KIM VAUGHAN LERNER LLP 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

CASE NO. 

MARCIA ENNIS, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

GUARD FORCE INTERNATIONAL, INC., 

 Defendant. 

 / 

COMPLAINT 

Plaintiff Marcia Ennis (“Ennis”) sues Defendant Guard Force International, Inc. 

(“GFI”), and alleges the following: 

JURISDICTION 

1. This is an action for damages in excess of $75,000, exclusive of interest, 

attorneys’ fees, and costs, and injunctive and declaratory relief. 

2. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, this Court has original jurisdiction over 

Ms. Ennis’s claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12101, et seq. (the 

“ADA”). In addition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, this Court has original jurisdiction 

over Ms. Ennis’s claim under the Florida Civil Rights Act, Fla. Stat. § 760.01, et seq. (the 

“FCRA”), in that it involves citizens of different states, and the matter in controversy 

exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. Specifically, GFI is 

a citizen of Delaware and Texas, and Ms. Ennis is a citizen of Florida. This Court has 

authority to grant injunctive and declaratory relief pursuant to the ADA, the FCRA, 

and/or the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2202. 

Case 1:22-cv-23617-JAL Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/04/2022 Page 1 of 13
2 

KIM VAUGHAN LERNER LLP

3. This Court has personal jurisdiction because, among other things, GFI has 

operated, conducted, engaged in, or carried on a business or business venture in Florida, 

and GFI has engaged in substantial and not isolated activity within Florida. 

4. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 and 28 U.S.C. § 89(c), venue is proper in this 

Court because GFI operates in Florida, GFI operates in the Southern District of Florida, 

and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in the 

Southern District of Florida. The Miami Division is the proper division within the 

Southern District of Florida for this action. 

PARTIES 

5. Ms. Ennis is a resident of the state of Florida. Ms. Ennis falls under the 

protection of the ADA and the FCRA because she has a disability as defined by the ADA 

and a handicap as defined by the FCRA. Ms. Ennis is a person as defined by the FCRA 

and ADA and an employee as defined by the ADA. 

6. GFI is a Delaware corporation with its principle place of business in Round 

Rock, Texas. According to GFI’s website, GFI provides security solutions, including 

armed and unarmed physical security, perimeter monitoring and patrol, alarm 

monitoring and dispatch services, and point of entry screening. GFI was and is an 

employer as defined by the ADA and the FCRA. 

CONDITIONS PRECEDENT 

7. On or about January 6, 2022, Ms. Ennis dual-filed a charge of 

discrimination with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and 

the Florida Commission on Human Rights (“FCHR”) alleging disability discrimination 

and retaliation. 

Case 1:22-cv-23617-JAL Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/04/2022 Page 2 of 13
3 

KIM VAUGHAN LERNER LLP

8. The EEOC issued a Determination and Notice of Rights, which was dated 

September 13 2022. 

9. Ms. Ennis has filed this action within ninety days of receipt of the EEOC’s 

Notice of Right to Sue. 

10. All conditions precedent have occurred or been performed. 

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 

11. Ms. Ennis suffers from what the ADA calls a disability and what the FCRA 

calls a handicap. Ms. Ennis suffers from arthritis, which is a physical disability/handicap 

involving flare ups of pain and swelling in the joints. 

12. Ms. Ennis’s arthritis impacts what the law calls a “major life activity.” The 

activities impacted include and are not limited to performing manual tasks (for example, 

lifting, lowering, pushing, pulling, carrying, moving, or holding things), walking, standing, 

lifting, bending, and working. 

13. Ms. Ennis’s disability/handicap generally precludes her from being exposed 

to colder temperatures. Working inside and otherwise avoiding colder temperatures 

allows Ms. Ennis to avoid exposure to conditions that will trigger her arthritis. 

14. Ms. Ennis was asked by an employee of GFI if she would consider working 

for GFI as a security guard. 

15. Ms. Ennis notified GFI that she would be willing to work ,but her arthritis 

prevented her for working in colder temperatures. 

16. GFI responded that Ms. Ennis’s arthritis would not be an issue as GFI would 

not have her work in colder temperatures. 

Case 1:22-cv-23617-JAL Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/04/2022 Page 3 of 13
4 

KIM VAUGHAN LERNER LLP

17. Given that GFI would accommodate Ms. Ennis’s condition, Ms. Ennis 

agreed to work at GFI as a security guard. Accordingly, Ms. Ennis began working for GFI 

on or around February 10, 2019. 

18. For more than two years, Ms. Ennis worked for GFI without incident. 

Whenever the temperature became too cold, Ms. Ennis was able to work inside or be 

posted in an area where the temperature would be warmer. 

19. In June 2021, Ms. Ennis’s assignment was changed to the VA Hospital in 

downtown Miami. Thereafter, Ms. Ennis began reporting to Lakeisha Hemphill. 

20. On November 8, 2021, Ms. Ennis was working an overnight shift. 

21. Ms. Hemphill requested that Ms. Ennis work outside. 

22. Because the temperature had dropped into the low 60s, Ms. Ennis told 

Ms. Hemphill that her arthritis prevented her for working outside that particular night. 

Ms. Ennis further explained that she had told GFI about her arthritis previously, and GFI 

approved her request to not assign her to a location that would expose her to colder 

temperatures. 

23. Ms. Hemphill did not care. 

24. Rather than engage in the process to discuss accommodating Ms. Ennis’s 

disability/handicap, Ms. Hemphill demanded that Ms. Ennis work outside or else 

Ms. Ennis would be fired. 

25. Because of her arthritis, Ms. Ennis could not work outside. 

26. Before starting the next shift, which was November 11, 2021, Ms. Ennis was 

notified that she was being fired. 

27. GFI’s actions in firing Ms. Ennis are retaliatory. 

Case 1:22-cv-23617-JAL Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/04/2022 Page 4 of 13
5 

KIM VAUGHAN LERNER LLP

28. In the documentation purporting to justify Ms. Ennis’s termination, GFI 

would indicate that it had previously issued Ms. Ennis “received a Letter of Reprimand 

for Insubordination) on June 3, 2021, which warned her that further acts of 

insubordination would result in termination. Ms. Ennis did not receive any letter of 

reprimand or any such warning. 

29. In the documentation purporting to justify Ms. Ennis’s termination, GFI 

would indicate Ms. Ennis was to be placed on a “90 Day Probation.” That never happened 

as GFI fired Ms. Ennis instead of continuing her employment under this purported “90 

Day Probation.” 

30. In the documentation purporting to justify Ms. Ennis’s termination, GFI 

would indicate “[i]f there are future incidents [Ms. Ennis] will receive Suspension or 

Termination if this behavior continues.” That never happened as Ms. Ennis was fired. 

31. In the documentation purporting to justify Ms. Ennis’s termination, GFI 

would indicate in two different places that Ms. Ennis had a “right to appeal” the action 

being taken against her. That never happened as Ms. Ennis was not provided the 

documentation so as to know she had any right to appeal to the action being taken against 

her. 

32. Ms. Ennis has retained the undersigned law firm to represent Ms. Ennis in 

the litigation and has agreed to pay the firm a reasonable fee for its services. 

COUNT I: 

VIOLATION OF THE ADA 

33. Ms. Ennis restates and realleges paragraphs 1 through 32 as if fully set forth 

herein. 

34. Ms. Ennis was an employee with a disability as defined by the ADA. 

Case 1:22-cv-23617-JAL Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/04/2022 Page 5 of 13
6 

KIM VAUGHAN LERNER LLP

35. GFI was an employer as defined by the ADA. 

36. Ms. Ennis is disabled in that she has an impairment that substantially limits 

one or more major life activities, a record of such impairment, or is regarded by GFI as 

having such an impairment. 

37. Ms. Ennis suffers from arthritis. 

38. Ms. Ennis’s impairment substantially limits, among other major life 

activities, performing manual tasks (for example, lifting, lowering, pushing, pulling, 

carrying, moving, or holding things), walking, standing, lifting, bending, and working. 

39. Even if not actually disabled, GFI regarded Ms. Ennis as disabled or had a 

record of such an impairment. This is based in part on the fact that GFI previously 

deemed Ms. Ennis as disabled so as to provide an accommodation and then later 

terminated Ms. Ennis because of the accommodation needed for her disability. 

40. Ms. Ennis is a qualified individual with a disability in that she is an 

individual with a disability who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform 

the essential functions of the employment position that she held with GFI. 

41. GFI unlawfully discriminated against Ms. Ennis because of her disability. 

As stated above, GFI ignored, rejected, or dismissed Ms. Ennis’s request for a reasonable 

accommodation and otherwise did not participate in the interactive process. As stated 

above, GFI terminated Ms. Ennis’s employment because of her disability. 

42. As a direct, natural, proximate, and foreseeable result of GFI’s actions and 

inactions, Ms. Ennis has suffered past and future pecuniary losses, mental anguish, loss 

of dignity, and other intangible injuries. 

43. The discrimination against Ms. Ennis, of which GFI’s higher management 

was aware, participated in, and/or ratified, was in such reckless disregard of Ms. Ennis’s 

Case 1:22-cv-23617-JAL Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/04/2022 Page 6 of 13
7 

KIM VAUGHAN LERNER LLP

statutory rights against discrimination as to entitle Ms. Ennis to an award of punitive 

damages against GFI to punish it and to dissuade such conduct in the future. 

44. The discrimination that Ms. Ennis is suffering, in violation of her statutory 

right to be free from such discrimination, constitutes irreparable harm for which there is 

no adequate remedy at law. 

45. Ms. Ennis is entitled to be awarded attorneys’ fees pursuant to the ADA. 

WHEREFORE, Ms. Ennis prays that this Court will: (a) issue a declaratory 

judgment that GFI’s practices towards Ms. Ennis violate Ms. Ennis’s rights against 

discrimination under the ADA; (b) enjoin GFI, its management employees, and/or its 

agents to cease discriminating against Ms. Ennis, to make her whole through an award of 

front pay as reinstatement is not practical given GFI terminated Ms. Ennis, among other 

reasons; (c) enter a judgment for Ms. Ennis and against GFI for damages, including back 

pay, other pecuniary losses, compensatory damages, and punitive damages; (d) grant 

Ms. Ennis her costs, interest, litigation expenses, and attorneys’ fees; and (e) grant 

Ms. Ennis such other and further relief as the circumstances and law require and/or 

provide. 

COUNT II: 

VIOLATION OF THE FCRA 

46. Ms. Ennis restates and realleges paragraphs 1 through 32 as if fully set forth 

herein. 

47. Ms. Ennis was a person and an aggrieved person with a handicap as defined 

by the FCRA. 

48. GFI was an employer as defined by the FCRA. 

Case 1:22-cv-23617-JAL Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/04/2022 Page 7 of 13
8 

KIM VAUGHAN LERNER LLP

49. Ms. Ennis is handicapped in that she has an impairment that substantially 

limits one or more major life activities, a record of such impairment, or is regarded by GFI 

as having such an impairment. 

50. Ms. Ennis suffers from arthritis. 

51. Ms. Ennis’s impairment substantially limits, among other major life 

activities, performing manual tasks (for example, lifting, lowering, pushing, pulling, 

carrying, moving, or holding things), walking, standing, lifting, bending, and working. 

52. Even if not actually handicapped, GFI regarded Ms. Ennis as handicapped 

or had a record of such an impairment. This is based in part on the fact that GFI 

previously deemed Ms. Ennis as handicapped so as to provide an accommodation and 

then later terminated Ms. Ennis because of the accommodation needed for her handicap. 

53. Ms. Ennis is a qualified individual with a handicap in that she is an 

individual with a handicap who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform 

the essential functions of the employment position that she held with GFI. 

54. GFI unlawfully discriminated against Ms. Ennis because of her handicap. 

As stated above, GFI ignored, rejected, or dismissed Ms. Ennis’s request for a reasonable 

accommodation and otherwise did not participate in the interactive process. As stated 

above, GFI terminated Ms. Ennis’s employment because of her handicap. 

55. As a direct, natural, proximate, and foreseeable result of GFI’s actions and 

inactions, Ms. Ennis has suffered past and future pecuniary losses, mental anguish, loss 

of dignity, and other intangible injuries. 

56. The discrimination against Ms. Ennis, of which GFI’s higher management 

was aware, participated in, and/or ratified, was in such reckless disregard of Ms. Ennis’s 

Case 1:22-cv-23617-JAL Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/04/2022 Page 8 of 13
9 

KIM VAUGHAN LERNER LLP

statutory rights against discrimination as to entitle Ms. Ennis to an award of punitive 

damages against GFI to punish it and to dissuade such conduct in the future. 

57. The discrimination that Ms. Ennis is suffering, in violation of her statutory 

right to be free from such discrimination, constitutes irreparable harm for which there is 

no adequate remedy at law. 

58. Ms. Ennis is entitled to be awarded attorneys’ fees pursuant to the FCRA. 

WHEREFORE, Ms. Ennis prays that this Court will: (a) issue a declaratory 

judgment that GFI’s practices towards Ms. Ennis violate Ms. Ennis’s rights against 

discrimination under the FCRA; (b) enjoin GFI, its management employees, and/or its 

agents to cease discriminating against Ms. Ennis, to make her whole through an award of 

front pay as reinstatement is not practical given GFI terminated Ms. Ennis, among other 

reasons; (c) enter a judgment for Ms. Ennis and against GFI for damages, including back 

pay, other pecuniary losses, compensatory damages, and punitive damages; (d) grant 

Ms. Ennis her costs, interest, and attorneys’ fees; and (e) grant Ms. Ennis such other and 

further relief as the circumstances and law require and/or provide. 

COUNT III: 

VIOLATION OF THE ADA (RETALIATION) 

59. Ms. Ennis restates and realleges paragraphs 1 through 32 as if fully set forth 

herein. 

60. Ms. Ennis was an employee as defined by the ADA. 

61. GFI was an employer as defined by the ADA. 

62. Ms. Ennis engaged in statutorily protected activity. This included and was 

not limited to requesting an accommodation for her handicap and opposing the unlawful 

employment practices of GFI in refusing to accommodate her request. 

Case 1:22-cv-23617-JAL Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/04/2022 Page 9 of 13
10 

KIM VAUGHAN LERNER LLP

63. GFI took adverse actions against Ms. Ennis as detailed in paragraphs 26-31 

above. 

64. The adverse actions were casually related to Ms. Ennis’s protected activities. 

65. As a direct, natural, proximate, and foreseeable result of GFI’s actions, 

Ms. Ennis has suffered past and future pecuniary losses, mental anguish, loss of dignity, 

and other intangible injuries. 

66. The retaliation against Ms. Ennis, of which GFI’s higher management was 

aware, participated in, and/or ratified, was in reckless disregard of Ms. Ennis’s statutory 

rights against retaliation. 

67. The retaliation that Ms. Ennis is suffering, in violation of her statutory right 

to be free from such retaliation, constitutes irreparable harm for which there is no 

adequate remedy at law. 

68. Ms. Ennis is entitled to an award of her attorneys’ fees pursuant to the ADA. 

WHEREFORE, Ms. Ennis prays that this Court will: (a) issue a declaratory 

judgment that GFI’s practices towards Ms. Ennis violate Ms. Ennis’s rights against 

retaliation under the ADA; (b) enjoin GFI, its management employees, and/or its agents 

to cease retaliating against Ms. Ennis, to make her whole through an award of front pay 

as reinstatement is not practical given GFI terminated Ms. Ennis, among other reasons; 

(c) enter a judgment for Ms. Ennis and against GFI for damages, including back pay, other 

pecuniary losses, compensatory damages, and punitive damages; (d) grant Ms. Ennis her 

costs, interest, and attorneys’ fees; and (e) grant Ms. Ennis such other and further relief 

as the circumstances and law require and/or provide. 

Case 1:22-cv-23617-JAL Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/04/2022 Page 10 of 13
11 

KIM VAUGHAN LERNER LLP

COUNT IV: 

VIOLATION OF THE FCRA (RETALIATION) 

69. Ms. Ennis restates and realleges paragraphs 1 through 32 as if fully set forth 

herein. 

70. Ms. Ennis was a person and an aggrieved person as defined by the FCRA. 

71. GFI was an employer as defined by the FCRA. 

72. Ms. Ennis engaged in statutorily protected activity. This included and was 

not limited to requesting an accommodation for her handicap and opposing the unlawful 

employment practices of GFI in refusing to accommodate her request. 

73. GFI took adverse actions against Ms. Ennis as detailed in paragraphs 26-31 

above. 

74. The adverse actions were casually related to Ms. Ennis’s protected activities. 

75. As a direct, natural, proximate, and foreseeable result of GFI’s actions, 

Ms. Ennis has suffered past and future pecuniary losses, mental anguish, loss of dignity, 

and other intangible injuries. 

76. The retaliation against Ms. Ennis, of which GFI’s higher management was 

aware, participated in, and/or ratified, was in reckless disregard of Ms. Ennis’s statutory 

rights against retaliation. 

77. The retaliation that Ms. Ennis is suffering, in violation of her statutory right 

to be free from such retaliation, constitutes irreparable harm for which there is no 

adequate remedy at law. 

78. Ms. Ennis is entitled to an award of her attorneys’ fees pursuant to the FCRA. 

WHEREFORE, Ms. Ennis prays that this Court will: (a) issue a declaratory 

judgment that GFI’s practices towards Ms. Ennis violate Ms. Ennis’s rights against 

Case 1:22-cv-23617-JAL Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/04/2022 Page 11 of 13
12 

KIM VAUGHAN LERNER LLP

retaliation under the FCRA; (b) enjoin GFI, its management employees, and/or its agents 

to cease retaliating against Ms. Ennis, to make her whole through an award of front pay 

as reinstatement is not practical given GFI terminated Ms. Ennis, among other reasons; 

(c) enter a judgment for Ms. Ennis and against GFI for damages, including back pay, other 

pecuniary losses, compensatory damages, and punitive damages; (d) grant Ms. Ennis her 

costs, interest, and attorneys’ fees; and (e) grant Ms. Ennis such other and further relief 

as the circumstances and law require and/or provide. 

DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY 

79. Ms. Ennis demands a jury trial for all issues so triable. 

Dated: November 4, 2022 Respectfully submitted, 

By: /s/Brian L. Lerner 

Brian L. Lerner (Fla. Bar No. 177202) 

blerner@kvllaw.com 

Kim Vaughan Lerner LLP 

312 SE 17th Street, Suite 300 

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 

Telephone: (954) 527-1115 

Facsimile: (954) 527-1116 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Case 1:22-cv-23617-JAL Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/04/2022 Page 12 of 13
13 

KIM VAUGHAN LERNER LLP

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on November 4, 2022, I electronically filed the foregoing 

document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that a true and correct 

copy of the foregoing document was served via transmission of Notices of Electronic 

Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those counsel or 

parties who are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing on all 

counsel or parties of record on the Service List below. 

 By: /s/Brian L. Lerner 

SERVICE LIST 

Brian L. Lerner 

blerner@kvllaw.com 

Kim Vaughan Lerner LLP 

312 SE 17th Street, Suite 300 

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 

Telephone: (954) 527-1115 

Facsimile: (954) 527-1116 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Via Transmission of Notices of 

Electronic Filing Generated by CM/ECF 

Guard Force International, Inc. 

c/o Kelvin L. Edwards (as registered agent) 

3741 NW 202 Street 

Miami Gardens, Florida 33055 

Via Service of Process 

Case 1:22-cv-23617-JAL Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/04/2022 Page 13 of 13