipline Plaintiff only for just cause; Escambia denies the 

remainder of the allegations in Paragraph 63 and demands strict proof thereof.

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 39 Filed 07/06/20 Page 11 of 31
12

LYDECKER | DIAZ

www.lydeckerdiaz.com

64. Escambia admits the allegations in Paragraph 64 to the extent that it has 

established harassment policies and procedures; Escambia denies the remainder of 

the allegations in Paragraph 64 and demands strict proof thereof.

65. Escambia denies the allegations in Paragraph 65 and demands strict 

proof thereof.

66. Escambia denies the allegations in Paragraph 66, including 

subparagraphs 66(a) through 66(c), and demands strict proof thereof.

67. Escambia denies the allegations in Paragraph 67 and demands strict 

proof thereof.

68. Escambia denies the allegations in Paragraph 68 and demands strict 

proof thereof.

JANA STILL’S POST-HOC FINDINGS

69. Escambia admits the allegations in Paragraph 69 to the extent that Ms. 

Still, who became Escambia’s Human Resources Director in approximately 

November 2019, issued a final report concerning Plaintiff’s complaint against Dr. 

Edler, concluding that Dr. Edler did not commit retaliation against Plaintiff and that 

Plaintiff should remain under the supervision of an FTO. Escambia denies the 

remainder of the allegations in Paragraph 69 and demands strict proof thereof.

70. Escambia denies the allegations in Paragraph 70 and demands strict 

proof thereof.

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 39 Filed 07/06/20 Page 12 of 31
13

LYDECKER | DIAZ

www.lydeckerdiaz.com

71. Escambia is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a 

reasonable belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 71 as Defendant is 

not aware of the information relayed or not relayed to the Plaintiff. Thus, Escambia 

denies same and demands strict proof thereof. 

72. Escambia admits the allegations in Paragraph 72 to the extent that Ms. 

Still issued her report regarding the allegations by Plaintiff against Dr. Edler after 

meeting with Selover and Dr. Edler. As to the remaining allegations in Paragraph 

72, Escambia denies same and demands strict proof thereof.

73. Escambia denies the allegations in Paragraph 73 and demands strict 

proof thereof.

74. Escambia denies the allegations in Paragraph 74 and demands strict 

proof thereof.

75. Escambia admits that it did not conclude the investigation within 15

days. As to the remaining allegations of Paragraph 75, Escambia same and demands 

strict proof thereof.

76. Escambia denies the allegations in Paragraph 76 and demands strict 

proof thereof.

77. Escambia admits that on April 9, 2020, Maddrey informed Selover he 

was not permitted to attend the supervisors meeting though he was permitted to 

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 39 Filed 07/06/20 Page 13 of 31
14

LYDECKER | DIAZ

www.lydeckerdiaz.com

attend some supervisors’ meetings. As to the remaining allegations in Paragraph 77, 

Defendant denies same and demands strict proof thereof.

SANTA ROSA COUNTY

78. Escambia admits the allegations in Paragraph 78 of the Complaint to 

the extent Plaintiff started working for Lifeguard part time in approximately August 

2019. As to the remaining allegations within Paragraph 78, Escambia is without 

sufficient knowledge or information to form a reasonable belief as to the truth of the 

remaining allegations and therefore denies same and demands strict proof thereof.

79. Escambia denies the allegations in Paragraph 79 and demands strict 

proof thereof.

80. Escambia is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a 

belief as to the truth of the allegations contained within Paragraph 80 and therefore 

denies same and demands strict proof thereof.

81. Escambia denies the allegations in Paragraph 81 and demands strict

proof thereof.

82. Escambia denies the allegations in Paragraph 82 and demands strict 

proof thereof.

83. Escambia is aware that Plaintiff has retained the Law Office of J.J. 

Talbott. However, Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to 

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 39 Filed 07/06/20 Page 14 of 31
15

LYDECKER | DIAZ

www.lydeckerdiaz.com

form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 99 and 

therefore denies same and demands strict proof thereof.

COUNT I—VIOLATION OF PLAINTIFF’S FOURTEENTH 

AMENDMENT PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS RIGHTS (AGAINST

DEFENDANT EDLER IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AND ESCAMBIA)

84. Escambia re-avers and incorporates by reference herein its responses to 

Paragraphs 1 through 83 as if fully set forth herein. 

85. Escambia denies the allegations in Paragraph 85 and demands strict 

proof thereof.

86. The allegations within Paragraph 86 call for a legal conclusion, to 

which no response is required. However, to the extent that a response is required, 

Escambia admits that the language cited in Paragraph 86 is an accurate citation of a 

portion of the 14th Amendment of the United States.

87. The allegations within Paragraph 87 call for a legal conclusion, to 

which no response is required. However, to the extent that a response is required, 

Escambia admits that the language cited in Paragraph 87 is an accurate citation of a 

portion of the referenced statute. 

88. Escambia denies the allegations in Paragraph 88 and demands strict 

proof thereof.

89. Escambia denies the allegations in Paragraph 89 and demands strict 

proof thereof.

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 39 Filed 07/06/20 Page 15 of 31
16

LYDECKER | DIAZ

www.lydeckerdiaz.com

90. Escambia denies the allegations in Paragraph 90 and demands strict 

proof thereof.

91. Escambia denies the allegations in Paragraph 91 and demands strict 

proof thereof.

92. Escambia denies the allegations in Paragraph 92 and demands strict 

proof thereof.

93. Escambia denies the allegations in Paragraph 93, including 

subparagraphs 93(a) through 93(j), and demands strict proof thereof.

94. Escambia denies the allegations in Paragraph 94 and demands strict 

proof thereof.

95. Escambia denies the allegations in Paragraph 95 and demands strict 

proof thereof.

96. Escambia denies the allegations in Paragraph 96 and demands strict 

proof thereof.

97. Escambia denies the allegations in Paragraph 97 and demands strict 

proof thereof.

98. Escambia denies the allegations in Paragraph 98 and demands strict 

proof thereof.

99. Escambia is aware that Plaintiff has retained the Law Office of J.J. 

Talbott. However, Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to 

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 39 Filed 07/06/20 Page 16 of 31
17

LYDECKER | DIAZ

www.lydeckerdiaz.com

form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 99 and 

therefore denies same and demands strict proof thereof.

Escambia denies each and every allegation not expressly admitted herein. To 

the extent the Court deems a response is required to the “WHEREFORE” paragraph 

of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, Escambia denies each and every such 

allegation contained in the WHEREFORE paragraph including subsections (a)-(f). 

Escambia further denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any of the relief requested in her 

“WHEREFORE” paragraph.

COUNT II—VIOLATION OF PLAINTIFF’S FOURTEENTH 

AMENDMENT PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS RIGHTS 

(AGAINST DEFENDANT EDLER IN HER INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY)

100. Escambia re-avers and incorporates by reference herein its responses to 

Paragraphs 1 through 83 as if fully set forth herein. 

101. The allegations within Count II are not directed toward Escambia and 

thus, no response is required. However, to the extent that this Court warrants a 

response, Escambia denies the allegations in Paragraph 101 and demands strict proof 

thereof.

102. The allegations within Count II are not directed toward Escambia and 

thus, no response is required. However, to the extent that this Court warrants a 

response, Escambia denies the allegations in Paragraph 102 and demands strict proof 

thereof.

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 39 Filed 07/06/20 Page 17 of 31
18

LYDECKER | DIAZ

www.lydeckerdiaz.com

103. The allegations within Count II are not directed toward Escambia and 

thus, no response is required. However, to the extent that this Court warrants a 

response, Escambia denies the allegations in Paragraph 103 and demands strict proof 

thereof.

104. The allegations within Count II are not directed toward Escambia and 

thus, no response is required. However, to the extent that this Court warrants a 

response, Escambia denies the allegations in Paragraph 104 and demands strict proof 

thereof.

105. The allegations within Count II are not directed toward Escambia and 

thus, no response is required. However, to the extent that this Court warrants a 

response, Escambia denies the allegations in Paragraph 105 and demands strict proof 

thereof.

106. The allegations within Count II are not directed toward Escambia and 

thus, no response is required. However, to the extent that this Court warrants a 

response, Escambia denies the allegations in Paragraph 106 and demands strict proof 

thereof.

107. The allegations within Count II are not directed toward Escambia and 

thus, no response is required. However, to the extent that this Court warrants a 

response, Escambia denies the allegations in Paragraph 107 and demands strict proof 

thereof.

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 39 Filed 07/06/20 Page 18 of 31
19

LYDECKER | DIAZ

www.lydeckerdiaz.com

108. The allegations within Count II are not directed toward Escambia and 

thus, no response is required. However, to the extent that this Court warrants a 

response, Escambia denies the allegations in Paragraph 108 and demands strict proof 

thereof.

109. The allegations within Count II are not directed toward Escambia and 

thus, no response is required. However, to the extent that this Court warrants a 

response, Escambia denies the allegations in Paragraph 109 and demands strict proof 

thereof.

110. The allegations within Count II are not directed toward Escambia and 

thus, no response is required. However, to the extent that this Court warrants a 

response, Escambia denies the allegations in Paragraph 110 and demands strict proof 

thereof.

Escambia denies each and every allegation not expressly admitted herein. To 

the extent the Court deems a response is required to the “WHEREFORE” paragraph 

of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, Escambia denies each and every such 

allegation contained in the WHEREFORE paragraph. Escambia further denies that 

Plaintiff is entitled to any of the relief requested in her “WHEREFORE” paragraph.

COUNT III—VIOLATION OF PLAINTIFF’S FOURTEENTH 

AMENDMENT SUBSTANTIVE PROPERTY RIGHTS (AGAINST 

DEFENDANT EDLER IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AND ESCAMBIA)

COUNT III WAS DISMISSED BY THIS COURT ON JUNE 19, 2020.

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 39 Filed 07/06/20 Page 19 of 31
20

LYDECKER | DIAZ

www.lydeckerdiaz.com

As a result, no response is required to Paragraphs 111 through 126, including the 

Wherefore paragraph within Count III.

COUNT IV—VIOLATION OF PLAINTIFF’S FOURTEENTH 

AMENDMENT SUBSTANTIVE PROPERTY RIGHTS 

(AGAINST DEFENDANT EDLER IN HER INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY)

COUNT IV WAS DISMISSED BY THIS COURT ON JUNE 19, 2020.

In addition, Count IV is not directed towards Escambia. As a result, no response is 

required to Paragraphs 127 through 143, including the Wherefore paragraph within 

Count III.

COUNT V—UNLAWFUL RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF THE FIRST 

AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS (AGAINST DEFENDANT EDLER

IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AND ESCAMBIA)

COUNT V WAS DISMISSED BY THIS COURT ON JUNE 19, 2020.

As a result, no response is required to Paragraphs 144 through 161, including the 

Wherefore paragraph within Count III.

COUNT VI—UNLAWFUL RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF THE 

FIRST AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS (AGAINST DEFENDANT 

EDLER IN HER INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY)

COUNT VI WAS DISMISSED BY THIS COURT ON JUNE 19, 2020.

In addition, Count IV is not directed towards Escambia. As a result, no response is 

required to Paragraphs 162 through 171, including the Wherefore paragraph within 

Count III.

COUNT VII—UNLAWFUL RETALIATION UNDER § 112.3187, FLA. 

STAT. (AGAINST DEFENDANT EDLER IN HER 

OFFICIAL CAPACITY AND ESCAMBIA) 

172. Escambia re-avers and incorporates by reference herein its responses to 

Paragraphs 1 through 83 as if fully set forth herein. 

173. The allegations within Paragraph 173, including subparagraphs 173(a) 

through 173(b), call for a legal conclusion, to which no response is required. 

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 39 Filed 07/06/20 Page 20 of 31
21

LYDECKER | DIAZ

www.lydeckerdiaz.com

However, to the extent that a response is required, Escambia admits that the 

language cited in Paragraph 173 is an accurate citation of Section 112.3187, Florida 

Statutes. 

174. The allegations within Paragraph 174 call for a legal conclusion, to 

which no response is required. However, to the extent that a response is required, 

Escambia admits that the language cited in Paragraph 174 is an accurate citation of 

Section 112.3187, Florida Statutes.

175. The allegations within Paragraph 175, including subparagraphs 175(a)

through 175(b), call for a legal conclusion, to which no response is required. 

However, to the extent that a response is required, Escambia admits that the language 

cited in Paragraph 175 is an accurate citation of the Florida Public Whistleblower’s

Act, Section 112.3187, Florida Statutes. However, Defendant denies the allegations 

within Paragraph 175 (a)-(b) accurately reflect Section 113.3187, Florida Statutes.

176. Escambia admits that Plaintiff was its employee; however, Escambia 

denies the remainder of the allegations in Paragraph 176 and demands strict proof 

thereof.

177. Escambia admits that Plaintiff filed a complaint against Dr. Edler on 

May 1, 2019 regarding the QA meeting; Escambia denies the remainder of the 

allegations in Paragraph 177 and demands strict proof thereof.

178. Escambia admits the allegations in Paragraph 178.

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 39 Filed 07/06/20 Page 21 of 31
22

LYDECKER | DIAZ

www.lydeckerdiaz.com

179. Escambia denies the allegations in Paragraph 179 and demands strict 

proof thereof.

180. Escambia denies the allegations in Paragraph 180 and demands strict 

proof thereof.

181. Escambia denies the allegations in Paragraph 181 and demands strict 

proof thereof.

182. Escambia denies the allegations in Paragraph 182 and demands strict 

proof thereof.

183. Escambia denies the allegations in Paragraph 183 and demands strict 

proof thereof.

Escambia is aware that Plaintiff has retained the Law Office of J.J. Talbott. 

However, Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief 

as to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 99 and therefore denies same

and demands strict proof thereof.

Escambia denies each and every allegation not expressly admitted herein. To 

the extent the Court deems a response is required to the “WHEREFORE” paragraph 

of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, Escambia denies each and every such 

allegation contained in the WHEREFORE paragraph including subparts (a)-(e). 

Escambia further denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any of the relief requested in her 

“WHEREFORE” paragraph.

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 39 Filed 07/06/20 Page 22 of 31
23

LYDECKER | DIAZ

www.lydeckerdiaz.com

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

Escambia submits the following affirmative defenses: 

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Escambia asserts that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that he has a protected 

property interest in his employment such that he is entitled to procedural due process. 

Moreover, Plaintiff is not able to establish a deprivation of his property interest as 

he was never demoted, disciplined, or terminated. Consequently, Plaintiff’s cause 

of action as to Count I cannot be maintained against Escambia. 

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Escambia asserts that Plaintiff had sufficient notice of the QA Meeting 

because the matters discussed therein did not present any new information that 

Plaintiff was unaware of and the QA Meeting was non-disciplinary in nature. As 

such, Plaintiff was aware and had complete knowledge of the matters discussed at 

the QA Meeting and therefore cannot establish a due process violation. 

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Escambia asserts that Plaintiff had multiple opportunities to be heard. First, 

Plaintiff had an opportunity to be heard at the QA Meeting. Second, Plaintiff had 

appellate rights available to him under Escambia’s Human Resources Policies and 

Procedures to be heard by the Merit System Protection Board. Third, Plaintiff had 

grievance and appellate rights under the Collective Bargaining Agreement between 

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 39 Filed 07/06/20 Page 23 of 31
24

LYDECKER | DIAZ

www.lydeckerdiaz.com

Escambia and Union Local R5-325 (the “CBA”). However, Plaintiff failed to timely 

appeal pursuant to Escambia’s Human Resources Policies and the CBA.

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Escambia asserts that a procedural due process violation is not complete 

“unless and until the state refuses to provide due process.” McKinney v. Pate, 20 

F.3d 1550, 1561 (11th Cir. 1994) (quoting Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113, 123 

(1990)). Plaintiff was able to appeal the alleged adverse action against him to the 

Merit System Protection Board under Escambia’s Human Resources Policies and 

Procedures and Plaintiff had grievance and appellate rights under the CBA. 

However, Plaintiff failed to exercise either of those rights before he voluntarily 

resigned his employment on April 9, 2020. Consequently, Plaintiff’s cause of action 

as to Count I cannot be maintained against Escambia.

FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Escambia asserts that it does not harbor, practice, or otherwise uphold any 

official policy that has resulted in an established pattern and practice of 

constitutional violations against similarly situated individuals as Plaintiff. 

Consequently, Plaintiff’s cause of action as to Count I cannot be maintained under a 

theory of liability under 42 U.S.C. §1983 against Escambia.

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 39 Filed 07/06/20 Page 24 of 31
25

LYDECKER | DIAZ

www.lydeckerdiaz.com

SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Escambia asserts that it does not harbor, practice, or otherwise uphold any 

unofficial custom that has resulted in an established pattern and practice of 

constitutional violations against similarly situated individuals as Plaintiff. Plaintiff 

cannot point to any alleged unofficial custom that was the moving force behind the 

alleged constitutional violations against him. 

SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Escambia asserts that Dr. Edler is not the final policymaking authority on 

whether paramedics within her department are able to be demoted, be placed on 

administrative duty, or be terminated. Although Dr. Edler has authority to maintain 

the quality assurance standards within her department and determine which 

individuals are fit to work under her medical license, Dr. Edler lacks managerial 

authority to demote or otherwise discipline individuals such as Plaintiff. 

Consequently, Plaintiff’s cause of action as to Count I cannot be maintained under a 

theory of liability under 42 U.S.C. §1983 against Escambia.

EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Escambia asserts that Plaintiff did not suffer any damages under § 112.3187

Fla. Stat., 42 U.S.C. 1983, and the United States Constitution because Plaintiff 

voluntarily resigned from his employment with Escambia on April 9, 2020. 

Moreover, while Plaintiff was employed with Escambia after the QA Meeting, he 

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 39 Filed 07/06/20 Page 25 of 31
26

LYDECKER | DIAZ

www.lydeckerdiaz.com

did not sustain a reduction in pay, an abatement of benefits, or lose the opportunity 

to work overtime. Consequently, Plaintiff is not entitled to any of the available relief 

in § 112.3187(9), Fla. Stat. 

NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Escambia asserts that Plaintiff did not suffer an adverse employment action 

under § 112.3187, Fla. Stat., because Plaintiff did not suffer a reduction in rank, 

reduction in pay, abatement of benefits, and/or lose the opportunity to work overtime 

during his employment with Escambia after the QA Meeting. 

TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Escambia asserts that the alleged violations of law put forth by Plaintiff 

against Escambia do not rise to a “substantial and specific danger to the public’s 

health, safety or welfare.” § 112.3187(5)(a), Fla. Stat. In particular, the DOH 

complaint and Escambia’s investigation into this matter establishes that Dr. Edler’s 

decisions regarding Selover were not based on personal animus and the alleged 

violations do not present a danger to public health, safety, and welfare. In addition, 

Plaintiff’s allegations are personal in nature and relate solely to his grievances 

against Dr. Edler. 

ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Escambia asserts that Plaintiff cannot maintain a cause of action against 

Escambia under § 112.3187, Fla. Stat. because Plaintiff failed to exhaust his 

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 39 Filed 07/06/20 Page 26 of 31
27

LYDECKER | DIAZ

www.lydeckerdiaz.com

administrative remedies. See § 112.3187(8), Fla. Stat. (requiring that a plaintiff seek 

exhaust administrative remedies with the Florida Commission on Human Relations 

before the right to bring a civil action matures). Moreover, Plaintiff had two avenues 

with Escambia to appeal the alleged adverse action against him: (1) Appellate rights 

under Escambia’s Human Resources Policies and Procedures; and (2) Grievance 

procedures under the Collective Bargaining Agreement between Escambia and 

Union Local R5-325. Plaintiff failed to use any of these options at his disposal and 

instead elected to initiate this litigation. Consequently, Plaintiff’s Count VII cannot 

be maintained against Escambia. 

TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Escambia asserts that it had legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons for placing 

Plaintiff on a PIP under the supervision of an FTO because since July 2018, Plaintiff 

had committed multiple errors while in the course and scope of employment 

resulting in non-compliances with his job duties, which resulted in the QA Meeting 

to educate Plaintiff on how he could improve his job performance. Plaintiff was 

placed on a PIP under the supervision of an FTO—while maintaining his rank,

salary, benefits, and opportunity for overtime. Accordingly, Plaintiff was not 

subjected to any discipline as PIP plans are not disciplinary in nature. 

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 39 Filed 07/06/20 Page 27 of 31
28

LYDECKER | DIAZ

www.lydeckerdiaz.com

THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Defendant asserts that Escambia did not violate the constitutional rights of the 

Plaintiff and even if they did violate Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, his rights were 

not clearly established at the time of the alleged incident.

FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Defendant asserts that any alleged adverse actions taken against Plaintiff were

predicated upon grounds other than, and would have been taken absent, Plaintiff’s

exercise of rights protected by Section 112.3187, Florida Statutes as Plaintiff had 

issues concerning his job performance. Defendant further states that all actions 

taken by Defendant with regard to Plaintiff were for legitimate, non-retaliatory, and 

non-pretextual reasons wholly unrelated in any causal manner with Plaintiff’s

alleged complaint.

FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Defendant asserts that Plaintiff cannot establish Escambia ratified Dr. Edler’s 

actions and fails to identify a final policymaker that had the authority to ratify Dr. 

Edler’s actions. Accordingly, Plaintiff cannot establish municipal liability.

SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Defendant asserts Plaintiff’s claims are time-barred, to the extent that 

Plaintiff’s claims are based on acts that occurred prior to an applicable statute of 

limitations.

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 39 Filed 07/06/20 Page 28 of 31
29

LYDECKER | DIAZ

www.lydeckerdiaz.com

SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Defendant asserts that it has made good-faith efforts to prevent any retaliatory 

conduct by any employees and to promptly remedy any improper treatment of 

employees, and therefore is not subject to liability for the allegations contained

within the Amended Complaint.

EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

As its Eighteenth Affirmative Defense, Defendant asserts that Plaintiff failed 

to mitigate any damages, and therefore recovery, if any, should be reduced 

accordingly. With respect to any claims for damages for medical and mental health 

care, Plaintiff’s damages should be limited to the cost of Plaintiff’s health insurance 

as a result of the Affordable Care Act. There is no “reasonable probability” that 

medical expenses above the annual premium should be incurred by any American 

for any medical treatment encompassed by 42 U.S.C. §18022(b)(1)(A)-(J). If 

Plaintiff did not purchase insurance pursuant to the Affordable Care Act, and was 

required to do so, then Plaintiff failed to mitigate his damages, and therefore, any 

medical expenses should be reduced accordingly. With respect to any claims for 

lost wages/back pay, should discovery reveal that Plaintiff is not working or 

attempting to find employment, Defendant is entitled to a set off.

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 39 Filed 07/06/20 Page 29 of 31
30

LYDECKER | DIAZ

www.lydeckerdiaz.com

NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Defendant asserts that it followed its policies and procedures regarding 

actions to take once the Medical Examiner determines that a paramedic can no longer 

work under their license. 

Defendant reserves the right to raise additional affirmative defenses as 

discovery may reveal necessary as allowed by this Court.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Defendant hereby demands trial by jury as to all issues triable in this matter.

Respectively Submitted,

LYDECKER | DIAZ 

Counsel for Escambia County

495 Grand Blvd. 

Suite 206

Miramar Beach, FL

Telephone: (305) 416-3180 

By: /s/ Katie Gudaitis

KATIE GUDAITIS, ESQ.

Florida Bar No: 106954

kg@lydeckerdiaz.com

STEPHANIE PIDERMANN, ESQ.

FBN: 60414

sp@lydeckerdiaz.com

IAN M. CORP, ESQ.

FBN: 1010943

imc@lydeckerdiaz.com

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 39 Filed 07/06/20 Page 30 of 31
31

LYDECKER | DIAZ

www.lydeckerdiaz.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing document with the 

Clerk of Court using CM/ECF on July 6, 2020. I also certify that a true and correct 

copy of the foregoing was served this day via transmission of Notices of Electronic 

Filing generated by CM/ECF on all counsel or parties of record on the Service List 

below.

/s/ Katie Gudaitis

Katie Gudaitis, Esq.

SERVICE LIST

JEREMIAH J. TALBOTT, ESQ.

Law Office of Jeremiah J. Talbott, P.A.

900 E. Moreno Street 

Pensacola, FL 32503

PIE:jjtalbott@talbottlawfirm.com

S/E:civilfilings@talbottlawfirm.com

Phone: (850) 434-9200

Attorneys for Plaintiff

CECILY L. KAFFER, ESQ.

Pro Hac Vice

The Kullman Firm

Post Office Box 1287

Mobile, Alabama 36633

P: clk@kullmanlaw.com

T: 251) 432-1811

Attorney for Rayme Edler

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 39 Filed 07/06/20 Page 31 of 31