United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
MATTHEW F. KENNELLY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Satterfield filed this lawsuit against Chipotle Mexican
Grill, Inc. (Chipotle), alleging that Chipotle retaliated and
discriminated against her in violation of Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Pregnancy
Discrimination Act of 1978 (PDA). 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(k).
Chipotle has moved for summary judgment.
Court takes the following facts from the parties' briefs
and exhibits filed in connection with the motion for summary
judgment. When facts are in dispute, the Court takes those
facts in the light most favorable to Satterfield, the
worked for Chipotle's Oak Brook East restaurant from
September 2013 until she was terminated on October 7, 2014.
Def.'s Statement of Material Facts (SOMF), Ex. 1
(Satterfield Dep.) at 57:11, 253:15-18. Satterfield was one
of the Oak Brook East restaurant's first hires.
Def.'s SOMF, Ex. 9 (Jaimes Dep.) at 34:20-35:6. While
working for Chipotle, Satterfield reported to Alexis Infante,
the restaurant's general manager. Infante, in turn,
reported to Viviana Rendon, the restaurateur who was
responsible for the restaurant's field operations.
Def.'s SOMF, Ex. 24 (Jaimes Decl.) ¶ 15. Infante
also reported to Lorena Jaimes who, as team leader, was
tasked with overseeing the operations of several Chipotle
restaurants in the region including the Oak Brook East
restaurant. Id. ¶¶ 5, 16.
Oak Brook East restaurant operated in the same fashion as
other Chipotle restaurants. The restaurant is operated by a
team of crew members who are responsible for preparing and
cooking ingredients, assembling customer food orders, and
performing similar tasks. Id. ¶ 7. The crew
members are assisted by four levels of management (listed in
ascending order of responsibility): kitchen manager, service
manager, apprentice manager, and general manager.
Id. ¶ 8. The kitchen manager is responsible for
the back of the house, which includes inventory and
preparation. Jaimes Decl., Ex. C.
order for an employee to become a kitchen manager in training
(KMIT) in Chipotle's Oak Brook East restaurant, the
employee must be nominated by her fellow crew members.
Def.'s SOMF, Ex. 16 (Zavala Dep.) at 45:1-24; Satterfield
Dep. at 154:21-156:16. Once chosen, the nominated employee
undergoes six to eight weeks of KMIT training. Def.'s
SOMF, Ex. 15 (Thomas Dep.) at 32:11-14; Satterfield Dep. at
269:2-4. While in KMIT training, the nominated employee
understands that she is not guaranteed the kitchen manager
position until she is officially selected by her peers.
Satterfield Dep. at 156:4-16. At some point during the
training, the crew members will decide whether the nominated
employee should be selected for the kitchen manager position.
Zavala Dep. at 43:17-21. The selected employee is then given
a confirmation start date that is approved by the general
manager and the team leader. Def.'s SOMF, Ex. 11 (Benitez
Dep.) at 40:22-24.
quickly became one of the most experienced employees at the
Oak Brook East restaurant. Initially, she worked on prep and
grill at Chipotle. Within a few months, she had learned to
work all stations in the restaurant. Satterfield Dep. at
57:2-9. In May 2014, Satterfield received a positive rating
on her first evaluation and was given a raise. Id.
at 58:7-25. And, at three different points in time, she was
chosen by her co-workers as a KMIT candidate.
went through KMIT training three times but was never offered
the position of kitchen manager. First, she was put up for
the kitchen manager position along with another employee,
Arielle Thomas, sometime in December 2013. Thomas Dep. at
21:21-25, 23:11-13. Satterfield went through four weeks of
training, but the crew members selected Thomas to become
kitchen manager. Id. Infante then asked Satterfield
to stop her training. Id. Thomas testified that
after she was promoted, management told Satterfield that
"you're going to get promoted, just, you know, wait
for your time, keep training . . . ." Id. at
19:21-22. Second, Satterfield and her co-worker Christopher
Hinsley went through KMIT training sometime around early
2014. Satterfield Dep. at 98:12-100:10. When it came time to
choose which of the two employees should receive the kitchen
manager position, the crew selected Satterfield. Thomas Dep.
at 29:19-31:2. Infante, however, chose to give Hinsley the
position instead. Id. Third, sometime at the end of
July or early August, Infante tasked Hinsley with training
Satterfield and her co-worker Timothy Valdez to become
kitchen managers. Def.'s SOMF, Ex. 14 (Hinsley Dep.) at
50:14-22, 51:13-21. After four weeks of training, Satterfield
was removed from KMIT training. Satterfield testified that
Infante "told [her] that he took [her] out of the
program because he didn't want to stress [her] out"
during her pregnancy. Satterfield Dep. at 168:12-14,
after being removed from the KMIT training, Satterfield
called Chipotle's "respectful workplace"
hotline. Id. at 122:11-19. Satterfield testified
that she called the hotline in August 2014, September 2014,
and October 2014. Id. at 149:16-150:14.
Chipotle's respectful workplace consultant, Kimberly
Wheeler, answered Satterfield's calls. Def's SOMF,
Ex. 20 (Wheeler Dep.) at 19:4-7. Satterfield testified that
in August 2014, she explained to Wheeler that she believed
she was taken out of KMIT training because of her pregnancy
and that she wanted to be transferred to another Chipotle
restaurant because she felt uncomfortable around her
co-workers. Satterfield Dep. at 149:16-150:14. Satterfield
also testified that in September 2014, she called the hotline
again to check on the status of her transfer because she
"felt like things weren't changing."
Id. at 151:7-8. Wheeler told Satterfield that she
had informed Infante of Satterfield's complaint.
Satterfield testified that once Infante became aware of her
complaint, he began to treat her unfairly. Id. at
122:7-125:25. Satterfield also testified that her assistant
manager, Fernando Benitez, complained to others that she
"talk[ed] too much, " referring to her hotline
complaints. Id. at 129:4-24; Def.'s SOMF, Ex. 21
(Oct. Hotline Compl.).
testified that sometime in October 2014, she informed a crew
member that she believed management was going to fire
Satterfield. Thomas Dep. at 39:8-15. The crew member then
relayed the information to Satterfield, which prompted
Satterfield to call and write an e-mail to the respectful
workplace hotline on October 3, 2014. Id. In the
e-mail, Satterfield complained that she was the target of
discrimination and that Chipotle management was retaliating
against her for making complaints to the workplace hotline.
Oct. Hotline Compl. On October 7, 2014, four days later,
Satterfield was fired from her position at Chipotle.
Def.'s SOMF, Ex. 13 (Infante Dep.) at 184:14-17.
filed an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
charge in April 2015, alleging discrimination and retaliation
based on sex and disability. Pl.'s Corrected Statement of
Material Facts (SOMF), Ex. S. Satterfield filed this lawsuit
on November 13, 2015, alleging that Chipotle violated Title
VII and the PDA.
judgment is appropriate "if the moving party shows that
no genuine dispute of material fact exists and that the
moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law." Roberts v. Columbia Coll. Chicago, 821
F.3d 855, 861 (7th Cir. 2016). In making this
determination, the Court views the record "in the light
most favorable to . . . the non-moving party, resolve[s] all
evidentiary conflicts in [the non-moving party's] favor,
and grant[s] all reasonable inferences that the record
permits" for the non-moving party. Liu v. Cook
Cty., 817 F.3d 307, 309 (7th Cir. 2016).
contends that Chipotle retaliated and discriminated against
her in violation of Title VII and the PDA. In count 3 of her
complaint, she alleges that Chipotle terminated her
employment because she complained of pregnancy discrimination
to Chipotle's workplace hotline. In counts 1 and 2,
Satterfield alleges that she was removed from KMIT training
because of her pregnancy. She also alleges in counts 1 and 2
that she was put on a reduced hour schedule after she became
pregnant. Finally, Satterfield contends that Chipotle
destroyed evidence relevant to this case-her performance
journals-in bad faith. This is not a separate claim in her
complaint; rather, ...