Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—D. Utah: Fired manager of Mexican origin stated multiple claims against Sonic Drive-In, (Feb 11, 2026)

By Jason Albright, J.D.

Her firing occurred shortly after she reported wage-hour manipulation targeted only at Hispanic employees.

A 48-year-old Hispanic woman from Mexico and longtime general manager of a Sonic Drive-In, fired following the hiring of a new white male supervisor who allegedly “would not acknowledge” Hispanic employees in meetings, required Hispanic employees to “work harder and longer” than white employees, and was allegedly overheard saying that “he does not know how a Hispanic woman like [[plaintiff]] ever got the job of being a general manager,” stated Title VII discrimination and retaliation, FLSA overtime, and certain Utah state-law claims against the fast food chain, but not wrongful termination or a claim under the ADEA, a federal district court in Utah found. She adequately alleged that Sonic and the white male supervisor manufactured multiple pretextual reasons for her firing, and that her firing occurred shortly after she reported wage-hour manipulation targeted only at Hispanic employees (Moreno v. Sonic Drive-In, No. 2:25-cv-00372-RJS-DBP (D. Utah Feb. 9, 2026)).

22 years at Sonic. The employee, according to the court, a Utah resident, is a 48-year-old Hispanic woman from Mexico. Sonic Drive-In is a national fast-food chain that employed her for more than 22 years, most recently as general manager at one of its Utah locations. And while at Sonic, according to the court, she consistently performed well and was a top-ranked employee.

New white male supervisor. At some point in 2023, however, a second named defendant, a white man, became her supervisor, and several instances of discriminatory conduct toward Hispanic workers at Sonic, including the general manager, allegedly followed.

Alleged conduct against Hispanic employees. The new supervisor allegedly “would not acknowledge” Hispanic employees in meetings, required them to “work harder and longer” than white employees, and once said that the plaintiff “was a wom[a]n who doesn’t know how to do anything.”

The new supervisor allegedly raised his voice and used aggressive language toward the general manager, and another employee allegedly overheard him say that “he does not know how a Hispanic woman like [[plaintiff]] ever got the job of being a general manager.”

Hispanic workers and overtime. In addition, the new supervisor and Sonic’s operations manager allegedly “would have the Hispanics clocking [in] under two different names just so [Sonic] did not have to pay them overtime.” During her employment at Sonic, the general manager alleged, she “was denied overtime pay, paid vacation, and paid time off, despite regularly working more than 40 hours per week.”

Report of alleged wage-hour violations to management. She eventually discovered that the new supervisor was improperly reducing or removing employee hours, which she believed violated federal and state wage and hour laws. On January 5, 2024, she sent Sonic management a text message reporting the alleged violations. Around the same time, she also forwarded to management messages from two other employees alleging improper deletion or manipulation of hours worked. She alleges that Sonic and other defendants “targeted [] Hispanic staff, with white employees not subjected to similar scrutiny or penalties.”

Fired. Less than three weeks later, on January 22, 2024, she was fired. By way of explanation for her firing, the new supervisor told her that she “had no control over [her] team because sometimes they would clock in late.” He also stated she was “disobedient,” and he—falsely—claimed she allowed another employee to clock in who was not present for work.

On January 15, 2024, just over a week after she had raised concerns about allegedly improper pay practices, Sonic’s operations manager had also accused her of closing the store without permission. However, she had received permission from the supervisor in late 2023 to close the Sonic location where she worked at 10:00 p.m. instead of 11:00 p.m. due to low sales volume. And though the supervisor denied giving her such permission, she provided a text message she received from him stating, “[the operations manager] changed the hours, you can officially close at 10 now.”

Age-related comments? In addition, according to the employee, “[j]ust prior” to her firing, “Defendant also told her she was too old for that job,” and a Sonic employee stated Stephens said, “he had [[the general manager]] fired because he was upset that [she] had discovered what he was doing.”

Lawsuit and motion to dismiss. On May 9, 2025, the employee sued after receiving a right to sue letter from the EEOC. After the defendants moved to dismiss, she amended to assert at least seven claims: (1) Title VII discrimination based on sex and national origin, (2) Title VII retaliation, (3) failure to pay overtime owed under the FLSA, (4) Utah common law wrongful termination, (5) discrimination in violation of the Utah Antidiscrimination Act (UADA), (6) a Utah overtime claim, and (7) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The parties dispute whether she also brought a claim under the ADEA. The defendants moved to dismiss.

Title VII discrimination. The employee’s Title VII discrimination claim survived the motion to dismiss. Sonic and the individual defendants argued that the employee’s complaint includes only “generalized statements [that] do not supply any factual basis from which discriminatory motive can be inferred.” But she alleged that (1) the new supervisor “would not acknowledge” Hispanic employees in meetings, required them to “work harder and longer” than white employees, and said that “he does not know how a Hispanic woman like [[plaintiff]] ever got the job of being a general manager;” (2) Sonic and the individual defendants manufactured multiple pretextual reasons for her firing; and (3) her firing occurred shortly after she reported wage-hour manipulation targeted only at Hispanic employees. The court concluded that these allegations were enough.

Retaliation under Title VII. Her Title VII retaliation claim likewise survived. The defendants argued that her amended complaint “does not allege she engaged in any activity protected by Title VII” and “fails to plead facts supporting any causal connection between protected activity and her termination.” But her allegations “go well beyond conclusory assertions,” according to the court. She provided detailed allegations, including the dates and contents of her communications with Sonic about the alleged discrimination. As a matter of law, the court found, the temporal proximity between her alleged informal complaints and her firing was sufficient to establish an inference of causation.

UADA claim. Agreeing with the parties that UADA claims are analyzed under the same standards as Title VII claims, the court found that she likewise adequately pleaded a UADA claim.

FLSA overtime claim. The employee also adequately pleaded an FLSA overtime claim. The defendants argued that she did not plead that she worked more than 40 hours in a given week, but she in fact did. She alleged that she “was denied overtime pay... despite regularly working more than 40 hours per week,” and that her “[pay]checks showed [she] was working 86 hrs biweekly when [she] was actually working 110-120.” These allegations, the court found were sufficient to establish that she was denied overtime pay for at least one workweek, which is enough.

ADEA claim? The court agreed with the defendants, however, that the employee failed to plead a claim of age discrimination. Her complaint cited the ADEA once in its jurisdiction section, and unlike her seven other causes of action, she did not break out an age discrimination or ADEA claim as a claim for relief. Further, the court found, even assuming she brought an ADEA claim, her opposition brief failed to identify sufficient allegations to make out a prima facie case. There were no allegations related to whether others not in the ADEA-protected class were treated differently.

Wrongful termination. The employee’s Utah wrongful termination claim likewise failed. Though the court was skeptical that firing her for reporting allegedly discriminatory and illegal acts did not violate Utah public policy, “a party forfeits an issue it does not support with legal authority or argument,” and the employee failed to cite any legal authority for the proposition that her allegations “implicate clear statutory mandates requiring lawful payment of wages and mirror the kind of whistleblowing conduct Utah courts have recognized as protected.”

Remaining state-law claims. Finally, her remaining claims under the Utah Payment of Wages Act and her state-law claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing also survived the motion to dismiss. She “appears to assert these claims in the alternative to her statutory claims,” the court observed, and that is permissible under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure.

The case is No. 2:25-cv-00372-RJS-DBP.

Judge: Shelby, R.

Attorneys: Gregory Brent Smith (Law Offices of Greg Smith) for Maria Moreno. Joseph D. Watkins (Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani) for Sonic Drive-In and Brad Stephens.

Companies: Sonic Drive-In

Cases: NationalOrigin SexDiscrimination AgeDiscrimination Discrimination Discharge WageHour Overtime StateLawClaims UtahNews GCNNews