Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—RACE—N.D. Ala.: Chipotle manager fired after worker complaints cannot proceed with race, national origin bias or other claims, (Jul 21, 2026)

By Ursula Furi-Perry. J.D., MBA

Other employees complained about her treatment of them, including that she allegedly had said that “all gay people are going to Hell.”

A former general manager for Chipotle alleged that the company unlawfully terminated her because of her race and national origin, retaliated against her for making discrimination complaints and taking FMLA leave, and improperly classified her as an exempt employee under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), thereby denying her overtime pay. An Alabama federal court granted Chipotle’s motion for summary judgment in favor of Chipotle on every claim, concluding that she failed to present sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could find discrimination, retaliation, or FLSA misclassification. When viewed collectively, the evidence did not create a convincing mosaic from which a reasonable jury could infer intentional discrimination (Sims v. Chipotle Services LLC, No. 2:24-cv-1770-EGL (N.D. Ala. July 17, 2026)).

During the years she worked for Chipotle from 2018 until her termination in June 2023, the employee advanced through several management positions before becoming the General Manager of a restaurant in Vestavia Hills, Alabama. As General Manager, she supervised employees, hired and terminated staff, prepared schedules, oversaw payroll issues, managed budgets and inventory, ensured food safety compliance, and maintained responsibility for the restaurant's daily operations.

Duties. Although she acknowledged performing these managerial duties, she claimed that chronic understaffing forced her to spend most of her time cooking, cleaning, serving customers, and performing other hourly tasks rather than managing the restaurant.

New supervisor, new problems. After a new Field Leader became her supervisor in early 2023, the employment relationship deteriorated. The employee filed several complaints with Chipotle's human resources department alleging race discrimination—including an overheard comment about “a black Bitch”—along with preferential treatment toward Hispanic employees, retaliation, and interference with her return from medical leave.

FMLA leave. She took FMLA leave because of a mental health condition that she attributed to workplace stress. Shortly after returning, multiple employees complained that she had created a hostile work environment by yelling at employees, making offensive remarks, intimidating subordinates, and allegedly stating that gay people were "going to hell."

Human Resources investigated the other employees’ complaints and recommended that the employee be terminated.

Chipotle then fired her, citing both her offensive treatment of employees and the alleged anti-gay comments as violations of company policy. She denied making the discriminatory remark but did not meaningfully dispute many of the other allegations concerning her conduct toward employees.

She subsequently filed suit, asserting race and national origin discrimination, retaliation under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and the FMLA, as well as an FLSA overtime claim based on alleged misclassification. Chipotle filed a motion for summary judgment. The court analyzed the procedural issue under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, addressing whether there were no material facts at issue, so that the employer was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Race and national origin discrimination. The court analyzed the discrimination claims under the familiar McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework while also considering whether the evidence created a "convincing mosaic" of discrimination. Chipotle argued that the employee’s repeated offensive and disrespectful treatment of other workers and the alleged comment regarding gay employees created a legitimate reason for her termination, and the burden therefore shifted back to the former employee to demonstrate that those reasons merely served as a pretext for unlawful discrimination.

Honest belief. The court concluded that she failed to satisfy that burden. Although she denied making the alleged statement about gay employees, she did not dispute substantial evidence showing that employees had complained about her aggressive management style, intimidating comments, hostile workplace behavior, and inappropriate treatment of subordinates. Even if the employer mistakenly believed that she violated company policy, an honestly held belief supported a legitimate termination decision, absent evidence of discriminatory intent.

No comparators, no causal connection. The court found the plaintiff’s examples of comparators insufficient because the proposed comparators were not similarly situated, the alleged incidents lacked meaningful evidentiary support, and none established a causal connection between her race or national origin and the decision to terminate her employment. When viewed collectively, the evidence did not create a convincing mosaic from which a reasonable jury could infer intentional discrimination.

Retaliation. Regarding the Title VII and Section 1981 claims of retaliation, the court held that the employee could not establish the required causal connection between her protected activity and her termination. Some of her complaints, such as objecting to employees speaking Spanish or reporting an isolated comment by another manager, did not qualify as protected activity under the anti-retaliation provisions. Although her anonymous HR complaints alleged discrimination, the record failed to show that the supervisor who decided to terminate her knew she had filed them. Without evidence that the decision-maker knew of the protected activity, retaliation could not be established.

FMLA retaliation claim. The court reached a similar conclusion on the FMLA retaliation claim. While the close timing between her return from leave and her termination initially supported an inference of retaliation, Chipotle presented substantial evidence that it terminated her because of employee complaints regarding her workplace conduct. The court found this intervening misconduct broke any inference created by temporal proximity alone, and the employee failed to rebut Chipotle's legitimate explanation or show that retaliation constituted the but-for cause of her discharge.

FLSA overtime claim. Finally, the court rejected the employee's FLSA overtime claim as well, finding that Chipotle properly classified her as an exempt executive employee. Although she argued that chronic understaffing forced her to spend most of her time performing manual labor, the court emphasized that her primary duty remained managing the restaurant. She supervised employees, hired and terminated staff, oversaw scheduling, payroll, budgeting, inventory, and food safety, and remained the highest-ranking employee at the location.

The court explained that managers do not lose their executive exemption simply because they perform nonexempt tasks alongside hourly employees. Because the employee continued directing the restaurant's operations while exercising significant managerial authority, Chipotle properly classified her as exempt from the FLSA's overtime requirements.

The case is No. 2:24-cv-1770-EGL.

Attorneys: Kevin W. Jent (Wiggins Childs Pantazis Fisher & Goldfarb) for Totti Sims. Andrew L. Edge (Martienson, Hasbrouck & Simon) for Chipotle Services, LLC.

Companies: Chipotle Services, LLC

Cases: RaceDiscrimination Discrimination Discharge Retaliation EmployeeLeave WageHour Overtime NationalOrigin AlabamaNews