Bob-Maunuel v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.

• Decision Date: 15 January 2014
• Docket Number: No. 12 C 750,12 C 750
• Citation: 10 F.Supp.3d 854,29 A.D. Cases 936
• Parties: Tubonimi Bob–Maunuel, Plaintiff, v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois

10 F.Supp.3d 854
29 A.D. Cases 936

Tubonimi Bob–Maunuel, Plaintiff
v.
Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., Defendant.

No. 12 C 750

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division.

Filed January 15, 2014

10 F.Supp.3d 861

David P. Radelet, Lindsey M. Marcus, Franczek Radelet P.C., Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff.

David Joseph Stein Pretzel & Stouffer, Chartered, Chicago, IL, Jacqueline Guesno, Tanya E. Milligan, Messner & Reeves, LLC, Denver, CO, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Ruben Castillo, United States Chief Judge

Tubonimi Bob–Manuel brings this action against Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., alleging employment discrimination on the basis of race and national origin and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (“Title VII”), and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (“Section 1981 ”); discrimination on the basis of age and retaliation in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. (the “ADEA”); discrimination on the basis of disability and retaliation in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. (the “ADA”); and retaliatory discharge in violation of Illinois state law. Presently before the Court is Defendant's motion for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants Defendant's motion in part and denies it in part.

10 F.Supp.3d 862

RELEVANT FACTS¹

Plaintiff is a fifty-five-year-old black, Nigerian-born, United States citizen. (Pl.'s Rule 56.1 Resp. ¶¶ 42–44.) Defendant is a chain of “fast casual” restaurants that specializes in Mexican fare. (Id. ¶ 1.) Defendant operates a restaurant located at 1128 Lake Street in Oak Park, Illinois (the “Oak Park Restaurant”), where Plaintiff worked from November 16, 2008, until his termination on March 11, 2011. (Id. ¶¶ 1, 10, 41.)

Each of Defendant's restaurants is operated by a set of crew members who are responsible for preparing and cooking food, assembling customer orders, cleaning and maintaining the restaurant, serving customers, and other similar tasks. (Id. ¶ 2.) All crew members are at-will employees. (Id. ) Crew members work in three primary work areas: Grill, Prep, and Line. (Id. ¶ 9.) Grill and Prep are stations in the back of the restaurant, and crew members at these stations are required to maintain proper food handling, safety, and sanitation standards while preparing food; follow recipes; exhibit a cheerful and helpful manner; display a positive and enthusiastic approach to all assignments; and develop positive working relationships with all restaurant personnel. (Id. ¶ 8.) The Line involves all the positions in the front of the restaurant, which are divided into the tortilla, salsa, expeditor, and cashier stations. (Id. ¶ 9.) Crew members are assisted and managed by four levels of management (listed in ascending order of responsibility): Kitchen Manager, Service Manager, Apprentice Manager, and General Manager. (Id. ¶ 3.) The General Manager is responsible for making all employment and operational decisions in the restaurant, including deciding who to hire and fire, deciding who to promote and train, and scheduling employees. (Id. ¶ 4.) The General Manager is supervised by an Area Manager, whose duties include overseeing a number of restaurants and helping those restaurants reach their goals. (Id. ¶ 3.)

I. Plaintiff's First Four Months of Employment

General Manager Robert Ruggiero, a Caucasian male, and Apprentice Manager Oscar O'Campo, a Hispanic male, interviewed and hired Plaintiff on November 16, 2008, as a crew member. (Id. ¶ 10.) Plaintiff alleges that he was specifically hired as a general manager trainee on a fast-track to management. (Id. ; Def.'s Rule 56.1 Resp. ¶ 26.) Joe Kersjes, a twenty-seven-year-old Caucasian male, was hired on November 22, 2008, as a Service Manager. (Pl.'s Rule 56.1 Resp. ¶ 46.) Both Plaintiff and Kersjes initially trained together with Ruggiero, and they worked frequently together in the back of the restaurant. (Def.'s Rule 56.1 Resp. ¶ 27.) Within a few weeks, however, Ruggiero discontinued Plaintiff's training while continuing to train Kersjes. (Pl.'s Rule 56.1 Resp. ¶ 45.) Plaintiff remained almost exclusively in the back of the restaurant, frequently washing dishes, while Kersjes rotated to other stations. (Def.'s Rule 56.1 Resp. ¶ 28.) Kersjes was promoted to Apprentice Manager at the Elmhurst, Illinois Restaurant on April 27, 2009. (Id. ¶ 29.) Plaintiff alleges that Ruggiero stopped training him because of his race, national origin, and age. (Pl.'s Rule 56.1 Resp. ¶ 45.) Plaintiff admits,

10 F.Supp.3d 863

however, that he never heard Ruggiero make any comments regarding Plaintiff's race, national origin, or age. (Id. ¶ 47.) Plaintiff also alleges that O'Campo treated him differently based on his race, national origin, and age by making him wash dishes and take out the garbage by himself, by keeping him in the food preparation area, and by refusing to cross-train him. (Id. ¶ 48.) Plaintiff admits, however, that washing dishes, taking out garbage, and working in the food preparation area are all responsibilities of a Prep employee. (Id. ) He also admits that he never heard O'Campo make any comments about his race, national origin, or age. (Id. ¶ 49.)

II. Plaintiffs Performance Issues

Ruggiero was Plaintiff's General Manager for the first four and a half months of Plaintiff's employment. (Id. ¶ 11.) After Ruggiero left, Jeanine Cruz Chavez, a Caucasian female, became the General Manager of the Oak Park Restaurant and supervised Plaintiff until October 17, 2010. (Id. ¶ 15.) Area Manager Vicky Kubicki, a Caucasian female, was Chavez's supervisor during Plaintiff's employment. (Id. ¶ 16.) On June 1, 2009, Chavez recorded in Plaintiff's Development Journal that he needed to work on perfecting his procedure because he made mistakes that would not happen if he took his time, and that he needed to work on completing all Prep tasks by 6:00 p.m. and getting out by 11:00 p.m. (Id. ¶ 20.) On June 15, 2009, Plaintiff allegedly received his first written warning (a “Performance Discussion”), stating that on June 13th, he made a batch of guacamole but did not cover it with two lawyers of plastic as he was trained to do; as a result, the guacamole had to be disposed of. (Id. ¶ 21.) Plaintiff denies that the guacamole incident occurred and he denies receiving the Performance Discussion. (Id. ) In fact, Plaintiff denies receiving any of the five Performance Discussions that were in his personnel file. (Def.'s Rule 56.1 Resp. ¶ 15.) Performance Discussions are supposed to be given to employees in a face-to-face meeting and the manager is supposed to confirm receipt, yet none of Plaintiff s Performance Discussions were signed by either Plaintiff or a manager. (Id. ¶¶ 14–15.) Michael Triola, the Human Resources Director for the Central Region, admitted that Plaintiff may have never received the Performance Discussions in his file. (Id. ¶ 15.)

In 2009, Plaintiff failed to report to work for a scheduled shift on nine occasions. (Pl.'s Rule 56.1 Resp. ¶ 24.) Plaintiff alleges that the schedules posted were not always the final schedule and that Chavez scheduled him to work on days he had requested off due to doctors' appointments. (Id. ) Chavez also testified that sometimes the schedules changed after they were made. (Id. ) An undated, unsigned performance review in Plaintiff's file rated Plaintiff's performance in the categories of food, equipment, and customer service as “needs improvement,” which is the lowest possible rating. (Id. ¶ 27.)

In January 2010, Chavez told Julia Kim, Human Resource Generalist, that Plaintiff was not meeting his job expectations and was a low performer. (Id. ¶ 25.) After reviewing Plaintiff's Development Journal, Performance Discussions, and performance reviews, Kim advised Chavez to have an honest conversation with Plaintiff about expectations on a weekly basis, and then later, on a daily basis. (Id. ¶ 26.) Erica Arrington, an Apprentice Manager, noted Plaintiff's performance issues in the Oak Park Restaurant's Dear Diary² on several

10 F.Supp.3d 864

occasions in early 2010: on February 13th she noted that Plaintiff struggled to keep up with Prep and dishes; on March 4th she noted that Plaintiff did not complete Prep and started marinating a steak at 10:50 p.m. even though he was told not to; on March 25th she noted that Plaintiff needed help closing Prep, did not take any garbage out until closing, and had trouble keeping pace with dishes, and that she found an object in steak he marinated. (Id. ¶ 28.)

In Plaintiff's second performance review, dated April 2010, he received a “needs improvement” rating in the categories of food, equipment, and customer service. (Id. ¶ 30.) Triola reviewed a draft of this review, which Chavez had prepared, and suggested changing whatever appeared “inconsistent” or could be seen as “picking” on Plaintiff. (Def.'s Rule 56.1 Resp. ¶¶ 20–21.) For example, with regard to the food category, Triola said he “would like to see specific examples that we can back up with documentation.” (Id....