Page 1 of 8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AUSTIN DIVISION

BRYNNE SOUKUP, §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

v. § Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-648

§

FRONTIER AIRLINES, INC., §

§

Defendant. § 

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

Plaintiff, BRYNNE SOUKUP, by and through her counsel, hereby files this Complaint 

against Defendant, FRONTIER AIRLINES, INC. (“Frontier”), for willful violations of the Texas 

Commission on Human Rights Act (“TCHRA”), TEX. LAB.CODE §§ 21.051 and 21.055. In support 

of her causes of action, Plaintiff states the following:

I. 

PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE

1. Plaintiff, BRYNNE SOUKUP, is an individual residing in Houston, Texas. 

2. Defendant, FRONTIER AIRLINES, INC., is a corporate entity formed and existing 

under the laws of the State of Colorado, where it also operates its corporate headquarters.

3. Defendant, at all relevant times, operated an international commercial airline 

terminal located in this judicial district, continuously conducted business in this judicial district, 

contracted to do business in this judicial district, and directly employed residents of this judicial 

district for employment herein.

4. The events at issue in this Complaint occurred while Plaintiff worked with and for 

Defendant primarily from her former residence located in Austin, Texas.

Case 1:20-cv-00648-RP Document 1 Filed 06/21/20 Page 1 of 8
Page 2 of 8

5. This Court has jurisdiction to hear the merits of Plaintiff’s claims under 28 USC § 

1332(a).

6. Plaintiff exhausted her administrative remedies under the TCHRA by timely filing 

a Charge of Discrimination with the Texas Workforce Commission, and by filing this suit within 

the time limits under relevant law. 

7. Venue is proper in this judicial district and division under 28 U.S.C. §1391(b)(2) 

because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to this claim occurred in this 

judicial district. 

II.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

8. Plaintiff is a tenured veteran of the aviation industry with over two decades of 

successful experience related to the administration and management of commercial airports and 

airlines.

9. Plaintiff is a transgender woman, and transitioned from her assigned male sex to 

align with her female gender identity prior to the events described herein.

10. In September 2017, Plaintiff began working as a General Manager for Flight 

Services & Systems, LLC (“FSS”), a staffing and ground services provider for commercial 

airlines.

11. On February 16, 2018, FSS promoted Plaintiff to Regional Director of Operations. 

12. Both Defendant and FSS jointly exercised significant control over the details and 

means by which Plaintiff performed her work. For instance, although FSS hired Plaintiff and paid 

her wages throughout her employment, Plaintiff received extensive training from Defendant and 

was expected to conduct business for and on behalf of Defendant in accordance with its policies 

and procedures. Plaintiff worked in close association with, and often at the direction of, Defendant

Case 1:20-cv-00648-RP Document 1 Filed 06/21/20 Page 2 of 8
Page 3 of 8

and its employees. On-the-job corrections and admonishments were delivered by Defendant’s 

employees to FSS employees. Defendant’s employees had the right to terminate and end the 

assignment of specific FSS workers. Ultimately, Defendant’s employees had the right to control 

FSS employees. 

13. FSS further admitted that Defendant’s employees interacted with and supervised 

FSS’s employees servicing Frontier flights.

14. Because Defendant was among FSS’s largest and most influential clients, Plaintiff

was largely economically-dependent upon the business of Defendant.

15. In late-2018/early-2019, Plaintiff’s subordinates reported several incidents of

harassing and derogatory behavior by Defendant’s Regional Manager concerning Plaintiff and 

Plaintiff’s gender identity. For instance, one subordinate reported that the Regional Manager 

unjustifiably derided Plaintiff’s job performance and remarked that Plaintiff was a “he-she” and a 

“waste of space.” In a separate incident, a different subordinate reported that the Regional Manager

again derided Plaintiff’s job performance and arbitrarily outed her as transgender to the 

subordinate, stating, “You know [Plaintiff] is transgender, right?”

16. In January 2019, Plaintiff complained to FSS’s leadership and Defendant’s Human 

Resources Department about the Regional Manager’s derogatory harassment.

17. On February 6, 2019, Defendant’s Human Resources Business Partner claimed that 

Defendant had concluded a “complete and thorough investigation”, but refused to identify any 

remedial actions taken by Defendant to address Plaintiff’s complaint.

18. Defendant’s Human Resources Department did not contact Plaintiff to obtain 

additional information about Plaintiff’s complaints. 

Case 1:20-cv-00648-RP Document 1 Filed 06/21/20 Page 3 of 8
Page 4 of 8

19. Upon information and belief, Defendant’s Human Resources Department did not 

contact Plaintiff’s subordinates to obtain additional information about Plaintiff’s complaints.

20. Upon information and belief, Defendant still employs the Regional Manager who 

referred to Plaintiff as a “he-she” and a “waste of space.”

21. On February 25, 2019, Plaintiff learned she was being demoted, transferred to a 

location 500 miles away from her home in Austin, Texas, and placed on a 90-day “probationary 

period”, during which if Plaintiff failed to meet certain undefined “performance standards and 

expectations”, her employment would be terminated. 

22. Plaintiff’s job performance throughout her tenure with FSS and Defendant was 

stellar, and she had no disciplinary history.

23. After Plaintiff refused to accept the unjustified demotion, transfer, and probation, 

her employment was terminated.

III.

CAUSES OF ACTION

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

24. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1-22, supra, as if repeated verbatim herein.

25. This action is brought pursuant to TEX. LAB. CODE § 21.051, part of the TCHRA.

26. “The law governing claims under the TCHRA and Title VII is identical.” 

Shackelford v. Deloitte & Touche, LLP, 190 F.3d 398, 404 n.2 (5th Cir. 1999). “Courts analyze 

Title VII and parallel claims under the Texas Labor Code identically. Because TCHRA is intended 

to correlate with Title VII, the same analysis is applied for each claim.” Cornett v. United Airlines, 

Inc., No. A-18-CV-698 LY, 2019 WL 453365, at *3 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 5, 2019) (citing Allen v. 

Radio One of Tex. II, L.L.C., 515 F. App'x. 295, 297 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 571 U.S. 880 (2013); 

Shackleford at 404) (internal quotations omitted).

Case 1:20-cv-00648-RP Document 1 Filed 06/21/20 Page 4 of 8
Page 5 of 8

27. Both the TCHRA and Title VII prohibit discrimination by employers on the basis 

of sex. § 21.051; 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2. 

28. Plaintiff, a transgender woman, belongs to a protected class under Title VII, and 

accordingly, the TCHRA. § 2000e-2; Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, No. 17-1618, 2020 WL 

3146686 (U.S. June 15, 2020).

29. Defendant is an employer within the meaning of the TCHRA and functioned as a 

joint employer of Plaintiff with FSS. 

30. Defendant discriminated against Plaintiff in connection with the terms, conditions, 

and privileges of her employment by, inter alia, terminating or causing the termination of 

Plaintiff’s employment because of her transgender status; and perpetuating a severe and pervasive 

hostile work environment toward Plaintiff because of her transgender status.

31. Defendant engaged in this unlawful intentional employment practice with malice 

or reckless indifference to Plaintiff’s rights under the TCHRA.

32. The unlawful practices committed by Defendant directly caused Plaintiff’s 

economic and noneconomic harm, as set forth below.

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

33. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1-22, supra, as if repeated verbatim herein.

34. Plaintiff engaged in protected activity under the TCHRA by opposing an unlawful 

discriminatory practice.

35. Plaintiff engaged in this protected activity in good faith. 

36. Defendant took adverse employment actions against Plaintiff after she engaged in 

this protected activity. 

Case 1:20-cv-00648-RP Document 1 Filed 06/21/20 Page 5 of 8
Page 6 of 8

37. A causal connection exists between Plaintiff’s protected activity and Defendant’s 

adverse employment actions including, inter alia, her demotion, transfer, probation, and eventual 

termination.

38. Defendant engaged in this unlawful intentional employment practice with malice 

or reckless indifference to Plaintiff’s rights under the TCHRA. 

39. Defendant’s unlawful retaliation caused Plaintiff’s economic and non-economic 

harm, as set forth below.

IV.

DAMAGES

40. As a result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiff has suffered economic 

damages, including past and future lost income, interest on back and front pay, lost earning 

capacity in the past and future, lost benefits under the contract or employment relationship, job 

search expenses, and other financial damages. 

41. Plaintiff has also incurred non-economic damages as a result of Defendant’s 

unlawful conduct, including emotional pain and suffering, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of 

life, and other non-pecuniary losses. 

42. Defendant intentionally engaged in unlawful employment practices by 

discriminating and retaliating against Plaintiff with malice or reckless indifference to Plaintiff’s 

rights under the TCHRA. 

43. Defendant’s conduct calls for the imposition of compensatory and punitive 

damages under TEX. LAB. CODE § 21.2585 in an amount sufficient to deter Defendant from 

engaging in such acts of retaliation in the future. 

Case 1:20-cv-00648-RP Document 1 Filed 06/21/20 Page 6 of 8
Page 7 of 8

V.

ATTORNEY’S FEES

44. A prevailing party may recover reasonable attorneys’ and experts’ fees under TEX.

LAB. CODE § 21.259. 

45. Plaintiff seeks all reasonable and necessary attorneys’ fees and expert witness fees 

in this case from Defendant. 

46. Plaintiff additionally seeks recovery of all costs associated with the prosecution of 

this action. 

VI.

JURY DEMAND

47. Plaintiff demands a trial by jury of all the issues and facts in this case. 

VII.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff requests that:

48. The Court assume jurisdiction of this cause and that Defendant be cited to appear;

49. The Court award Plaintiff economic, compensatory, and punitive damages as 

specified above; 

50. The Court award all reasonable and necessary attorneys’ fees and expert witness 

fees in this case; 

51. The Court award Plaintiff the equitable remedy of reinstatement or, in the 

alternative, front pay; 

52. The Court award Plaintiff pre- and post-judgement interest at the highest rate 

allowable; and 

53. The Court award Plaintiff any such other relief as the Court may find proper, 

whether at law or in equity.

Case 1:20-cv-00648-RP Document 1 Filed 06/21/20 Page 7 of 8
Page 8 of 8

Respectfully submitted,

ROSS • SCALISE LAW GROUP

1104 San Antonio Street

Austin, Texas 78701

T: (512) 474-7677 

F: (512) 474-5306 

/s/ Daniel B. Ross

Daniel B. Ross

State Bar No. 00789810

dan@rosslawgroup.com

Trenton Lacy

State Bar No. 24106176

trenton@rosslawgroup.com 

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

Case 1:20-cv-00648-RP Document 1 Filed 06/21/20 Page 8 of 8