1

www.spirelawfirm.com

Employment Attorneys

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

CAROLYN ANN MILLER, 

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 4:20-cv-00514-MW-MAF

EBS SECURITY INC., and 

PRINTELLA BUCKHEAD,

Defendants.

/

DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO 

PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Defendants, EBS Security Inc. (“EBS”) and Printella Bankhead 

(“Bankhead”)1 (collectively, “Defendants”), through undersigned counsel and 

pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 12, answer the Third

Amended Complaint (Doc. 12) filed by Plaintiff, Carolyn Miller (“Plaintiff”), 

and assert defenses and affirmative defenses as follows:

1 Plaintiff misspells Defendant Bankhead’s last name in the case caption.

Case 4:20-cv-00514-MW-MAF Document 22 Filed 06/21/21 Page 1 of 5
2

www.spirelawfirm.com

Employment Attorneys

PARTIES TO THIS COMPLAINT

1. Defendants acknowledge that Plaintiff has filed the Complaint. 

Defendants are without knowledge regarding and therefore deny the remaining 

allegations in Paragraph I(A)(1).

2. Defendants acknowledge that Plaintiff has sued Defendants in this 

action. Defendants admit that the address information set forth in Paragraph 

I(B)(1) is accurate.

BASIS FOR JURISDICTION

3. Notwithstanding Plaintiff’s failure to identify the basis for 

jurisdiction, Defendants acknowledge that jurisdiction is proper in this Court as 

to EBS. Defendants deny that jurisdiction is proper as to Defendant Bankhead, 

who is not subject to liability under applicable law. Defendants deny that they 

violated any law. 

STATEMENT OF CLAIM

4. Defendants are without knowledge regarding, and therefore deny, or 

otherwise deny, all of Plaintiff’s allegations in her statement of claim except as 

explicitly admitted below. Defendants admit that Defendant Printella Bankhead 

was on a phone call with Plaintiff and Lt. Michael Deaner during which 

Defendant Bankhead told Plaintiff to go home and that Defendant Bankhead 

Case 4:20-cv-00514-MW-MAF Document 22 Filed 06/21/21 Page 2 of 5
3

www.spirelawfirm.com

Employment Attorneys

would call Plaintiff. Defendants further admit that Defendant Bankhead notified 

Plaintiff that Lt. Deaner did not want Plaintiff to return to work, and that 

Defendant Bankhead stood by the decision. Defendants admit that Plaintiff was 

employed at the address identified in Paragraph III(C).

EXHAUSTION OF FEDERAL ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

5. Defendants admit that Plaintiff filed a Charge of Discrimination 

against Defendant EBS alleging discrimination on the basis of sex and race, and 

that Plaintiff no longer works for EBS. Defendant is without knowledge 

regarding and therefore denies, or otherwise denies, the remaining allegations in 

Paragraph IV.

RELIEF

6. Defendants deny all allegations and deny that Plaintiff is entitled to 

any relief in this action.

CERTIFICATION

7. Defendants are without knowledge regarding, and therefore deny, 

Plaintiff’s allegations regarding her contact information. Defendants deny all 

remaining allegations in Paragraph VI of the Complaint.

GENERAL DENIAL

All allegations not expressly admitted are denied.

Case 4:20-cv-00514-MW-MAF Document 22 Filed 06/21/21 Page 3 of 5
4

www.spirelawfirm.com

Employment Attorneys

FIRST DEFENSE

Defendant Bankhead is not subject to individual liability under applicable 

law and therefore Plaintiff fails to state a claim against Defendant Bankhead.

SECOND DEFENSE

Even if Plaintiff could state a claim against Defendant Bankhead, Plaintiff 

failed to exhaust administrative remedies and therefore her claim against 

Defendant Bankhead is barred.

THIRD DEFENSE

Plaintiff’s claims are barred or limited to the extent she failed to mitigate 

damages.

FOURTH DEFENSE

Plaintiff’s claims are barred or limited to the extent Defendants discover 

evidence of wrongdoing that if known previously would have led EBS to 

terminate Plaintiff.

FIFTH DEFENSE

To the extent Plaintiff attempts to state a claim for retaliation, her claim 

is barred to the extent she failed to engage in protected activity.

SIXTH DEFENSE

Defendants reserve the right to assert additional defenses that may be 

Case 4:20-cv-00514-MW-MAF Document 22 Filed 06/21/21 Page 4 of 5
5

www.spirelawfirm.com

Employment Attorneys

revealed during discovery.

Dated this 21st of June, 2021.

Respectfully submitted,

SPIRE LAW, LLC

2572 W. State Road 426, Suite 2088

Oviedo, Florida 32765

/s/Ashwin R. Trehan

Ashwin R. Trehan, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 42675 

/s/Jesse I. Unruh

Jesse I. Unruh, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 93121

ashwin@spirelawfirm.com

jesse@spirelawfirm.com 

sarah@spirelawfirm.com

laura@spirelawfirm.com

Attorney for Defendants | EBS 

SECURITY INC., and PRINTELLA 

BANKHEAD

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby Certify that on this 21st day of June, 2021., the foregoing was 

electronically filed with the Court by using the Northern District of Florida’s 

CM/ECF portal, and served by U.S. and electronic mail upon Plaintiff, Carolyn 

Miller, at millercarolyncm60@gmail.com; 171 Ave L Apalachicola, FL 32320.

/s/ Ashwin R. Trehan

Attorney

Case 4:20-cv-00514-MW-MAF Document 22 Filed 06/21/21 Page 5 of 5