DEFENDANT BRCC’S ORIGINAL ANSWER 

TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT PAGE 1 OF 22

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

KIM ELLIS, §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 3.22-CV-01350-S

§

BLACK RIFLE COFFEE COMPANY, §

§

§

Defendant. §

DEFENDANT BLACK RIFLE COFFEE COMPANY, LLC’S 

ORIGINAL ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

DEFENDANT BLACK RIFLE COFFEE COMPANY, LLC (“Defendant,” “BRCC,”

or the “Company”), by and through its counsel of record, respectfully submits its Original Answer 

to Plaintiff Kim Ellis’ (“Plaintiff” and/or “Ellis”) First Amended Complaint and Jury Demand (the 

“Amended Complaint”) in the above-styled case, subject to its Motion to Dismiss previously filed 

in this cause, and would show the Court as follows:

I. SPECIFIC RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED COMPLAINT

AND JURY DEMAND1

Upon information and belief from Plaintiff, Defendant admits Plaintiff represented she is 

an African American female, who is a citizen of the United States. Defendant admits Plaintiff 

informed Defendant that she has breast cancer. Defendant denies the other unnumbered factual 

allegations in Plaintiff’s introductory paragraphs of her Complaint. Defendant further denies that 

1 The headings are from Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint and are included for the Court’s convenience.

Case 3:22-cv-01350-S Document 12 Filed 08/09/22 Page 1 of 22 PageID 133
DEFENDANT BRCC’S ORIGINAL ANSWER 

TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT PAGE 2 OF 22

Plaintiff has been discriminated against and/or retaliated against by Defendant. Defendant denies 

Plaintiff reported her possible radiation treatments to each of her superiors. Some of BRCC’s 

personnel were aware of certain chemotherapy treatments but not Plaintiff’s radiation treatments. 

Defendant denies Plaintiff was eligible for or denied a promotion to Chief Retail Officer, a newly 

created position part of Defendant BRCC management of workflow and checks and balances. 

Defendant denies Heath Nielsen (“Nielsen”) was 36 years of age at his hire; he was 54-years of 

age, comparable to Plaintiff’s age of 56. Defendant denies Plaintiff was discriminated against in 

any manner; her termination was based upon significant performance failures regarding Plaintiff 

and the team she managed. Her termination had no relationship to her race - she was terminated 

by the same person(s) who hired her; age - she was in the same age category as others in senior 

leadership, including Nielsen; gender – Plaintiff has presented no allegations specific to gender; 

disability – Plaintiff received ongoing Company support, encouragement, and benefits through her 

treatments. Plaintiff was encouraged to pursue the treatments and benefits available at her 

discretion and supported and respected her choices in managing her care. Further, Defendant 

denies Plaintiff participated in a protected activity that would support a claim for retaliation; 

Plaintiff failed to complain or give any notice of discrimination or retaliation. Considering the 

foregoing, Defendant denies all allegations and statements by Plaintiff she states to support alleged 

discrimination or retaliation. 

PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE

1. Defendant lacks knowledge, information and/or belief sufficient for it to either 

admit or deny any allegations as whether Plaintiff is a citizen or currently resides as stated in 

Paragraph 1. Defendant admits Plaintiff has identified as female and is currently 56 years of age. 

Case 3:22-cv-01350-S Document 12 Filed 08/09/22 Page 2 of 22 PageID 134
DEFENDANT BRCC’S ORIGINAL ANSWER 

TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT PAGE 3 OF 22

2. Defendant agrees it is a publicly traded, NYSE-Listed company. Defendant agrees 

it employed Plaintiff and others in Texas. Defendant denies the Plaintiff’s causes of action “arose

from and are connected to ‘purposeful acts’” by Defendant; however, Defendant admits Plaintiff’s 

alleged causes of action relate to her employment in Texas. Defendant admits it has been served 

with process through its registered agent, C T Corporation System at 1999 Bryan Street, Suite 900, 

Dallas, Texas 75201-3140. Defendant has made an appearance through counsel.

3. Defendant admits the Court has jurisdiction over civil actions arising under 28 § 

1331. Defendant admits the Court has jurisdiction to hear claims arising under 28 U.S.C. § 

1343(a)(4). 

4. Defendant admits its corporate headquarters is located at 1144 500 W., Salt Lake 

City, Utah 84101. Defendant admits a substantial portion of the alleged acts and omissions

occurred in Dallas, Texas; however, Defendant denies her alleged acts and omissions were an 

“unlawful failure to promote and unlawful termination” as asserted in the Complaint. Defendant 

admits venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391. 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

5. Defendant admits it was founded in December 2014. Defendant admits it 

specializes in online, direct-to-customer coffee subscription serv[ic]e. Defendant admits it had 

over 100,000 subscribers as of 2020. Defendant admits it has physical coffee shops in Utah, Texas, 

and Georgia, as well as other locations. Defendant admits its coffee is distributed at some firing 

ranges, 5.11 Tactical stores, and Bass Pro Shops. Defendant admits it expanded into Canada in 

2017, opened a new coffee roasting facility in Manchester, Tennessee, launched Coffee or Die 

Magazine in 2018, an online news and lifestyle publication that reports on military, veteran, law 

Case 3:22-cv-01350-S Document 12 Filed 08/09/22 Page 3 of 22 PageID 135
DEFENDANT BRCC’S ORIGINAL ANSWER 

TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT PAGE 4 OF 22

enforcement, and coffee topics. Defendant completed a merger with SilverBox in February 2022.

Defendant’s valuation fluctuates based upon the timing and scope of assessment.

6. Defendant admits it is an employer within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 2000-e(b). 

Defendant admits it meets the definition of employer under the American with Disabilities Act

(“ADA”) and Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”). However, Section 1981 does 

not include a definition of employer. Defendant is without information to determine any “other 

federal statutes pertinent to this suit,” and thereby denies the statement. 

7. Defendant lacks knowledge, information, and/or belief sufficient to either admit or 

deny that Plaintiff held a series of positions in real estate and business development from 1990 to 

present regarding paragraph 7, except what has been presented by Plaintiff; therefore, Defendant 

denies same. Based upon information and belief, Plaintiff was employed at GameStop Corp.

Defendant lacks knowledge, information, and/or belief sufficient to either admit or deny 

GameStop Corp. is a Fortune 550, S&P 500 Company, and operates more than 5,700 stores across 

14 countries. The foregoing statements have no specificity regarding time and/or locations.

8. Defendant admits Tom Davin (“Davin”) was the Co-Chief Executive Officer in 

February 2021 and had previously worked with Plaintiff in other employment. Defendant lacks 

knowledge, information, and/or belief sufficient to either admit or deny that Plaintiff was an 

Executive Vice President, Development for Panda Restaurant Group, Inc., and relies on Plaintiff’s 

representation regarding her prior employment and positions. Defendant admits Davin contacted 

Plaintiff about a position with BRCC. Defendant admits Evan Hafer (“Hafer”) is the Founder of 

BRCC and has served as CEO since its inception; Toby Johnson (“Johnson”) is the Chief 

Operations Officer, and Greg Iverson (“Iverson”) is the CFO. Defendant admits Hafer, Davin, 

Johnson, and Iverson interviewed Plaintiff. Defendant admits it offered Plaintiff the job of Senior 

Case 3:22-cv-01350-S Document 12 Filed 08/09/22 Page 4 of 22 PageID 136
DEFENDANT BRCC’S ORIGINAL ANSWER 

TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT PAGE 5 OF 22

Vice President, Development by letter dated July 1, 2021 and she would report directly to CoChief Executive Officer Davin. Defendant denies all statements in Paragraph 8 not admitted.

9. Defendant denies Plaintiff worked diligently and had good performance, Plaintiff’s 

termination was based upon her inability to meet the expectations for her position, expectations

which she helped to establish. Defendant lacks knowledge, information and/or belief sufficient 

for it to either admit or deny Plaintiff’s calculations about the number of days she believed she 

travelled, the percentage of those days she believed she travelled, or the number of states she 

believed she visited; thus, this statement is denied. Defendant admits Plaintiff’s position required 

she travel to various sites in various states. Defendant denies Plaintiff’s statement that fifty (50) 

real estate deals were “approved” from Plaintiff’s team and denies any real estate deals that 

actually were completed were because of Plaintiff’s travel, long hours, or hard work done by 

Plaintiff. Upon review of Plaintiff’s work, Plaintiff fell far below the real estate deals she 

represented she would achieve. Defendant denies Plaintiff “never missed a number.” The 

statement is vague and ambiguous because it does not identify the deliverable she references. 

Further, Defendant will show that Plaintiff missed her numbers in several categories of 

Defendant’s expected results. Defendant denies Plaintiff’s statement that “BRCC never counseled, 

warned, or disciplined Ellis at any time[].” Defendant denies Nielson treated Plaintiff with 

hostility, in a condescending manner, or “made it clear to Ellis that he wanted Ellis out of the 

organization” Defendant lacks knowledge, information, and/or belief sufficient for it to either 

admit or deny Plaintiff’s “beliefs” for the remainder of Paragraph 9. Defendant denies all 

statements in Paragraph 9 not admitted.

10. Defendant admits Plaintiff informed a limited few of BRCC’s employees she was 

diagnosed with breast cancer, but Defendant lacks knowledge, information, and/or belief sufficient 

Case 3:22-cv-01350-S Document 12 Filed 08/09/22 Page 5 of 22 PageID 137
DEFENDANT BRCC’S ORIGINAL ANSWER 

TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT PAGE 6 OF 22

to either admit or deny the date she learned she had breast cancer. Defendant admits Plaintiff 

informed Davin she had cancer. Defendant admits Davin showed concern for Plaintiff. Defendant 

admits Davin conducted “regularly scheduled 1 on 1” meetings with Plaintiff where business was 

addressed. Plaintiff was not eligible for FMLA during her employment with Defendant. Defendant 

denies the conversation(s) regarding FMLA as asserted in the Complaint. Defendant denies the 

statements not admitted in paragraph 10, or is without sufficient information to admit or deny,

and therefore, denies the statements. 

11. Defendant denies Plaintiff informed Davin in November 2022

2

that her cancer 

surgery was scheduled for December 17, 2021; Defendant admits that Plaintiff informed Davin 

that she would have cancer surgery but has insufficient information to verify the date; 

consequently, the date is denied. Defendant admits Davin was supportive. Defendant lacks 

knowledge, information and/or belief sufficient to either admit or deny whether or not and/or when

Plaintiff informed Sandy Garner (“Garner”) about her “cancer situation.” The term “cancer 

situation” is vague and ambiguous. Defendant admits Garner was the VP of People and Culture;

at one point held the highest-ranking title in Human Resources (“HR”); is an African American 

female; and is no longer employed with Defendant BRCC. Brandt is the Interim Chief Human 

Resources Officer, and she identifies as an Anglo female. Defendant is without sufficient 

information to admit or deny if and/or when Plaintiff “shared her cancer diagnosis and surgery 

plan with several members of her own team and the full Leadership staff” during a meeting on 

December 13, 2021; consequently, the statement is denied. Defendant denies Plaintiff had surgery 

on December 17, 2022; however, Defendant admits on information and belief that Plaintiff had 

surgery December 17, 2021. 

2 Plaintiff references dates in November and December 2022, dates which have not yet occurred.

Case 3:22-cv-01350-S Document 12 Filed 08/09/22 Page 6 of 22 PageID 138
DEFENDANT BRCC’S ORIGINAL ANSWER 

TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT PAGE 7 OF 22

12. Defendant admits Plaintiff returned to work on January 4, 2022, but Defendant 

lacks knowledge, information and/or belief sufficient to either admit or deny the remaining 

allegations that Plaintiff was no longer on narcotic pain medication that might have impaired her 

decision making; consequently, Defendant denies this statement. Plaintiff’s assertation that she 

participated in “regular meetings” is vague and ambiguous; thus, Defendant lacks knowledge, 

information and/or belief sufficient to either admit or deny this allegation and the remainder of the 

allegations, which are denied. Defendant lacks knowledge, information and/or belief sufficient for 

it to either admit or deny Plaintiff’s assertation she “was in pain through all of it[].” No response 

is required regarding the last statement in Paragraph 12. To the extent a response is deemed 

required, Defendant lacks knowledge, information and/or belief sufficient for it to either admit or 

deny the last statement in Paragraph 12, which is therefore denied. 

13. Defendant lacks knowledge, information and/or belief sufficient for it to either 

admit or deny whether Plaintiff had a summit meeting on February 7, 2022, where James Truong 

(“Truong”) “led a large part of the meeting[]” but Defendant admits Truong was a subordinate to 

Anthony Thompson (“Thompson”) and Thompson reported to Plaintiff. Defendant lacks 

knowledge, information and/or belief sufficient for it to either admit or deny the remaining 

allegations in Paragraph 13; thus, each and every remaining allegation in Paragraph 13 is denied.

14. Defendant lacks knowledge, information and/or belief sufficient for it to either 

admit or deny each and every allegation in Paragraph 14. Thus, Defendant denies each and every 

allegation in Paragraph 14. Defendant admits that there were various meetings conducted by 

Plaintiff with her team and others. Defendant is without sufficient information regarding any 

admissions, statements or failures to admit or state information by Troung; consequently, the 

assertions are denied. 

Case 3:22-cv-01350-S Document 12 Filed 08/09/22 Page 7 of 22 PageID 139
DEFENDANT BRCC’S ORIGINAL ANSWER 

TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT PAGE 8 OF 22

15. Defendant admits Plaintiff informed Defendant she started chemotherapy but is 

without sufficient information regarding the date her treatments began. No response is required 

for the remainder of the statements regarding Plaintiff’s treatment regimen in Paragraph 15. 

Defendant lacks knowledge, information and/or belief sufficient to either admit or deny that 

Plaintiff “would feel worst on the day 4 after each treatment.” Defendant admits Plaintiff informed 

Defendant about her chemotherapy sessions. Defendant lacks knowledge, information and/or 

belief sufficient to either admit or deny whether Plaintiff placed the chemotherapy session on her 

calendar. Defendant admits at some point Plaintiff informed Davin about the chemotherapy

sessions but is without sufficient information that she discussed each session; therefore, the 

statement is denied. Defendant admits Plaintiff informed Davin she was trying to schedule her

chemotherapy sessions to coordinate with her work schedule. Defendant is without information 

to admit or deny Plaintiff’s motivations or actions regarding her scheduling of treatments; 

consequently, the statements are denied. Some of BRCC’s personnel were aware of certain 

chemotherapy treatments but not Plaintiff’s radiation treatments.

16. Defendant admits Davin informed Plaintiff that his role was shifting, and she would 

report to Nielsen. Defendant admits Nielson served as the Chief Retail Officer in March 2022. To 

the extent a response is required, Defendant denies Plaintiff would have been promoted to the 

Chief Retail Officer position and further denies she was not promoted because of her cancer, race, 

age, and/or gender. Defendant denies Nielsen was 36 years old in March 2022; in fact, he was 54, 

comparable to Plaintiff’s age of 56. Defendant admits Nielsen identifies as a white male. Due to 

protections under the HIPAA laws, Defendant provides no information and does not admit or deny 

any medical conditions or health status of Nielsen. Defendant further denies Plaintiff’s statement 

that “Nielson was an Anglo who had far less experience and qualifications for the job he filled 

Case 3:22-cv-01350-S Document 12 Filed 08/09/22 Page 8 of 22 PageID 140
DEFENDANT BRCC’S ORIGINAL ANSWER 

TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT PAGE 9 OF 22

than Ellis,” which is an opinion and/or legal conclusion and no response is required. Defendant 

denies Nielson is not qualified for the position of Chief Retail Officer. For the remaining 

allegations in Paragraph 16, Defendant lacks knowledge, information and/or belief sufficient to 

either admit or deny; therefore, Defendant denies each and every remaining allegation. 

17. Defendant denies Plaintiff was not informed BRCC was creating the Chief Retail 

Officer position. Upon information and belief, Defendant denies that Plaintiff had an interest in 

the position of Chief Retail Officer. Defendant denies hiring an “underqualified” or “less 

qualified” individual (Nielsen) for the position of Chief Retail Officer. Defendant denies Nielsen 

was brought in “as the eventual replacement for Ellis” and further denies Nielsen was hired 

because Plaintiff had cancer. Plaintiff was terminated a few months after Nielsen’s official hire; 

however, Defendant denies any inference that such actions were based upon Plaintiff’s protected 

classes. Plaintiff was terminated based upon her failure to meet the established performance goals. 

Any statements not admitted are denied. 

18. Defendant admits Nielson’s position as the Chief Retail Officer was higher in the 

chain of command than Plaintiff’s position as SVP; however, Defendant denies Nielsen was hired 

to replace Plaintiff. Nielsen was informed Plaintiff had cancer; however, Defendant is not aware 

of the specific date Nielson learned of Plaintiff’s diagnosis. Plaintiff’s statement that Nielsen knew 

of her cancer from “the start” is conclusory, vague and ambiguous. Nielson had several “one-onone meetings” with Plaintiff and will verify whether a meeting scheduled for March 21, 2022, was 

cancelled, and was rescheduled; consequently, Defendant denies the statement until further 

information becomes available. Defendant denies the remainder of the allegations. Defendant 

admits Nielsen shopped for housing for a move to Texas.

Case 3:22-cv-01350-S Document 12 Filed 08/09/22 Page 9 of 22 PageID 141
DEFENDANT BRCC’S ORIGINAL ANSWER 

TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT PAGE 10 OF 22

19. Defendant denies Paragraph 19 in its entirety. To the extent Paragraph 19 asserts 

Plaintiff’s perceptions, observations, and her feelings, Defendant lacks knowledge, information 

and/or belief sufficient to either admit or deny those allegations; thus, Defendant denies each 

allegation.

20. Defendant lacks knowledge, information and/or belief sufficient to either admit or 

deny when Plaintiff heard Defendant had a concern that it had not received a Geotech report and 

it was overdue; thus, this allegation is denied. Defendant lacks knowledge, information and/or 

belief sufficient to either admit or deny Plaintiff was worried that Truong might have made a 

mistake; thus, this allegation is denied. Defendant lacks knowledge, information and/or belief 

sufficient to either admit or deny, Plaintiff’s alleged belief that “where there is smoke there is 

fire[]” or her alleged concern that “this might not be the only soil report that slipped through the 

cracks.” Defendant lacks knowledge, information and/or belief sufficient to either admit or deny

that Plaintiff follow-up on the soil reports; thus, this allegation is denied. Defendant admits

Plaintiff begin to inquire regarding missing reports and she subsequently had conversations with 

Davin and Nielsen and that she informed Davin and Nielson that she may have found “a miss that 

might impact BRCC’s annual operating plan.” Defendant admits Plaintiff informed Nielsen she 

was “conducting a session to get the facts.” Defendant is verifying information regarding any 

specific meeting date; consequently, Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny 

when a meeting occurred. 

21. Defendant admits Plaintiff conducted a meeting but lacks knowledge, information 

and/or belief sufficient for it to either admit or deny the actual date, that the meeting lasted 7 hours,

or was described as “All Hands on Deck.” Upon information and belief, Defendant denies “Ellis 

made sure Truong attended,” but instead, Troung was specifically told not to participate in the 

Case 3:22-cv-01350-S Document 12 Filed 08/09/22 Page 10 of 22 PageID 142
DEFENDANT BRCC’S ORIGINAL ANSWER 

TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT PAGE 11 OF 22

meeting. Defendant is investigating, but lacks knowledge, information and/or belief sufficient to 

either admit or deny whether those present at the alleged March 18th meeting “went through the 

stores, one by one.” Defendant lacks knowledge, information and/or belief sufficient to either 

admit or deny any statements allegedly made by Troung. Defendant admits Truong resigned. All 

other statements in Paragraph 21 are denied. 

22. Defendant admits Plaintiff and Nielsen had a one-on-one meeting, but denies it was 

the only one-on-one meeting ever scheduled or that occurred. Defendant admits Plaintiff and 

Nielson discussed “business matters” at their one-on-one meeting(s).

23. Defendant admits Plaintiff discussed information regarding her cancer with Nielsen 

and admits Nielsen learned of Plaintiff’s cancer prior to their discussion. Defendant denies the 

remainder of the statements in Paragraph 23. 

24. Defendant denies knowledge regarding the specifics of Plaintiff’s cancer 

treatments. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny Plaintiff’s feelings about 

her decisions regarding treatment. Defendant admits that Defendant made every effort to allow 

Plaintiff to pursue her personal decisions regarding management of her health concerns and to 

ensure she could pursue whatever means of recovery she thought necessary. Until further 

investigation, Defendant denies the remaining statements in Paragraph 24. Defendant denies any 

“signal” to Plaintiff that her cancer treatment regimen was viewed negatively and objects to her 

conclusory assessment in her assertion/allegation that Nielsen’s reply was negative.

25. Plaintiff’s allegation that she “learned of more misconduct or negligence by 

Truong[]” is based upon information that is outside of the scope of Defendant’s knowledge. To 

the extent a response is required Defendant lacks knowledge, information and/or belief sufficient 

Case 3:22-cv-01350-S Document 12 Filed 08/09/22 Page 11 of 22 PageID 143
DEFENDANT BRCC’S ORIGINAL ANSWER 

TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT PAGE 12 OF 22

for it to either admit or deny information learned by Plaintiff regarding Truong; thus, Defendant 

denies Paragraph 25 in its entirety.

26. Defendant admits Nielsen conferred with Plaintiff and Dan Kappernick 

(“Kappernick”) on or about March 25, 2022. Defendant admits Kappernick had previously

reported to Davin but was also a new report to Nielsen. Defendant denies the statements attributed 

to Nielson asserted in Paragraph 26. Defendant lacks knowledge, information and/or belief 

sufficient to either admit or deny whether Plaintiff rescheduled her chemotherapy session to attend 

the Monday, March 28, 2022 meeting. Defendant denies Plaintiff was threatened with termination 

for not attending any meeting. 

27. Defendant admits a March 28, 2022 meeting was held to discuss information that 

caused a change in Defendant’s goals and expectations previously presented by Plaintiff. 

Defendant admits that the meeting included a deep review of various stores and their operations 

and/or operations potential. Defendant is presently without sufficient information to admit or deny 

the remaining statements in Paragraph 27; consequently, Defendant denies all statements not 

admitted. 

28. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny any subsequent 

conversations between Plaintiff and Nielsen. Consequently, Defendant denies Paragraph 28. 

29. Defendant admits Brandt is skilled and experienced in Human Resource matters. 

Defendant admits Brandt and Plaintiff previously worked for the same employer. Defendant 

admits Brandt and Plaintiff met on April 15, 2022 and it was a friendly, catch-up meeting; Brandt

asked Plaintiff about Nielsen as the new Chief Retail Officer. The remaining allegations in 

Paragraph 29 are denied. Defendant objects to Plaintiff’s attempt to classify and codify alleged 

statements and training in a different time and setting as relevant to Plaintiff’s specific allegations 

Case 3:22-cv-01350-S Document 12 Filed 08/09/22 Page 12 of 22 PageID 144
DEFENDANT BRCC’S ORIGINAL ANSWER 

TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT PAGE 13 OF 22

and/or that Plaintiff has the ability to determine Brandt’s “knowledge.” Plaintiff’s allegations are 

speculative.

30. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information regarding Ellis’ 

presumptions regarding Brandt’s questions or statements, Ellis’ assessments regarding Nielsen’s 

qualifications for his position, or her conclusions or perceptions regarding Nielson’s alleged 

actions. Each allegation states Plaintiff Ellis’ perceptions; consequently, Defendant denies 

Plaintiff’s allegations. Defendant denies the allegations regarding Plaintiff “meant to alert 

Brandt.” Defendant denies these allegations and objects to the statements to the extent she attempts 

to establish legal conclusions. Defendant denies Plaintiff reported any complaints or allegations of 

discrimination for any protected class or that any actions by Nielsen we anything more than 

differences in business styles. Plaintiff was encouraged to engage Nielsen to get to know his 

expectations for her position. Defendant denies “BRCC understood Ellis’s complaints about the 

way Nielson was treating Ellis to be complaints about discrimination.” Ellis did not describe her 

interactions with Nielsen as discriminatory in any manner. Defendant denies any and all 

allegations of discrimination and denies that any actions by Plaintiff were a protected activity. 

31. Defendant admits Brandt and Ellis discussed issues regarding certain store 

openings. Defendant denies Plaintiff’s restatement of the conversation as presented. Defendant is 

without sufficient information to assess or confirm Plaintiff’s remaining statements regarding 

events; consequently, the remaining statements are denied. 

32. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny Plaintiff’s 

understanding or determination regarding events concerning Troung and his work performance; 

consequently, Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 32. 

Case 3:22-cv-01350-S Document 12 Filed 08/09/22 Page 13 of 22 PageID 145
DEFENDANT BRCC’S ORIGINAL ANSWER 

TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT PAGE 14 OF 22

33. Defendant lacks knowledge, information and/or belief sufficient to either admit or 

deny each allegation in Paragraph 33 and any information Plaintiff may have been received or 

heard; thus, Defendant denies Paragraph 33 in its entirety.

34. Defendant admits Davin requested a meeting with Plaintiff on April 25, 2022, to 

which Plaintiff agreed. Defendant admits an invitation was sent to Plaintiff to participate in a video 

meeting and that Brandt was subsequently added to the invitation. Defendant admits during the 

meeting Plaintiff was informed she was being terminated. 

35. Defendant admits the meeting held on April 25, 2022 began at or about 5:00 p.m. 

Defendant admits Plaintiff, Brandt, and Davin participated in the video meeting. Defendant admits 

Davin informed Plaintiff that the Board had lost confidence in her. Defendant denies the remaining 

statements in Paragraph 35 and specifically denies Plaintiff’s attempt to misconstrue statements in 

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss that address her poor performance/failure to fulfill expectations 

that caused the Board to lose confidence, resulting in Plaintiff’s termination. 

36. Defendant admits Plaintiff expressed surprise and thought her termination was 

unfair. Defendant denies that Nielsen was attempting to “bring his own guy in.”

Defendant admits acknowledging Plaintiff’s cancer and stating the Company wanted to support 

her health. Defendant is not able to admit or deny any terms or statements discussed with Plaintiff 

regarding her transition out of the Company. Because Defendant cannot admit or deny the 

statements, they are denied. 

37. Defendant admits Brandt informed Plaintiff she would email employment 

transition information in a document to Plaintiff after the meeting ended. Defendant lacks

knowledge, information and/or belief sufficient to either admit or deny whether Plaintiff was in 

tears after the meeting ended. Defendant lacks knowledge, information and/or belief sufficient to 

Case 3:22-cv-01350-S Document 12 Filed 08/09/22 Page 14 of 22 PageID 146
DEFENDANT BRCC’S ORIGINAL ANSWER 

TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT PAGE 15 OF 22

either admit or deny Plaintiff’s feelings of allegedly being crushed, terrified, and humiliated. 

Defendant admits Plaintiff was an at-will employee, which does not require a statement for cause 

for termination. Plaintiff’s remaining allegation that her termination lacked just cause is a legal 

conclusion and no response is required. To the extent a response is require, Defendant denies the 

allegation. Defendant explained to Plaintiff the circumstances that caused Plaintiff’s termination.

38. Defendant admits Brandt sent Plaintiff a document addressing her separation from 

the Company. Defendant is prevented from discussing any language/information that may be 

personal, confidential, proprietary or subject to other protections. To the extent Plaintiff alleges 

Defendant’s information indicated a knowing violation of the ADEA or any other statute or 

protection, Defendant denies any such violation. Further, any such assessment is a legal 

conclusion, and no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendant denies 

any claims of discrimination based upon age (or any other protected class) or any violations of the 

ADEA. 

39. Upon information and belief, Defendant admits Plaintiff filed a charge of 

discrimination and retaliation with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Texas 

Workforce Commission on Civil Rights on or about May 17, 2022. Defendant admits Plaintiff 

filed an Attachment to her charge of discrimination and Plaintiff’s Attachment included the 

Discrimination Statement; however, Defendant denies each and every allegation asserted in the

Charge and the Discrimination Statement. Further, Defendant acknowledges receipt of Plaintiff’s 

Right to Sue letter and that Plaintiff filed her lawsuit within 90 days of issuance of the notice of 

Right to Sue letter. Defendant denies Plaintiff has exhausted all her administrative prerequisites 

under Title VII, the ADA, and the ADEA. Defendant admits there is no arbitration agreement 

covering the subject matter of any claims in this action.

Case 3:22-cv-01350-S Document 12 Filed 08/09/22 Page 15 of 22 PageID 147
DEFENDANT BRCC’S ORIGINAL ANSWER 

TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT PAGE 16 OF 22

40. To the extent Paragraph 40 is a legal conclusion, no response is required. 

Defendant denies Paragraph 40 in its entirety as Plaintiff did not have an employment agreement 

(e.g., contract) with Defendant. Rather, Plaintiff was given an offer letter and was always an 

employee at will. Defendant denies there were any written limitations for terminating Plaintiff or 

her ability to seek other employment. Defendant objects to Plaintiff’s misrepresentations 

regarding her employment with Defendant BRCC.

41. To the extent Paragraph 41 is a legal conclusion, no response is required. 

Defendant denies Paragraph 41 in its entirety. Plaintiff was always an employee at will. 

42. To the extent Paragraph 42 is a legal conclusion, no response is required. 

Defendant denies Paragraph 42 in its entirety. Plaintiff was always an employee at will. 

43. To the extent Paragraph 43 is a legal conclusion, no response is required. 

Defendant denies Paragraph 43 in its entirety.

CAUSES OF ACTION

A. COUNT ONE: DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION

44. Paragraph 44 requires no response. To the extent a response is required, Defendant 

denies the allegations and incorporates its prior responses. 

45. Defendant denies Paragraph 45 in its entirety.

46. Defendant denies Paragraph 46 in its entirety.

47. Defendant denies Paragraph 47 in its entirety.

48. Defendant denies Paragraph 48 in its entirety.

B. COUNT TWO: AGE DISCRIMINATION

49. Paragraph 49 requires no response. To the extent a response is required, Defendant 

denies the allegations and incorporates its prior responses.

Case 3:22-cv-01350-S Document 12 Filed 08/09/22 Page 16 of 22 PageID 148
DEFENDANT BRCC’S ORIGINAL ANSWER 

TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT PAGE 17 OF 22

50. Defendant denies Paragraph 50 in its entirety.

51. Defendant denies Paragraph 51 in its entirety.

52. Defendant denies Paragraph 52 in its entirety.

53. Defendant denies Paragraph 53 in its entirety.

C. COUNT THREE: SEX DISCRIMINATION

54. Paragraph 54 requires no response. To the extent a response is required, Defendant 

denies the allegations and incorporates its prior responses.

55. Defendant denies Paragraph 55 in its entirety.

56. Defendant denies Paragraph 56 in its entirety.

57. Defendant denies Paragraph 57 in its entirety.

58. Defendant denies Paragraph 58 in its entirety.

D. COUNT FOUR: RACE DISCRIMINATION

59. Paragraph 59 requires no response. To the extent a response is required, Defendant 

denies the allegations and incorporates its prior responses.

60. Defendant denies Paragraph 60 in its entirety.

61. Defendant denies Paragraph 61 in its entirety.

62. Defendant denies Paragraph 62 in its entirety.

63. Defendant denies Paragraph 63 in its entirety.

E. COUNT FIVE: RETALITION

64. Paragraph 64 requires no response. To the extent a response is required, Defendant 

denies the allegations and incorporates its prior responses.

65. Defendant denies Paragraph 65 in its entirety.

66. Defendant denies Paragraph 66 in its entirety.

Case 3:22-cv-01350-S Document 12 Filed 08/09/22 Page 17 of 22 PageID 149
DEFENDANT BRCC’S ORIGINAL ANSWER 

TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT PAGE 18 OF 22

67. Defendant denies Paragraph 67 in its entirety.

68. Defendant denies Paragraph 68 in its entirety.

F. COUNT SIX: BREACH OF CONTRACT

69. Paragraph 69 requires no response. To the extent a response is required, Defendant 

denies the allegations and incorporates its prior responses.

70. Defendant denies Paragraph 70 in its entirety.

71. Defendant denies Paragraph 71 in its entirety.

72. Defendant denies Paragraph 72 in its entirety.

73. Defendant denies Paragraph 73 in its entirety.

74. Defendant denies Paragraph 74 in its entirety.

75. Defendant denies Paragraph 75 in its entirety.

JURY DEMAND

76. Paragraph 76 requires no response.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

77. Defendant denies Plaintiff’s Prayer for Relief in its entirety, including Plaintiff’s 

request for injunctive relief in section a and all other requests for relief as stated in sections b – l. 

Plaintiff should be denied all relief requested.

DEFENDANT’S AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AND OTHER MATTERS

1. Some or all of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint fails to state a claim or claims 

upon which relief can be granted.

2. Plaintiff cannot establish a prima facie case for any form of discrimination and/or

retaliation.

Case 3:22-cv-01350-S Document 12 Filed 08/09/22 Page 18 of 22 PageID 150
DEFENDANT BRCC’S ORIGINAL ANSWER 

TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT PAGE 19 OF 22

3. Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, to the extent that such claims 

exceed the scope of or are inconsistent with the charge of discrimination Plaintiff filed with the 

EEOC and dually filed with the Texas Workforce Commission-Civil Rights Division.

4. Any claims not raised in Plaintiff’s charge of discrimination should be barred and 

dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

5. Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant fail, in whole or in part, to the extent that the 

employment actions complained of by Plaintiff were based upon legitimate, nondiscriminatory, 

non-retaliatory, reasons and/or good faith reliance on applicable administrative rulings, orders or 

law.

6. Plaintiff was terminated from her position for a legitimate, nondiscriminatory 

reason, Plaintiff’s and her team’s performance failures.

7. Plaintiff was an “at-will” employee.

8. Plaintiff has failed to mitigate any damages she may claim to have suffered as a 

result of any alleged actions. Alternatively, any damages claimed to have been suffered by Plaintiff 

should be reduced by whatever income or economic benefits she has earned or received after her 

employment with Defendant ended. Defendant is entitled to an offset for any amount that was in 

fact earned or could have been earned by Plaintiff during the relevant time.

9. Defendant did not commit any act with malice or reckless indifference to Plaintiff’s

legally protected rights (if any), not did Defendant approve, authorize, ratify, or have actual 

knowledge of any such acts.

10. Without conceding Plaintiff suffered any damages because of any alleged 

wrongdoing by Defendant, Defendant pleads the due process limitation on punitive/exemplary 

Case 3:22-cv-01350-S Document 12 Filed 08/09/22 Page 19 of 22 PageID 151
DEFENDANT BRCC’S ORIGINAL ANSWER 

TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT PAGE 20 OF 22

damages outlined by the U.S. Supreme Court in its opinion in State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 

Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (2003).

11. Defendant cannot be vicariously liable for punitive damages in light of its good 

faith efforts to comply with the anti-discrimination statutes at issue in this case. See Koland v. Am. 

Dental Ass’n, 527 U.S. 526 (1999).

12. Plaintiff cannot recover punitive damages against Defendant for any alleged 

discrimination, including harassment, because any such alleged conduct would be contrary to 

Defendant’s good faith efforts to comply with applicable anti-discrimination law(s).

13. To the extent Plaintiff seeks punitive damages, such claims are barred in whole or 

part because Defendant has not engaged in intentional discrimination with malice or with reckless 

indifference to Plaintiff’s rights.

14. Defendant specifically denies any allegations of intentional and knowing conduct 

and other conduct which may form the legal basis for entitlement to compensatory damages, 

liquated damages, or punitive damages. Defendant further denies that the acts and/or omissions 

alleged by Plaintiff amount to willful, malicious, and/or reckless conduct. 

15. Plaintiff’s compensatory and punitive damages are subject to all applicable 

statutory caps and limitations. 

16. Plaintiff’s claims for punitive damages fail to the extent they are unconstitutional 

and/or otherwise not available.

17. As a matter of law, Plaintiff is precluded from recovering punitive and 

compensatory damages for alleged ADEA retaliation. Vaughan v. Anderson Reg. Med. Ctr., 849 

F.3d 588 (5th Cir. 2017).

Case 3:22-cv-01350-S Document 12 Filed 08/09/22 Page 20 of 22 PageID 152
DEFENDANT BRCC’S ORIGINAL ANSWER 

TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT PAGE 21 OF 22

18. As a matter of law, Plaintiff is barred from recovering punitive and mental anguish 

damages under the ADEA. Dean v. Am. Sec. Inc., 559 F.2d 1036, 1040 (5th Cir. 1997); McDade 

v. Smurfit-Stone, Inc., No. Civ.A.3:05CV1478-B, 2006 WL 435315 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 23, 2006).

19. Defendant is not liable for the alleged unlawful acts and/or omission by its 

supervisors and/or managers to the extent those individuals acted outside the course and scope of 

employment.

20. If Defendant is found liable for actual damages, Defendant intends to seek 

reduction of damages under the proportionate-responsibility statute. 

21. Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant are barred, in whole or in part, on the 

applicable statute of limitations. 

22. Plaintiff’s claims are barred because Defendant exercised reasonable care to 

prevent and correct promptly any discriminatory conduct and because Plaintiff unreasonably failed 

to properly take advantage of any preventative or corrective opportunities provided by Defendant 

to avoid harm otherwise.

23. To the extent, if any, unlawful harassment and/or discrimination was a motivating 

factor in any decision regarding Plaintiff, which Defendant denies, Defendant would have made 

the same decision absent any improper or unlawful motivation.

24. Plaintiff lacks standing to sue regarding her breach of contract claim. Plaintiff does 

not have a contract. Further, Plaintiff did not and could not meet the requirement of performing 

conditions precedent

25. Defendant is entitled to the same actor defense. 

26. Plaintiff is not entitled to recover attorney’s fees and costs under Chapter 38.

27. Defendant asserts the after-acquired evidence affirmative defense.

Case 3:22-cv-01350-S Document 12 Filed 08/09/22 Page 21 of 22 PageID 153
DEFENDANT BRCC’S ORIGINAL ANSWER 

TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT PAGE 22 OF 22

28. Defendant asserts the business judgment rule.

Respectfully submitted,

KAUFMAN DOLOWICH & VOLUCK, LLP

 /s/ Janice S. Parker

Janice S. Parker

Texas Bar No. 15488050

janice.parker@kdvlaw.com

Sharon Gilmore

State Bar No. 24045943

sharon.gilmore@kdvlaw.com

14643 Dallas Parkway, Suite 550

Dallas, Texas 75254

Telephone: (972) 781-2400

Facsimile: (972) 781-2401

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT

BLACK RIFLE COFFEE COMPANY

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certified that on this, the 9th day of August 2022 a true and correct copy 

of Defendant Black Rifle Coffee Company’s Original Answer to Plaintiff’s First Amended 

Complaint was served upon all counsel of record, as indicated below, via [ ] United States mail, 

certified, return receipt requested, [ ] United States regular mail, [ ] facsimile, [ ] e-mail, [ ] hand 

delivery, [√] Notice of Electronic Court Filing.

Hal K. Gillespie

Gillespie Sanford, LLP

4803 Gaston Avenue

Dallas, Texas 75246

Email: hkg@gillespiesanford.com

Attorney for Plaintiff 

_/s/ Janice S. Parker

 Janice S. Parker

Case 3:22-cv-01350-S Document 12 Filed 08/09/22 Page 22 of 22 PageID 154