Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. Tex. Roadhouse, Inc.

• Decision Date: 19 October 2016
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 11-11732-DJC
• Citation: 215 F.Supp.3d 140
• Parties: EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. TEXAS ROADHOUSE, INC., Texas Roadhouse Holdings LLC and Texas Roadhouse Management Corp., d/b/a Texas Roadhouse, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts

215 F.Supp.3d 140

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff,

v.TEXAS ROADHOUSE, INC., Texas Roadhouse Holdings LLC and Texas Roadhouse Management Corp., d/b/a Texas Roadhouse, Defendants.

Civil Action No. 11-11732-DJC

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts.

Signed October 19, 2016

Markus L. Penzel, Sara E. Smolik, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Boston, MA, Ami Sanghvi, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, San Francisco, CA, Amos B. Blackman, Raechel L. Adams, Robert D. Rose, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, New York, NY, Elizabeth Foxsolomon, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Buffalo, NY, for Plaintiff.

Andrew L. Scroggins, Christopher J. Degroff, Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jason Priebe, Rebecca Degroff Bromet, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Brian Swanson, Rebecca Weinstein Bacon, Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchchar & Scott, Chicago, IL, Daniel B. Klein, Michael D. Fleischer, Seyfarth Shaw, LLP, Boston, MA, David Bennet Ross, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, New York, NY, Eric Reuel Olson, Katherine L.I. Hacker, Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott LLP, Denver, CO, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Casper, United States District Judge

I. Introduction

Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") has filed this lawsuit against Defendants Texas Roadhouse, Inc., Texas Roadhouse Holdings LLC and Texas Roadhouse Management Corp. (collectively, "Texas Roadhouse") alleging a pattern or practice of age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"). The EEOC alleges that between 2007 and 2014, Texas Roadhouse engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination by which its standard operating procedure was to discriminate against individuals over age 40—the protected age group ("PAG")—for front-of-house ("FOH") positions nationwide. D. 35 ¶¶ 26-28. As explained below, the Court ALLOWS in part and DENIES in part Texas Roadhouse's motion to strike the reports and anticipated testimony of Dr. David L. Crawford, D. 584, DENIES EEOC's motion to strike portions of the expert report and proffered testimony of Dr. Ali Saad, D. 593, DENIES EEOC's motion to strike expert report and proposed testimony of Dr. Eric Dunleavy, D. 600, and DENIES Texas Roadhouse's motion for summary judgment, D. 587.

II. Standard of Review

A. Motion to Strike Expert Testimony

Pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 702, a qualified expert witness can testify "in the form of an opinion, or otherwise, if (1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case." United States v. Mooney , 315 F.3d 54, 62 (1st Cir. 2002) (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 702 ). This rule "assign[s] to the trial judge the task of ensuring that an expert's testimony both rests on a reliable foundation and is relevant to the task at hand." Cipollone v. Yale Indus. Prod., Inc. , 202 F.3d 376, 380 (1st Cir. 2000) (quoting Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc. , 509 U.S. 579, 597, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993) ). "[T]he district court must perform [this] gatekeeping function by preliminarily assessing ‘whether the reasoning or methodology is ... valid and ... properly can be applied to the facts in issue’ " by examining multiple factors through a flexible, case-specific inquiry. Seahorse Marine Supplies, Inc. v. Puerto Rico Sun Oil Co. , 295 F.3d 68, 80–81 (1st Cir. 2002) (quoting Daubert , 509 U.S. at 592–93, 113 S.Ct. 2786 ). Ultimately, the purpose of the inquiry is "to determine whether the testimony of the expert would be helpful to the jury." Cipollone , 202 F.3d at 380. As long as the expert's testimony is found to rest upon reliable grounds, "the traditional and appropriate means of attacking shaky but admissible evidence" is through "[v]igorous cross-examination, presentation of contrary evidence, and careful instruction on the burden of proof."

Milward v. Acuity Specialty Prods. Grp., Inc. , 639 F.3d 11, 15 (1st Cir. 2011) (quoting Daubert , 509 U.S. at 590 ).

B. Motion for Summary Judgment

The Court will grant summary judgment when there is no genuine dispute on any material fact and the undisputed facts show that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). "An issue is genuine if ‘it may reasonably be resolved in favor of either party’ at trial, and material if it ‘possess[es] the capacity to sway the outcome of the litigation under the applicable law.’ " Iverson v. City of Boston , 452 F.3d 94, 98 (1st Cir. 2006) (alteration in original) (internal citations omitted). The movant "bears the burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact." Rosciti v. Ins. Co. of Pa. , 659 F.3d 92, 96 (1st Cir. 2011) (quoting Carmona v. Toledo , 215 F.3d 124, 132 (1st Cir. 2000) ). If the moving party meets this burden, then the non-movant must "with respect to each issue on which she would bear the burden of proof at trial, demonstrate that a trier of fact could reasonably resolve that issue in her favor." Borges ex rel. S.M.B.W. v. Serrano – Isern , 605 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 2010). "The test is whether, as to each essential element, there is sufficient evidence favoring the nonmoving party for a jury to return a verdict for that party." DeNovellis v. Shalala , 124 F.3d 298, 306 (1st Cir. 1997) (internal quotation mark and citation omitted). In deciding a summary judgment motion, the Court views the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, drawing all reasonable inferences in his favor. Noonan v. Staples, Inc. , 556 F.3d 20, 25 (1st Cir. 2009). This standard is no different in a pattern-or-practice discrimination case.

III. Factual Background

The following facts are drawn from the parties' statements of material facts, D. 589, D. 616, D. 617, D. 644, and supporting documents and are undisputed unless otherwise noted.

A. The Texas Roadhouse Corporate Structure

As of December 30, 2014, Texas Roadhouse owned and operated 368 Texas Roadhouse restaurant locations and franchised another 79 restaurants. D. 617 ¶ 2; D. 644 ¶ 2. Its founder, chairman and CEO is W. Kent Taylor ("Taylor"). Id.

The "Support Center," Texas Roadhouse's headquarters, D. 589 ¶ 5; D. 616 ¶ 5; D. 617 ¶ 10; D. 644 ¶ 10, dispatches the Market Partners, the Regional Market Partners, Training Managers and Regional Human Resources and Marketing employees to its locations all over the country. D. 617 ¶¶ 10-11; D. 644 ¶¶ 10-11.

Each individual Texas Roadhouse restaurant generally has one salaried Service Manager ("SM") with primary responsibility for managing FOH operations, one salaried Kitchen Manager ("KM") with primary responsibility for managing back-of-the-house ("BOH") operations and one Managing Partner with primary responsibility for the day-to-day operations of the entire restaurant.¹ D. 589 ¶¶ 16-17; D. 616 ¶¶ 16-17; D. 617 ¶ 9; D. 644 ¶ 9. The Managing Partner is the overall manager for a single restaurant location. D. 589 ¶ 16; D. 616 ¶ 16. Managing Partners must follow Texas Roadhouse recipes and conform to the company guidelines and policies. D. 617 ¶ 6; D. 644 ¶ 6; D. 618-20 at 99-100.

Texas Roadhouse restaurants are grouped into "markets" of up to fifteen restaurants per market, each of which is assigned to a Market Partner. D. 589 ¶ 18; D. 616 ¶ 18. Each Market Partner supervises the operation of all of the restaurants in his market and is responsible for ensuring adherence to all aspects of the Texas Roadhouse concept, strategy and standards of quality, which includes weekly visits and oversight of the hiring and development of each restaurant's management team. D. 589 ¶¶ 18-19; D. 616 ¶¶ 18-19; D. 617 ¶ 12; D. 644 ¶ 12; D. 618-10 at 5-6; D. 618-26 at 30-31. Market Partner duties generally include overseeing the operations of the restaurant locations, hiring and developing each restaurant's management team, overseeing the hiring of staff lower-level managerial positions in the restaurants alongside one of the Support Center's Field Support Staffing Manager and are generally on-site during hiring for a new store opening. D. 617 ¶¶ 12-13, 15-16; D. 644 ¶¶ 12-13, 15-16; D. 618-21 at 11-12. Each Market Partner's job includes ensuring that the Managing Partners are focused on and executing the company-wide operational goals, including training and employee image. D. 589 ¶ 14; D. 616 ¶ 14; D. 617 ¶¶ 3, 5; D. 644 ¶¶ 3, 5. A Market Partner has the authority to fire a Managing Partner for bad performance or not adhering to company standards. D. 617 ¶ 14; D. 644 ¶ 14. Market Partners themselves can be terminated for failing to follow the directions and policies of the company. D. 617 ¶ 23; D. 644 ¶ 23.

A set of markets are further grouped into regions, each assigned to a Regional Market Partner. D. 589 ¶ 20; 616 ¶ 20. Regional Market Partners supervise Market Partners. D. 589 ¶ 21; D. 616 ¶ 21; D. 617 ¶ 21; D. 644 ¶ 21. One aspect of the Regional Market Partners' job is to ensure that Managing Partners are executing the company's overall operational goals, including training and employee image. D. 617 ¶¶ 3, 5; D. 644 ¶¶ 3, 5. The majority of Regional Market Partners make visits to restaurants to observe what is going on in each restaurant. D. 617 ¶ 22; D. 644 ¶ 22.

Steve Ortiz ("Ortiz") was the former Chief Operating Officer of Texas Roadhouse. D. 617 ¶ 24; D. 644 ¶ 24. In his role, he supervised all of the employees in operations including all of the Managing Partners, Market Partners, Regional Partners and the Vice President of Training, Juanita Coleman. Id. Ortiz reported to the CEO, Taylor. D. 617 ¶ 27; D. 644 ¶ 27. During the 2007 to 2014 period, Ortiz was responsible for building the Texas Roadhouse brand, which included training and supervising the Managing Partners, Market Partners and Regional Market Partners. D. 618-4 at 10; D. 618-20 at 31-32; D. 618-21 at 17. In addition to Ortiz, Taylor was a hands-on CEO who visits at least three to four...