1 

4061421-1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN DIVISION 

BRYNNE SOUKUP, ) 

Plaintiff, ) 

) Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-648-RP 

v. ) 

) 

FRONTIER AIRLINES, INC. and ) 

FLIGHT SERVICES & SYSTEMS, LLC, ) 

Defendants. ) 

FLIGHT SERVICES & SYSTEMS, LLC’S 

ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 

Defendant, Flight Services & Systems, LLC (“Defendant” or “FSS”), by and through its 

counsel, answers the First Amended Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial (“First Amended 

Complaint”) of Plaintiff, Brynne Soukup (“Plaintiff”), as follows: 

PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE 

1. 

The allegations contained in Paragraph 1 are a statement of Plaintiff’s domicile, to which 

no response is required. To the extent a response is required, FSS denies the allegations for lack 

of sufficient information to justify belief therein. 

2. 

The allegations contained in Paragraph 2 name Frontier Airlines, Inc. as a defendant and 

pertain exclusively to Frontier Airlines, Inc. Frontier Airlines, Inc. has since been dismissed 

from this lawsuit and no response is required. To the extent a response is required, FSS denies 

the allegations for lack of sufficient information to justify belief therein. 

Case 1:20-cv-00648-RP Document 35 Filed 03/29/21 Page 1 of 17
2 

4061421-1

3. 

FSS admits that it is a foreign limited liability company formed and existing under the 

laws of the State of Ohio, where it operates its corporate headquarters. FSS further admits that it 

conducted business in this judicial district, contracted to do business in this judicial district, and 

directly employed residents of this judicial district for employment. But FSS specifically denies 

the remaining allegations in Paragraph 3, including any violation of the Texas Commission on 

Human Rights Act (“TCHRA”), Tex. Labor Code §§ 21.051 & 21.055, and/or Title VII of the 

Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (“Title VII”) in connection with Plaintiff’s employment. 

4. 

FSS admits that it employed Plaintiff in Austin, Texas, but specifically denies it has 

violated any laws in connection with Plaintiff’s employment. 

5. 

The allegations contained in Paragraph 5 are a legal conclusion regarding this Court’s 

subject-matter jurisdiction to which no response is required. FSS does not contest this Court’s 

subject-matter jurisdiction, but denies that it has violated any laws in connection with Plaintiff’s 

employment. 

6. 

The allegations contained in Paragraph 6 are a legal conclusion regarding Plaintiff’s 

exhaustion of administrative remedies to which no response is required. To the extent a response 

is required, FSS denies that it has violated any laws in connection with Plaintiff’s employment 

and further preserve any and all defenses, including applicable statute of limitation defenses. 

Case 1:20-cv-00648-RP Document 35 Filed 03/29/21 Page 2 of 17
3 

4061421-1

7. 

The allegations contained in Paragraph 7 are a legal conclusion regarding this Court’s 

venue to which no response is required. FSS does not contest this Court’s venue, but denies that 

it has violated any laws in connection with Plaintiff’s employment. 

FACTTUAL BACKGROUND 

8. 

FSS denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 8 for lack of sufficient information to 

justify belief therein. 

9. 

FSS denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 9 for lack of sufficient information to 

justify belief therein. 

10. 

FSS admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 10. 

11. 

FSS admits that Plaintiff was reassigned to the position of Regional Director on or about 

February 16, 2018, but denies as worded the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 11. 

12. 

The allegations contained in Paragraph 12 set forth a joint-employer analysis between 

FSS and Frontier Airlines, Inc. Frontier Airlines, Inc. has since been dismissed from this lawsuit 

and no response is required. To the extent a response is required, FSS admits that it hired 

Plaintiff and paid her wages throughout her employment with FSS and that Frontier Airlines, Inc. 

exerted control over numerous aspects of Plaintiff’s employment with FSS. FSS otherwise 

Case 1:20-cv-00648-RP Document 35 Filed 03/29/21 Page 3 of 17
4 

4061421-1

denies the remaining allegations, including that it has violated any laws in connection with 

Plaintiff’s employment. 

13. 

FSS admits that Frontier’s employees interacted with and supervised FSS employees, but 

denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 13. 

14. 

FSS admits that Frontier Airlines, Inc. is FSS’s client, but denies the remaining 

allegations for lack of sufficient information to justify belief therein. 

15. 

The allegations contained in Paragraph 15 pertain to communications made to Frontier 

Airlines, Inc. Frontier Airlines, Inc. has since been dismissed from this lawsuit and no response 

is required. To the extent a response is required, FSS denies the allegations for lack of sufficient 

information to justify belief therein. 

16. 

FSS admits that Plaintiff communicated a complaint about Frontier Airlines, Inc.’s 

Regional Manager to FSS, but denies as worded the remaining allegations in Paragraph 16. 

17. 

The allegations contained in Paragraph 17 pertain to actions taken by Frontier Airlines, 

Inc. Frontier Airlines, Inc. has since been dismissed from this lawsuit and no response is 

required. To the extent a response is required, FSS denies as worded the allegations contained in 

Paragraph 17. 

Case 1:20-cv-00648-RP Document 35 Filed 03/29/21 Page 4 of 17
5 

4061421-1

18. 

The allegations contained in Paragraph 18 pertain to actions taken by Frontier Airlines, 

Inc. Frontier Airlines, Inc. has since been dismissed from this lawsuit and no response is 

required. To the extent a response is required, FSS denies as worded the allegations in Paragraph 

18. 

19. 

The allegations contained in Paragraph 19 pertain to actions taken by Frontier Airlines, 

Inc. Frontier Airlines, Inc. has since been dismissed from this lawsuit and no response is 

required. To the extent a response is required, FSS denies the allegations for lack of sufficient 

information to justify belief therein. 

20. 

The allegations contained in Paragraph 20 pertain to actions taken by Frontier Airlines, 

Inc. Frontier Airlines, Inc. has since been dismissed from this lawsuit and no response is 

required. To the extent a response is required, FSS denies the allegations for lack of sufficient 

information to justify belief therein. 

21. 

FSS denies as worded the allegations contained in Paragraph 21 and otherwise denies that 

it has violated any laws in connection with Plaintiff’s employment. 

22. 

FSS denies as worded the allegations contained in Paragraph 22 and otherwise denies that 

it has violated any laws in connection with Plaintiff’s employment. 

Case 1:20-cv-00648-RP Document 35 Filed 03/29/21 Page 5 of 17
6 

4061421-1

23. 

FSS denies as worded the allegations contained in Paragraph 23 and otherwise denies that 

it has violated any laws in connection with Plaintiff’s employment. 

CAUSES OF ACTION 

Count 1: Gender Identity Discrimination under TEX. LAB. CODE § 21.051 

24. 

The allegations contained in Paragraph 24 merely reincorporate the allegations of 

Paragraphs 1-22 and require no response. To the extent a response is required, FSS 

reincorporates its responses made herein to Paragraphs 1-22. 

25. 

The allegations contained in Paragraph 25 amount to a statement of law concerning 

Plaintiff’s claim, to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, FSS 

denies that it has violated any laws in connection with Plaintiff’s employment. 

26. 

The allegations contained in Paragraph 26 amount to a statement of law concerning 

Plaintiff’s claim, to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, FSS 

denies that it has violated any laws in connection with Plaintiff’s employment. 

27. 

The allegations contained in Paragraph 27 amount to a statement of law concerning 

Plaintiff’s claim, to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, FSS 

denies that it has violated any laws in connection with Plaintiff’s employment. 

Case 1:20-cv-00648-RP Document 35 Filed 03/29/21 Page 6 of 17
7 

4061421-1

28. 

The allegations contained in Paragraph 28 amount to a statement of law concerning an 

essential element of Plaintiff’s claim, to which no response is required. To the extent a response 

is required, FSS denies that it has violated any laws in connection with Plaintiff’s employment. 

29. 

The allegations contained in Paragraph 29 amount to a statement of law concerning an 

essential element of Plaintiff’s claim, to which no response is required. To the extent a response 

is required, FSS denies that it has violated any laws in connection with Plaintiff’s employment. 

30. 

FSS denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 30. 

31. 

FSS denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 31. 

32. 

FSS denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 32. 

Count 2: Retaliation under TEX. LAB. CODE § 21.055 

33. 

The allegations contained in Paragraph 33 merely reincorporate the allegations of 

Paragraphs 1-22 and require no response. To the extent a response is required, FSS 

reincorporates its responses made herein to Paragraphs 1-22. 

34. 

The allegations contained in Paragraph 34 amount to a statement of law concerning an 

essential element of Plaintiff’s claim, to which no response is required. To the extent a response 

is required, FSS denies that it has violated any laws in connection with Plaintiff’s employment. 

Case 1:20-cv-00648-RP Document 35 Filed 03/29/21 Page 7 of 17
8 

4061421-1

35. 

The allegations contained in Paragraph 35 amount to a statement of law concerning an 

essential element of Plaintiff’s claim, to which no response is required. To the extent a response 

is required, FSS denies that it has violated any laws in connection with Plaintiff’s employment. 

36. 

FSS denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 36. 

37. 

FSS denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 37. 

38. 

FSS denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 38. 

39. 

FSS denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 39. 

Count 3: Gender Identify Discrimination under Title VII 

40. 

The allegations contained in Paragraph 40 reincorporate the allegations of Paragraphs 1-

22 and require no response. To the extent a response is required, FSS reincorporates its 

responses made herein to Paragraphs 1-22. The allegations contained in Paragraph 41 further 

mount to a statement of law concerning Plaintiff’s claim, to which no response is required. To 

the extent a response is required, FSS denies that it has violated any laws in connection with 

Plaintiff’s employment. 

Case 1:20-cv-00648-RP Document 35 Filed 03/29/21 Page 8 of 17
9 

4061421-1

41. 

The allegations contained in Paragraph 41 amount to a statement of law concerning 

Plaintiff’s claim, to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, FSS 

denies that it has violated any laws in connection with Plaintiff’s employment. 

42. 

The allegations contained in Paragraph 42 amount to a statement of law concerning 

Plaintiff’s claim, to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, FSS 

denies that it has violated any laws in connection with Plaintiff’s employment. 

43. 

The allegations contained in Paragraph 43 amount to a statement of law concerning an 

essential element of Plaintiff’s claim, to which no response is required. To the extent a response 

is required, FSS denies that it has violated any laws in connection with Plaintiff’s employment. 

44. 

The allegations contained in Paragraph 44 amount to a statement of law concerning an 

essential element of Plaintiff’s claim, to which no response is required. To the extent a response 

is required, FSS denies that it has violated any laws in connection with Plaintiff’s employment. 

45. 

FSS denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 45. 

46. 

FSS denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 46. 

47. 

FSS denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 47. 

Case 1:20-cv-00648-RP Document 35 Filed 03/29/21 Page 9 of 17
10 

4061421-1

Count 4: Retaliation under Title VII 

48. 

The allegations contained in Paragraph 48 merely reincorporate the allegations of 

Paragraphs 1-22 and require no response. To the extent a response is required, FSS 

reincorporates its responses made herein to Paragraphs 1-22. 

49. 

The allegations contained in Paragraph 49 amount to a statement of law concerning an 

essential element of Plaintiff’s claim, to which no response is required. To the extent a response 

is required, FSS denies that it has violated any laws in connection with Plaintiff’s employment. 

50. 

The allegations contained in Paragraph 50 amount to a statement of law concerning an 

essential element of Plaintiff’s claim, to which no response is required. To the extent a response 

is required, FSS denies that it has violated any laws in connection with Plaintiff’s employment. 

51. 

FSS denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 51. 

52. 

FSS denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 52. 

53. 

FSS denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 53. 

54. 

FSS denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 54. 

Case 1:20-cv-00648-RP Document 35 Filed 03/29/21 Page 10 of 17
11 

4061421-1

JOINT EMPLOYERS 

55. 

The allegations contained in Paragraph 55 set forth a conclusion of law stating that 

Frontier Airlines, Inc. was a joint employer with FSS. Frontier Airlines, Inc. has since been 

dismissed from this lawsuit and no response is required. To the extent a response is required, 

FSS admits Frontier Airlines, Inc. exerted control over numerous aspects of Plaintiff’s 

employment with FSS. FSS otherwise denies that it has violated any laws in connection with 

Plaintiff’s employment. 

56. 

FSS admits that it hired Plaintiff and paid her wages throughout her employment with 

FSS. FSS otherwise denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 56, including that it has 

violated any laws in connection with Plaintiff’s employment. 

57. 

FSS admits Frontier Airlines, Inc. exerted control over numerous aspects of Plaintiff’s 

employment with FSS. FSS otherwise denies that it has violated any laws in connection with 

Plaintiff’s employment. 

DAMAGES 

58. 

FSS denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 58. 

59. 

FSS denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 59. 

60. 

FSS denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 60. 

Case 1:20-cv-00648-RP Document 35 Filed 03/29/21 Page 11 of 17
12 

4061421-1

61. 

FSS denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 61. 

ATTORNEY’S FEES 

62. 

The allegations contained in Paragraph 62 set forth a conclusion of law concerning 

attorneys’ fees and experts’ fees, to which no response is required. To the extent a response is 

required, FSS denies that is liable for Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees and expert fees and otherwise 

denies that it has violated any laws in connection with Plaintiff’s employment. 

63. 

The allegations contained in Paragraph 63 set forth a conclusion of law concerning 

attorneys’ fees and experts’ fees, to which no response is required. To the extent a response is 

required, FSS denies that is liable for Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees and expert fees and otherwise 

denies that it has violated any laws in connection with Plaintiff’s employment. 

64. 

The allegations contained in Paragraph 64 set forth a conclusion of law concerning 

litigation costs, to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, FSS 

denies that is liable for Plaintiff’s litigation costs and otherwise denies that it has violated any 

laws in connection with Plaintiff’s employment. 

JURY DEMAND 

65. 

The allegations contained in Paragraph 65 contain a jury demand by Plaintiff, to which 

no response is required. 

Case 1:20-cv-00648-RP Document 35 Filed 03/29/21 Page 12 of 17
13 

4061421-1

PRAYER 

66. 

The allegations contained in Paragraph 66 contain a prayer for relief by Plaintiff to which 

no answer is required. To the extent a response is required, FSS specifically denies that it has 

violated any law in connection with Plaintiff’s employment and/or that Plaintiff is entitled to any 

alleged remedies. 

67. 

The allegations contained in Paragraph 67 contain a prayer for relief by Plaintiff to which 

no answer is required. To the extent a response is required, FSS specifically denies that it has 

violated any law in connection with Plaintiff’s employment and/or that Plaintiff is entitled to any 

alleged remedies. 

68. 

The allegations contained in Paragraph 68 contain a prayer for relief by Plaintiff to which 

no answer is required. To the extent a response is required, FSS specifically denies that it has 

violated any law in connection with Plaintiff’s employment and/or that Plaintiff is entitled to any 

alleged remedies. 

69. 

The allegations contained in Paragraph 69 contain a prayer for relief by Plaintiff to which 

no answer is required. To the extent a response is required, FSS specifically denies that it has 

violated any law in connection with Plaintiff’s employment and/or that Plaintiff is entitled to any 

alleged remedies. 

Case 1:20-cv-00648-RP Document 35 Filed 03/29/21 Page 13 of 17
14 

4061421-1

70. 

The allegations contained in Paragraph 70 contain a prayer for relief by Plaintiff to which 

no answer is required. To the extent a response is required, FSS specifically denies that it has 

violated any law in connection with Plaintiff’s employment and/or that Plaintiff is entitled to any 

alleged remedies. 

71. 

The allegations contained in Paragraph 71 contain a prayer for relief by Plaintiff to which 

no answer is required. To the extent a response is required, FSS specifically denies that it has 

violated any law in connection with Plaintiff’s employment and/or that Plaintiff is entitled to any 

alleged remedies. 

FSS specifically denies each and every other allegation in Plaintiff’s First Amended 

Complaint not heretofore specifically admitted. 

FURTHER ANSWERING, Defendant, FSS, invokes and relies upon the following 

defenses, retaining the right to amend or supplement these defenses throughout the 

remainder of this litigation. Because discovery is ongoing, the following defenses are asserted 

in good faith and to ensure that they are not waived: 

FIRST DEFENSE 

The allegations of the First Amended Complaint fail to state a claim against Defendant 

upon which relief can be granted. 

SECOND DEFENSE 

All actions taken and decisions made by FSS were based on legitimate business or other 

valid reasons, and all such decisions were made in good faith and without malice or 

discriminatory motive. Plaintiff was treated like any other similarly-situated employee, in 

Case 1:20-cv-00648-RP Document 35 Filed 03/29/21 Page 14 of 17
15 

4061421-1

accordance with lawful, uniform policies, procedures, rules, and practices, and any decision by 

FSS was not based upon Plaintiff’s sex or gender identity. 

THIRD DEFENSE 

FSS exercised reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct any discrimination in the 

workplace, and, when appropriate, FSS took prompt, effective action in response to any such 

complaints. Further, Plaintiff unreasonably failed to take advantage of the preventive measures 

provided by FSS. 

FOURTH DEFENSE 

Plaintiff’s separation of employment was lawful and in accordance with the principle of 

at-will employment, as well as any other applicable principles of controlling law. Any and all 

decisions or actions by FSS with regard to Plaintiff were undertaken without regard for 

Plaintiff’s sex or gender identity in accordance with applicable law. 

FIFTH DEFENSE 

Plaintiff cannot establish a claim of sex or gender identity discrimination for several 

reasons, including (without limitation) that: Plaintiff was not qualified for her position; Plaintiff 

was not treated differently than other similarly-situated employees; Plaintiff’s alleged 

comparators are not similarly situated; Plaintiff’s termination was the result of business and 

economic circumstances; Plaintiff’s position was eliminated; and there exists no causal 

connection. 

SIXTH DEFENSE 

Plaintiff cannot establish a claim for retaliation for several reasons, including (without 

limitation) that: Plaintiff did not engage in protected activity; Plaintiff did not suffer an adverse 

employment action; and there exists no causal connection. 

Case 1:20-cv-00648-RP Document 35 Filed 03/29/21 Page 15 of 17
16 

4061421-1

SEVENTH DEFENSE 

Plaintiff has failed to properly exhaust her administrative remedies in advance of filing 

this lawsuit. 

EIGHTH DEFENSE 

In the event that Plaintiff’s sex or gender identity is deemed to be a motivating factor in 

the challenged employment decision (it was not), Defendant would nonetheless have made the 

same decision. 

NINTH DEFENSE 

The bad actor identified in Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint was and is not an 

employee of FSS and is not within the control of FSS. 

TENTH DEFENSE 

Plaintiff’s claims against FSS are equitably barred, including (without limitation) by the 

doctrine of unclean hands. 

ELEVENTH DEFENSE 

Plaintiff has failed to mitigate, or reasonably attempt to mitigate, her damages, if any she 

has. 

TWELFTH DEFENSE 

Under the circumstances of this case, an award of compensation and/or punitive damages 

would be improper and unconstitutional. 

THIRTEENTH DEFENSE 

Any and all actual damages sustained by Plaintiff are solely the result of her own 

negligence and/or intentional act, and/or the negligence or intentional acts of others for whom 

Defendant has no liability. 

Case 1:20-cv-00648-RP Document 35 Filed 03/29/21 Page 16 of 17
17 

4061421-1

FOURTEENTH DEFENSE 

The claims alleged in Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint are barred to the extent that they 

exceed the scope of the claims set forth in Plaintiff’s EEOC Charge. 

FIFTEENTH DEFENSE 

Plaintiff’s claims and her alleged damages are limited pursuant to the after-acquired 

evidence rule. 

WHEREFORE, Defendant prays that Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint be dismissed 

with prejudice and that judgment be entered in favor of Defendant for its costs expended hereto, 

including attorneys’ fees, and for all such other relief as the Court deems appropriate. 

Respectfully Submitted: 

CHAFFE McCALL, LLP 

Sarah V. Myers 

Sarah Voorhies Myers (pro hac vice) 

Amy L. McIntire (pro hac vice) 

2300 Energy Centre, 1100 Poydras Street 

New Orleans, LA 70163 

T: (504) 585-7000 

F: (504) 544-6092 

E: myers@chaffe.com 

E: mcintire@chaffe.com 

H. Michael Bush 

Texas Bar No.24054296 

2300 Energy Centre, 1100 Poydras Street 

New Orleans, LA 70163 

T: (504) 585-7000 

F: (504) 544-6042 

E: bush@chaffe.com 

Attorneys for Defendant, 

Flight Services & Systems, LLC

Case 1:20-cv-00648-RP Document 35 Filed 03/29/21 Page 17 of 17