A former field leader at Chipotle failed to show he was fired because of age discrimination rather than due to the company’s findings of pest and cleanliness issues at restaurants in his patch, or region of responsibility, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals determined Monday.
The field leader, who was hired at the age of 54 in 2019, was in charge of around half a dozen Chipotle restaurants in New Mexico. In February 2022, after an employee at one of the restaurants filed a service request reporting “a bad roach infestation throughout the entire restaurant,” a team director became aware of cleanliness issues, which the field leader had also not previously known about, according to court documents.
While the two worked with Orkin to reduce and eliminate the pest problem, the director visited multiple restaurants in the team leader’s patch and was “shocked” by their lack of cleanliness and the presence of cockroaches. Facilities specialists conducted audits of four of his restaurants, and all failed to meet established cleanliness standards. In late March, the team leader was terminated for “food safety standards.”
He sued Chipotle, alleging age discrimination and citing four pieces of evidence for a pretextual firing: 1) He was given two forms marked “Final Warning” at the time he was terminated; 2) Younger team leaders who were supervised by the same team director had not been fired for pest or cleanliness violations; 3) Another older worker had been terminated; and 4) He had a “stellar” performance history with the company.
The 10th Circuit rejected each of these arguments in turn.
While the field leader said a reasonable jury could find that providing both the final warning documents and the termination letter at the same time could show the former were “cooked up” for appearances, the court noted they all had the same date and that the termination referenced verbal warnings but not written ones. Further, according to the team director, the “Final Warning” documents were created at the advice of Chipotle’s HR department to supplement the termination as a form of documentation.
The younger workers either did not have the same level of cleanliness issues, or the team director lacked knowledge of them, the court said. Additionally, the other older worker who was fired similarly oversaw a restaurant with an “extraordinary” cockroach infestation. And, finally, the field leader’s former positive reviews did not necessarily call for a lower level of discipline in the food safety situation, the court said.
An attorney for the plaintiff did not respond to a request for comment by press time.
