UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

CAROLYN ANN MILLER,

Plaintiff, CASE NO.4:20-cv-00514-MW-MAF

v.

EBS SECURITY, INC., a 

Florida corporation, and

PRINTELLA BUCKHEAD1

,

Defendants.

 

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND

MEMORANDUM OF LAW

PLAINTIFF, CAROLYN ANN MILLER, by and through the

undersigned counsel and pursuant to Federal Rule of Procedure 56 and Local

Rule 56.1(B), respectfully submits this Memorandum of Law in Opposition to

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment filed March 31, 2022. The

plaintiff respectfully requests this Court deny Defendants’ motion and states

as grounds: 

1Defendant Printella Bankhead’s last name is misspelled in the case caption.

Case 4:20-cv-00514-MW-MAF Document 36 Filed 04/18/22 Page 1 of 13
INTRODUCTION

On September 10, 2019, Plaintiff was terminated from her position of

Security Officer by EBS President andCEO, Printella Bankhead. The plaintiff

believes that Defendants have discriminated against her in employment on the

basis of her sex (female) and her race (black) by creating a hostile work

environment and by retaliating against her for complaining about this

discrimination and terminating Plaintiff from her employment. The plaintiff

believes that had he been a white male, she would not have received

differential treatment from her white male supervisor, Lieutenant Michael

Deaner, and would not have been terminated from her employment. The

plaintiff alleges that the only reason she was subject to a hostile work

environment and subsequently terminated from employment was due to her

complaining about discrimination based on her sex and race (retaliation), in

violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Florida Civil Rights Act.

MEMORANDUM OF LAW

A. Summary Judgment Standard

Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “a court

shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine

2

Case 4:20-cv-00514-MW-MAF Document 36 Filed 04/18/22 Page 2 of 13
dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a

matter of law.” In determining whether a genuine issue of material fact exists,

the court “must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmovant and

may not weigh evidence or make credibility determinations.” Lewis v. City of

Union City, Georgia, 934 F.3d 1169, 1179 (11

th

 Cir. 2019). 

B. Defendants’ assertion that Plaintiff cannot establish a prima

facie case of employment discrimination

Defendants argue that the Courtshould grantsummary judgment in their

favor because Plaintiff cannot establish a prima facie case of employment

discrimination. A prima facie case of discrimination is established when a

plaintiff can show that (1) she belonged to a protected class; (2) she was

qualified to do the job; (3) she was subjected to adverse employment action;

and (4) her employer treated similarly situated employees outside her class

more favorably. Lewis v. City of Union City, Georgia, 934 F. 3d at 1185.

While both parties agree that Plaintiff is a member of a protected class (black

female) and that she was subjected to adverse employment action when she

was terminated by Defendants, Defendants assert that Plaintiff was not

3

Case 4:20-cv-00514-MW-MAF Document 36 Filed 04/18/22 Page 3 of 13
qualified to do her job and that similarly situated employees outside her class

were not treated more fairly.

(1) Lack of a Similarly Situated Comparator

Defendants argue that because Plaintiff has not pointed to another

employee who engaged in the same conduct as the Plaintiff, that no similarlysituated comparator exists. This is because defendant has manufactured

allegations of misconduct. Plaintiff’s behavior was no different than her male

coworkers. Thus her comparators are all her male coworkers. However, a lack

of a comparator is not dispositive of whether a prima facie case has been

established. “The plaintiff will always survive summary judgment if he

presents circumstantial evidence that creates a triable issue concerning the

employer’s discriminatory intent.” Smith v. Lockheed-Martin Corp., 644 F. 3d

1321, 1328 (11

th Cir. 2011). “A triable issue of fact exists if the record, viewed

in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, presents ‘a convincing mosaic of

circumstantial evidence that would allow a jury to infer intentional

discrimination by the decisionmaker.’” Id. A “convincing mosaic” is shown

where the evidence demonstrates(1) “suspicioustiming, ambiguousstatements

. . . and other bits and pieces from which an inference of discriminatory intent

4

Case 4:20-cv-00514-MW-MAF Document 36 Filed 04/18/22 Page 4 of 13
may be drawn”; (2) systematically better treatment of similarly situated

employees; or (3) that the employer’s justification is pretextual. Lewis, 934 F.

3d at 1185. 

Shortly after Plaintiff’s employment with EBS began, her direct

supervisor, Lieutenant Deaner, began withholding information regarding

employment duties from her. He went as far as to avoid contact with her and

refuse to speak with her on work matters. On August 29, 2019, after learning

that Lieutenant Deaner offered work to her male counterparts for Labor Day

but not to her, Plaintiff voiced concernstoCaptain Manigault about Lieutenant

Deaner’s disparate treatment toward her. Lessthan two weekslater, Plaintiff’s

employment was terminated. The plaintiff was the only female working at the

location, and it is clear that Lieutenant Deaner treated her male coworkers

more favorably and respectfully than he treated her. (See, Defendants’

response to interrogatory number 6 at p.4, of Defendant’s Responses and

Objections to Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories, attached hereto as

Plaintiff’s Exhibit “1.”) This fact, along with the timing of Plaintiff’s

termination in reference to her complaint of discrimination, provides enough

of a “convincing mosaic of circumstantial evidence” that a jury would be able

5

Case 4:20-cv-00514-MW-MAF Document 36 Filed 04/18/22 Page 5 of 13
to infer intentional discrimination. Thus, even if Plaintiff does lack a

sufficiently similarly situated comparator, she is still able to satisfy the

requirements to meet a prima facie case of discrimination.

(2) The plaintiff was qualified to perform her job.

Defendants also argue that Plaintiff fails to establish a prima facie case

of discrimination because of their claim thatshe was not qualified to do her job

as a security officer. They base this assertion solely on the fact that Plaintiff

asked questions about her work duties to her supervisor, Lieutenant Deaner,

and expressed concerns about tasks not being completed in the proper manner.

The plaintiff had ample experience working in security and was more than

qualified to perform her duties. [Miller has worked as a Corrections Officer for

FranklinCountySheriff’sOffice and the Florida Department of Correctionsfor

fifteen (15) years. She was also employed as a Private Security Guard for

approximately four (4) years before beginning her employment with EBS in

August 2019. See, Affidavit of Carolyn Ann Miller, §§ 2-7, attached hereto as

Plaintiff’s Exhibit “2.”] Expressing concern and wanting to ensure that things

are done properly is not indicative in any way of her ability to perform her job

duties.

6

Case 4:20-cv-00514-MW-MAF Document 36 Filed 04/18/22 Page 6 of 13
(3) Defendants’proffered reasonfor Plaintiff’stermination

is a pretext for discrimination.

“A plaintiff can show pretext by: (i) casting sufficient doubt on the

defendant’s proffered nondiscriminatory reasons to permit a reasonable fact

finderto conclude that the employer’s proffered reasons were not what actually

motivated its conduct, (ii) showing that the employer’s articulated reason is

false and that the false reason hid discrimination, or (iii) establishing that the

employer hasfailed to clearly articulate and follow itsformal policies.” Lewis,

934 F. 3d at 1186.

Defendants’stated justification for Plaintiff’stermination isthat Plaintiff

exhibited insubordinate behavior toward her supervisor, Lieutenant Deaner.

[Plaintiff worked under Deaner’s Supervision for one (1) month. During this

period of time, she was the only female Security Guard. Deaner never spoke

to her and refused to keep her informed of information which was necessary

to do her job. She had to receive this information from her coworkers. Deaner

did not document nor counsel Plaintiff at any time before her termination from

employment.] See, Plaintiff’s Exhibit “2,” Affidavit of Carolyn Ann Miller, §§

8-11. The decision to terminate Plaintiff was based primarily on her

7

Case 4:20-cv-00514-MW-MAF Document 36 Filed 04/18/22 Page 7 of 13
interactions with Lieutenant Deaner, interactions which were tainted with

negativity because of the continued disparate treatment that Plaintiff faced

from him as a result of her sex and race. Defendant has submitted the

Declaration of Samuel Best [DOC.34-3]. Plaintiff addressed these statements

of Samuel Best in her Deposition [DOC.34-1, pp. 23 & 25, and specifically

denied Best’s statement.

(4) The plaintiff wassubject to a hostile work environment

due to her sex and race.

In addition to her unlawful termination, Plaintiff was also subject to a

hostile work environment during her employment. Existence of a hostile work

environment is evaluated by looking at a conduct’s “frequency . . . ; its

severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere

offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee’s

work performance.” Reeves v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., 594 F. 3d 798,

809 (11

th Cir. 2010). The plaintiff was treated different from her male

counterparts when Lieutenant Deaner refused to answer her questions about

job duties and offered opportunities and information to the male employees and

8

Case 4:20-cv-00514-MW-MAF Document 36 Filed 04/18/22 Page 8 of 13
not her. This conduct unreasonably interfered with Plaintiff’s ability to perform

her job duties.

(5) Retaliation

The plaintiff has set forth a sufficient factual basis for Retaliation. The

plaintiff agrees that Defendant has correctly stated the legal standard for a

claim of Retaliation. The parties agree that Plaintiff’s text message to

Management and Bankhead’s handling of the text message established that

Plaintiff engaged in protected activity and that the decision maker, Bankhead,

was aware of her protected activity. Likewise, the termination of Plaintifffrom

employment less than two (2) weeks later is a sufficient nexus between the

activity and the subsequent adverse action.

Defendant states at §2 of the Motion for Summary Judgment

[DOC.34:29] that, “Chief Bankhead did not consider the text message in her

decisionmaking process, and Plaintiff has no evidence to suggest otherwise.”

[DOC.34:29 of 32, §2]. The facts at issue here demonstrate Bankhead was

clearly of the allegations in the text message to Manigault, as she says she

interrupted the complaint in her Declaration [DOC.34-2, §11]. Her

9

Case 4:20-cv-00514-MW-MAF Document 36 Filed 04/18/22 Page 9 of 13
investigation manufactures a reason to terminate Plaintiff, which is predicated

on alleged behavior of Plaintiff which she denies in her Affidavit [DOC.36].

Defendant has presented no documentary evidence of Plaintiff’s

behavioral issues prior to the August 24, 2019 text message while Plaintiff’s

text message does document her complaints. See, Affidavit of Carolyn Miller

§§ 12-15, and Deposition of Carolyn Miller [DOC.34-1:45 at 12-25] and

[DOC.34-1:46 at 1-4].

Deaner did not want to deal with an experienced black female and

treated her differently than the other males. Plaintiff complained about this to

Deaner’s Supervisor, Anthony Manigault and was fired on a pretext –

Plaintiff’s so-called rude and unprofessional behavior which surprisingly not

an issue for Deaner prior to Bankhead investigating her complaints in the

August 24 texts.

The plaintiff hasset forth a sufficient prima facie case of discrimination

based on disparate treatment because of her sex and retaliation. The Motion

for Summary Judgment should be denied.

The parties dispute the proposed factual basisfor the adverse action was

a non-discriminatory, non-retaliatory basis for the decision.

10

Case 4:20-cv-00514-MW-MAF Document 36 Filed 04/18/22 Page 10 of 13
CONCLUSION

Defendants’ have notshown that Plaintiff cannot establish a prima facie

case of discrimination and are not entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Additionally, where the Defendants’ conduct and actions can be reasonable

inferred by a jury asintentional discrimination, a genuine issue of material fact

exists. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court deny

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment.

Respectfully submitted,

/s Gary Lee Printy

GARY LEE PRINTY

FL BAR ID NO.: 363014

GARY LEE PRINTY ATTORNEY AT LAW

1804 Miccosukee Commons Drive, Suite 200

Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5471

Telephone: (850) 877-7299

FAX: (850) 877-2211

E-mail: attygaryprinty@gmail.com

Attorney for Plaintiff, 

CAROLYN ANN MILLER

11

Case 4:20-cv-00514-MW-MAF Document 36 Filed 04/18/22 Page 11 of 13
PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT “1”

Case 4:20-cv-00514-MW-MAF Document 36 Filed 04/18/22 Page 12 of 13
PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT “2”

Case 4:20-cv-00514-MW-MAF Document 36 Filed 04/18/22 Page 13 of 13