This is a case about employment discrimination on the basis of sex and pregnancy. On August 12, 2020, a female employee filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. The plaintiff sued Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e. Represented by private counsel, the plaintiff sought back pay, front pay, compensatory and punitive damages, and attorneys' fees. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant discriminated against her by refusing to give her proper break time to pump breastmilk while on shift and initially sought class certification.

On December 29, 2016, the plaintiff requested a break to pump breastmilk. She claimed that her managers refused to allow her to pump as the restaurant was busy. The plaintiff’s breasts began to visibly leak through her shirt, and she was required to continue serving customers. Upon seeing that she was leaking, the plaintiff’s managers informed her that she would be permitted to take a break in fifteen minutes. During this time, the plaintiff claimed she was still required to interact with customers with a soaked-through shirt. The plaintiff claimed that approximately forty minutes after being allowed to pump, she was called into the office by her managers and berated.

The plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), alleging that she was discriminated against on the basis of her gender and pregnancy in violation of Title VII. The EEOC issued a determination that there was reasonable cause to believe that the defendant violated Title VII and permitted the plaintiff to file this lawsuit.

Upon filing on August 14th, 2020, the case was assigned to Judge Eileen S. Willett. On August 14, 2020, the case was reassigned from the Magistrate to the District Court to Judge Steven P. Logan, per local rules.

On August 14th, 2020, Judge Logan issued a preliminary order stating that any motion to dismiss the case is discouraged if the pleading can be cured by filing an amended pleading. On September 1, 2020, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint was largely identical to the original, except that the plaintiff was now suing individually with no collective action allegations. Accordingly, the scope of relief was amended to eliminate relief to other individuals similarly situated. There was no additional information from the pleadings as to why the class allegations were dropped.

The case is ongoing.

Jane Fisher - 09/26/2020


compress summary