Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Chipotle Lawsuit

    Uploaded by

    chrisfuhrmeister
    10K views42 pages
    Lawsuit alleging sexual harassment at a Los Angeles Chipotle restaurant.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Lawsuit alleging sexual harassment at a Los Angeles Chipotle restaurant.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    10K views42 pages

    Chipotle Lawsuit

    Uploaded by

    chrisfuhrmeister
    Lawsuit alleging sexual harassment at a Los Angeles Chipotle restaurant.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 42
    ORIGINAL aac aT ee T. JOSHUA RITZ & ASSOCIATES ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW yh suge oftLED 14724 Ventura Blvd Ste 510 or Court of Califia Sherman Oaks CA 91403 fi ‘e mv of Los Angeles 818.788.1123, MAR 1.6 26%6 wow rrhllp.com itz@rrhllp.com rao ve OtcerObek T. JOSHUA RITZ, BAR NO. 172364 Deputy ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF Ay ARIANA CASTANEDA SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 613949 ARIANA CASTANEDA, CASE NO. CIVIL UNLIMITED Plaintiff, COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES v. oy HARASSMENT; ) ) (2) SEXUAL HARASSMENT CHIPOTLE MEXICANGRILL,INC,a 3 (QuID PRo Quo); [Delaware corporation, PABLO AGUILAR, ) (3) eee ) an individual, RUBEN HERNANDEZ, an Sa ARCO individual, TOMMY ‘LEE, an individual, @ RiGee ee ERICK MORCILLO, an individual and (5) ASSAULT; DOES 1 through 100, INCLUSIVE, {8} BATTERY; RETALIATION; (8) FAILURE TO PREVENT DISCRIMINATION, HARASSMENT, a 8 AND RETALIATION; (9) NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION, TRAINING AND RETENTION OF EMPLOYEES; (10) FAILURE TO REASONABLY ACCOMMODATE; (11) FAILURE TO ENGAGE IN A GooD- FAITH INTERACTIVE PROCESS; (12) RETALIATION FOR EXERCISING RIGHTS UNDER THE CALIFORNIA FAMILY RIGHTS ACT; ez 5 (13) DENIAL OF RIGHTS UNDER ES — & CALIFORNIA FAMILY Mab ES ScTS (14) INTENTIONAL NELEERENDE 3 EMOTIONAL DB’ eT (15) VIOLATION OF ARAICLE I, ear10n 8 OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSHAEUSON; AND ze (16) WRONGFUL TERMINATION IN= VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY. 3 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIALS, Defendants. pena Ht 4 PLAINTIFF ARIANA CASTANEDA’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 818,788.1123 a 7 a £ ata at Plaintiff Ariana Castaneda alleges: INTRODUCTION 1. Plaintiff Ariana Castaneda is a former employee of Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. Defendants Pablo Aguilar, Ruben Hernandez, Tommy Lee and Erick Morcillo are managers for Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. who directly supervised plaintiff Ariana Castaneda, Defendants Aguilar, Hernandez, Lee and Morcillo sexually harassed plaintiff, other female employees and female customers. All four managers created a sexually charged atmosphere directed at female employees and customers. In fact, these Chipotle managers would use security cameras to secure overhead views of female customers they found attractive. These four managers made constant sexual comments to Ms. Castaneda, refused to provide her a uniform shirt that fit her properly (preferring instead to provide her a shirt that was several sizes too small so it could accentuate her breasts), forcibly touched plaintiff and made inquiries about her intimacy with her husband. PARTIES/VENUE 2. Plaintiff Ariana Castaneda was at all relevant times an employee of defendant Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. At all relevant times, she worked in the County of Los Angeles and she is one of its residents. The events that form the basis of this lawsuit took place in the County of Los Angeles. 3. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and upon that basis alleges, defendant Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. (“Chipotle”) is a Delaware corporation authorized to and conducting business in the State of California, County of Los Angeles. At all relevant times, Chipotle employed Plaintiff Ariana Castaneda. 4. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and upon that basis alleges, defendant Pablo Aguilar was at all relevant times working in the County of Los Angeles for Chipotle. Defendant Aguilar was a Chipotle supervisor as defined under the Fair Employment & Housing Act. 5. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and upon that basis alleges, defendant Ruben Hernandez was at all relevant times working in the County of Los Angeles for a PLAINTIFF ARIANA CASTANEDA’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Chipotle. Defendant Hernandez was a Chipotle supervisor as defined under the Fair Employment & Housing Act. 6. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and upon that basis alleges, defendant Tommy Lee was at all relevant times working in the County of Los Angeles for Chipotle. Defendant Lee was a Chipotle supervisor as defined under the Fair Employment & Housing Act. 7. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and upon that basis alleges, defendant Erick Morcillo was at all relevant times working in the County of Los Angeles for Chipotle. Defendant Morcillo was a Chipotle supervisor as defined under the Fair Employment & Housing Act. 8. The true names and capacities of defendants DOES 1 through 100 are unknown to Plaintiff, who therefore sues these Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will seek leave to amend this complaint to allege such names and capacities as soon as she is ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and upon that basis alleges, that each of the fictitiously named defendants is in some manner responsible, liable, and/or obligated to plaintiff Castaneda in connection with the acts alleged herein. 9. Plaintiff is informed and believes and upon that basis alleges that DOES 1 through 100 are the controlling entities and/or alter egos of the other Defendants, and of each other, and ratified, authorized, and/or directed the conduct of Chipotle. In doing the things hereinafter alleged, the defendants, and each of them, acted as the agents, servants and employees of their co-defendants, who acted within the course and scope of their agency and employment, and with the knowledge, consent and approval of their co- defendants whereby their conduct was ratified by their co-defendants. 10. Plaintiff is informed and believes and upon that basis alleges that DOES 1 through 50 are individual defendants liable to plaintiff for harassment or otherwise facing tort liability for their intentional conduct directed at Plaintiff. EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES 11. All legal prerequisites for proceeding with the claims contained in this 3 PLAINTIFF ARIANA CASTANEDA’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES. T. Joshua Ritz & Associates, BTOT/ OT £8 owe ao 10. 12 13 14 15 16 ya 18 19 20 21 2 re 4 25 26 27 28 complaint have been met. 12. _ Plaintiff filed with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing complaints for each Defendant attached hereto as Exhibit A. 13. Plaintiff received from the DFEH right to sue letters against each Defendant attached hereto as Exhibit B. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS 14. Plaintiff Ariana Castaneda began working for Chipotle on or about December 2013. She worked at several Chipotle locations and was working at the Warner Center site since May 2015 when she was wrongfully terminated February 10, 2016. Ms. Castaneda’s initial position with Chipotle was “Kitchen Prep.” She received positive performance reviews, and after holding several other positions, was eventually promoted to Kitchen Lead, Ms, Castaneda’s direct supervisors were General Manager Pablo Aguilar, Supervisor Ruben Hernandez, Service Manager Tommy Lee and Service Manager Erick Morcillo (the “Managers”), 15. Since arriving at the Warner Center Chipotle location, Ms. Castaneda faced harassment and discrimination on account of her gender and later her medical condition. 16. As a Kitchen Lead, Ms. Castaneda was required to wear a different uniform, which General Manager Pablo Aguilar was required to provide. On multiple occasions, Pablo Aguilar purposely ordered a black uniform shirt for Ms. Castaneda that was several sizes too small so that the shirt would be very tight fitting, Ms. Castaneda specifically requested an extra-large shirt, which would have been an appropriate size for her. When she complained to Mr. Aguilar about the shirt size, Mr. Aguilar responded, “Try it on anyways!” Then Mr. Aguilar inquired whether Ms. Castaneda was unhappy with the shirt by stating, “Is it because your tits are too big?” 17. Ms. Castaneda told Mr. Aguilar to stop speaking to her in that manner and to order her the proper fitting shirt she had requested. Subsequently, Pablo Aguilar again ordered a shirt that was a smaller size than Ms. Castaneda had requested and again harassed Ms. Castaneda for having large breasts. General Manager Pablo Aguilar then 4 PLAINTIFF ARIANA CASTANEDA’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES. @ wor hill. com 818.788.2123 aw i 12 ud 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 = 2B 24 25 26 27 28 encouraged Supervisor Hernandez to plead wit’ Ms. Castaneda by telling her, “Come on let me see how that fits you,” and “It doesn’t fit because your boobs are too big, huh?” ‘Then, Mr. Aguilar and Mr. Hernandez both anrounced, “her tits are too big,” as they laughed and called other managers to tell them how Ms. Castaneda’s breasts were too large for the Chipotle uniform; “Look it does ”: fit her because her boobs are too big” and “her tits are too big!” 18. Though it was apparent Ms. Castaneda would not fit into the uniform shirt that had been ordered, General Manager Pablo Aguilar would continue insisting Ms. Castaneda try on the shirt “to see how it fits.” Ms. Castaneda protested and asked for the taunting to stop. Ms. Castaneda called the Managers “pigs” for continuing to discuss her breast size and pleading with her to try on a shirt that was too small for her. 19. Managers Erick Morcillo and Tommy Lee would use derogatory names for female employees in the presence of Ms. Castaneda. Managers Morcillo and Lee would regularly make inappropriate remarks about a former employee named Sabrina who they called “big boob Sabrina!” They would also mae comments such as, “Did you see Sabrina, the one with the big boobs.” 20. Managers Morcillo and Lee also regularly mocked Sabrina because of a yelp review where a former customer left a negetive remark about her; “Did you see what they wrote about Sabrina, not even because she had big tits did they write something good about her. Must have been a bitch who wrote it!” 21. Further, in the presence of Ms. Castaneda, Managers Morcillo would regularly call female employees at Chipotle “bitches” and/or “these fuckin’ bitches!” They would also comment in Spanish, “estas pirche viejas,” which means “these fuckin’ women.” Nearly every day, Ms. Castaneda would ask Manager Morcillo not to disrespect females and to have more respect for them; Manager Morcillo would simply ignore her and say “whatever” as he walked away. 22. The Chipotle restaurant at the Waraer Center is near a gym. Women often enter the Chipotle in gym attire. Often, when an attractive woman would walk in, 5 PLAINTIFF ARIANA CASTANEDA’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 3 i, 33 oe aE com 818.788.1123, gtergtreo 10) 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 2 23 24 25 26 27 28 typically in gym clothes, General Manager Pablo Aguilar would rush to the back office to use the security cameras so he could gain an overhead view of the customer’s cleavage. He would also make comments such as “Oooh, look at that view” and “those are some nice tits.” 23. Managers Aguilar, Hernandez, Lee and Morcillo would frequently make inappropriate sexual remarks about female customers such as, “ooh look at that ass,” “check her out, she is fuckable,” “mamasit s” and “I'll bang that!” In the presence of Ms. Castaneda, the Managers would also lick their lips as they made these derogatory remarks. The Managers would also regularly issue a “Manager Comp” for meals if they thought the female customer was attractive. Ms. Castaneda would ask them to treat all females equal but the Managers would ignore her comments. 24. Manager Ruben Hernandez would also put his hand under Ms. Castaneda’s shirt in order to touch her back or waist after he touched ice or any other cold substance. Mr. Henandez’s touching occurred frequently and regularly in the presence of General Manager Pablo Aguilar, who would laugh at Ms. Castaneda’s startled reaction. 25. Manager Hernandez would also try to forcibly hug Ms. Castaneda. Ms, Castaneda would push him off and ask for him to stop touching her and to give her space, “can you please stop touching me” and “this is my bubble, so please don’t touch me.” 26. Sometimes when Ms. Castaneda arrived at work Managers Pablo Aguilar and Ruben Hernandez would make comments such as, “You look tired, did Tim [Ms. Castaneda’s husband] give you some last night?” And when Ms. Castaneda ignored these comments, the Managers would not let up and continued, “What, you didn’t give him some ...poor guy.” ae ‘On other occasions, Managers Pablo Aguilar and Ruben Hernandez asked Ms. Castaneda, “were you giving your husband too much head” when she would cough 6 PLAINTIFF ARIANA CASTANEDA’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES. Joshua Ritz & Associates 2 € g1ez/9ts or complain of a sore throat. Ms. Castaneda would constantly ask the Managers to stop acting like “pigs” and to respect her and other women. 28. As arresult of a medical procedure, Ms. Castaneda needs to urinate more frequently than the average person. Managers Pablo Aguilar, Ruben Hernandez and Erick Morcillo would constantly make fun of this medical condition; “You have to use the restroom again....I’m gonna have to buy you diapers!” Manager Ruben Hernandez would also tell Ms. Castaneda, “We are going to change the bathroom password daily so you don’t go use it so often.” Whenever Ms. Castaneda would rush to use the restroom, Manager Ruben Hernandez would yell, “It’s not my baby, is it?” 29. Onor about February 8, 2016, during the big national Chipotle meeting which was held at movie theaters nationwide, General Manager Aguilar yelled inside the theater to Ms. Castaneda, “You didn’t use the restroom the entire time; did you use a diaper?” Later that day, when Ms. Castaneda returned to work, she hurt her left arm, left shoulder and lower back when she fell while taking the trash out. She immediately reported the incident to General Manager Pablo Aguilar who ignored Ms. Castaneda’s need for medical attention and also failed to prepare an incident report or engage in an interactive process to determine the extent of her injuries. 30. On February 10, 2016, Ms. Castaneda returned to work after one day off. From the beginning of her shift, Manager Erick Morcillo questioned her about the validity of her injuries, “Are you really hurt or you are just being lazy?” and “Did you really hurt yourself or you are just bullshitting?” Manager Erick Morcillo also harassed her for being too slow in cutting the Jalapeno peppers and onions although he was fully aware that she was injured and in pain. Mr. Morcillo continued harassing Ms. Castaneda for not helping with lifting heavy boxes, throwing the trash and putting away supplies. He once again questioned the validity of her injuries, “Are you really hurt?” and “Just because you are a girl doesn’t mean you can do it; you can lift the boxes. Stop being lazy.” 7 PLAINTIFF ARIANA CASTANEDA’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES hua Ritz & Associates com 818.788.1123 2 3 a 31. Subsequently Manager Erick Morcillo took Ms. Castaneda into the office and disciplined her for not performing up to his expectations; “Why are you not performing?” and “You are not working good enough today and got everybody behind in the morning.” Ms. Castaneda again informed Erick Morcillo that she was injured and was in pain. In response, Erick Morcillo yelled at her and questioned her injuries, “You are not really injured” and “You are just talking out of your ass.” Ms. Castaneda reiterated the pain she felt, her injuries and her need for medical care. Manager Erick Morcillo kept yelling at her. 32. Ms. Castaneda decided to go home to rest because of the pain she was experiencing. Later that same day, Ms. Castaneda received a call from General Manager Pablo Aguilar who was inquiring about her condition and the verbal exchange she had with Manager Erick Morcillo. Ms. Castaneda explained to Pablo Aguilar what had occurred and again reiterated the extent of her injuries and need for rest. Ms. Castaneda also told General Manager Pablo Aguilar, “I’ve been putting up with so much harassment from all of you guys but you guys don’t care” and “you keep giving me the wrong size shirts and I only have one shirt which I wash every day” and “please just stop harassing me!” At that point Pablo Aguilar told her, “we can talk about that later, for now you are suspended” and “let me talk to Tony Valadez [District Manager] to see what he has to say about all this and I will call you back to see when you can come back to work” and hanged up the call. 33. Throughout the day Ms. Castaneda waited for General Manager Pablo Aguilar to call her back. She also texted him to see what determination District Manager Tony Valadez had made. When she didn’t hear from him, she checked her online Chipotle employee account and found out that she had been terminated from her employment. 34, Ms. Castaneda was wrongfully terminated on or about February 10, 2016. Mit Mt 8 PLAINTIFF ARIANA CASTANEDA’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Joshua Ritz & Associates 2 com 818.788.1123 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR HARASSMENT (HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT) AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS AND DOES 1 THROUGH 100 Government Code Sections 12940(j)(1), (3) 35. The allegations set forth in paragraphs | through 34 are realleged and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 36. _ Plaintiff was subjected to harassment by defendants Pablo Aguilar, Ruben Hernandez, Tommy Lee and Erick Morcillo on account of plaintiff's gender and actual and/or perceived disability. Defendants’ conduct created a hostile or abusive working, environment for plaintiff. 37. Atall relevant times, plaintiff was an employee of Chipotle. 38. _Atall relevant times, defendants Aguilar, Hernandez, Lee and Morcillo were Chipotle’s supervisors. Alternatively, Chipotle’s supervisors knew or should have known about the conduct by the Managers and failed to take immediate and appropriate corrective action. 39. The harassing conduct by defendants Aguilar, Hernandez, Lee and Morcillo was severe or pervasive. 40. A reasonable woman would have considered the work environment to be hostile or abusive. A reasonable person suffering an injury and enduring a chronic medical condition would have considered the work environment to be hostile or abusive. Plaintiff considered the work environment to be hostile or abusive. 41. The harassment includes the factual allegations contained in paragraphs 14 through 34 and is incorporated by reference herein. 42. Plaintiff has been harmed. Defendants Aguilar’s, Hernandez’s, Lee’s and Morcillo’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing plaintiff's harm. 43. As a proximate result of the harassment, Plaintiff has sustained losses in earnings and other employment benefits. 44. Asa proximate result of the harassment, plaintiff has suffered and 9 PLAINTIFF ARIANA CASTANEDA’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES. ‘Tetoshua Rite & Associates Attorneys-At-Law 7e0 91Qz/9t ee 10 ul 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19) 20) 21 22| 23 24 25 26) 27] 28 continues to suffer humiliation, emotional distress, mental and physical pain and anguish, pain and suffering, loss of sleep, loss of appetite, anxiety, depression and shame. 45. In light of the willful, knowing and intentional harassment, plaintiff seeks an award of punitive and exemplary damages in an amount according to proof at trial. 46. Plaintiff has incurred and continues to incur legal expenses and attorneys” fees. Plaintiff will seek the recovery of her attomeys’ fees and costs at the conclusion of, this lawsuit. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR QUID PRO QUO SEXUAL HARASSMENT AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS AND DOES 1 THROUGH 100 Government Code Sections 12940(j)(1), (3) 47. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 46 are realleged and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 48. Defendants Pablo Aguilar, Ruben Hernandez, Tommy Lee and Erick Morcillo made unwanted sexual advances to plaintiff or engaged in other unwanted verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature, Job benefits were conditioned, by words or conduct, on plaintiff's acceptance of defendants Aguilar’s, Hernandez’s, Lee’s and Morcillo’s sexual advances or conduct or employment decisions affecting plaintiff were made based on plaintiff's acceptance or rejection of defendants Aguilar’s, Hernandez’s, Lee’s and Morcillo’s sexual advances or conduct, 49. Plaintiff was subjected to sexual harassment by her supervisors, defendants Aguilar, Hernandez, Lee and Morcillo, Defendants’s conduct created a hostile or abusive working environment for Plaintiff. 50. Atal relevant times, plaintiff was an employee of Chipotle. 51. Atal relevant times, defendants Aguilar, Hernandez, Lee and Morcillo were plaintiff's supervisors employed by Chipotle. 52. The harassment includes the factual allegations contained in paragraphs 14 through 34 and is incorporated by reference herein. Plaintiff alleges her standing in the 10 PLAINTIFF ARIANA CASTANEDA’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES ‘.toshua Ritz & Associates Attorneys-At-Law g1azrgtr ce com 818.788.2123 So ew a aw uN 12 13 14 1s 16 7 18 19) 20 21 22 23 24 25 26: 27 28 workplace would have improved had she been receptive to the sexual harassment by defendants Aguilar, Hernandez, Lee and Morcillo, 53. Plaintiff was harmed. Defendants’ conduct was a substantial factor in causing plaintiffs harm, 54, As a proximate result of the sexual harassment, plaintiff has sustained losses in earnings and other employment benefits. 55. Asa proximate result of the sexual harassment, plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer humiliation, emotional distress, mental and physical pain and anguish, pain and suffering, loss of sleep, loss of appetite, anxiety, depression and shame. 56. _ In light of the willful, knowing and intentional sexual harassment, plaintiff seeks an award of punitive and exemplary damages in an amount according to proof at trial. 57. Plaintiff has incurred and continues to incur legal expenses and attorneys’ fees. Plaintiff will seek the recovery of her attorneys’ fees and costs at the conclusion of this lawsuit. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DISCRIMINATION (DISPARATE TREATMENT) AGAINST DEFENDANT CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC. AND DOES 1 THROUGH 100 58. The allegations set forth in paragraphs | through 57 are realleged and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 59. Plaintiff was treated differently on account of her gender and actual and/or perceived disability and later her medical condition. Plaintiff was otherwise subject to disparate treatment discrimination by defendants on account of her gender and actual and/or perceived disability and later medical condition. Plaintiff's gender and actual and/or perceived disability were and remain substantial motivating reasons for her disparate treatment, Because of plaintiff's protected categories, she has been subjected to different terms, conditions and/or privileges of employment that are adverse. Plaintiff's i PLAINTIFF ARIANA CASTANEDA’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES ‘T.Joshua Ritz & Associates [Attorneys-AtLaw wn hllp.com 818.788.1123, 910%/81/£8 So we waaweon uw 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 2 23 24 25 26 27 28 gender and actual and/or perceived disability and later her medical condition were substantial motivating reasons for the adverse employment conditions she has and continues to face. The adverse employment ac-ions taken against plaintiff include harassment, retaliation, denial of medical leave rights and reasonable accommodation and ultimately termination. 60. tall relevant times, plaintiff was an employee of Chipotle. Plaintiff was harmed. Defendant’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing plaintiff's harm. 61. As aproximate result of defendant's willful, knowing, and intentional discrimination against plaintiff, she has sustained and continues to sustain losses in earnings and other employment benefits 62. Asa proximate result of defendant’s willful, knowing, and intentional discrimination against plaintiff she has suffereé and continues to suffer emotional distress, mental and physical pain, anguish, pain and suffering, loss of sleep, loss of appetite, anxiety, depression and shame. 63. In light of the willful, knowing and intentional discrimination, plaintiff seeks an award of punitive and exemplary damages in an amount according to proof at trial, 64. Plaintiff has incurred and continues to incur legal expenses and attorneys” fees. Plaintiff will seek the recovery of her attcrneys’ fees and costs at the conclusion of this lawsuit. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR WITNESS TO SEXUAL HARASSMENT AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS AND DOES 1 THROUGH 100 Government Code Sections 12940(j)(1) and (3) 65. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 64 are realleged and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 66. Atall relevant times, plaintiff was an employee of defendant Chipotle. At a abs PLAINTIFF ARIANA CASTANEDA’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES. T.Joshua Ritz & Associates BRL 9T £8 won ehllp.com 818.788.1123 nea Se we aa all relevant times, defendants Pablo Aguilar, Ruben Hernandez, Tommy Lee and Erick Morcillo were plaintiff's supervisors. 67. Plaintiff personally witnessed sexually harassing conduct that took place in her immediate work environment. The sexual harassment consisted of a series of inappropriate sexual comments, touching, behavior and actions during her employment with the defendants. The sexual harassment that plaintiff essed in her immediate working environment includes the factual allegations contained in paragraphs 14 through 34 and is incorporated by reference herein. 68. The sexually harassing conduct by defendants Aguilar, Hernandez, Lee and Morcillo was severe or pervasive. A reasonable woman in plaintiff's position would have considered the conduct in the work environment to be hostile or abusive. Plaintiff considered her supervisors’ conduct to be hostile or abusive 69. Plaintiff was harmed. Defendants’ conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff's harm, 70. Asa proximate result of the hostiie work environment, plaintiff has sustained losses in earnings and other employment benefits. 71. Asa proximate result of the hostile work environment, plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer humiliation, emotional distress, mental and physical pain and anguish, pain and suffering, loss of sleep, loss of appetite, anxiety, depression and shame. 72. In light of the willful, knowing and intentional sexual harassment, plaintiff seeks an award of punitive and exemplary dameges in an amount according to proof at trial, 73. Plaintiff has incurred and continues to incur legal expenses and attorneys” fees. Plaintiff will seek the recovery of her atto-neys’ fees and costs at the conclusion of this lawsuit. Mu uM He) PLAINTIFF ARIANA CASTANEDA’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES ‘T.Joshua Ritz & Associates [Attorneys-AtLaw 1191/68 318 Bow we we aa 10) u 12) 13 14 15 16 7 18 19] 20| 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR ASSAULT AGAINST DEFENDANT RUBEN HERNANDEZ AND DOES 1 THROUGH 100 74. The allegations set forth in paragraphs | through 73 are realleged and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein, 75. Defendant Ruben Hernandez took actions resulting in offensive contact with plaintiff. 76. Defendant Ruben Hernandez deliberately touched plaintiff in an unwelcome or harmful manner. Defendant Hernandez’s actions and comments created an apprehension of imminent harmful contact: (a) Onat least four occasions, defendant Hernandez forcibly grabbed plaintiff ‘Ariana Castaneda in attempts to forcibly hug her as she squirmed out of his grasp; (6) Supervisor Hernandez would also put his hand under Ms. Castaneda’s shirt and touch her back and waist after he touched ice or any other cold substance; and (©) Supervisor Hernandez would regularly rub up against plaintiff's body as he walked by even though there was plenty of room to navigate without physically touching her. 71. Plaintiff has been harmed. Defendant’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing plaintifP’s harm. As a proximate result of defendant's willful, knowing, and intentional assault against plaintiff, she has sustained and continues to sustain losses in earnings and other employment benefits. 78. Asa proximate result of defendant’s willful, knowing, and intentional assault against plaintiff, she has suffered and continues to suffer emotional distress, mental pain, anguish, pain and suffering, loss of sleep, loss of appetite, all to her damage in a sum according to proof at trial. Mu il 14 PLAINTIFF ARIANA CASTANEDA’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. Joshua Ritz & Associates [Attorneys At-Law ww chllp.com 818.788.1123, g1OZ/ 98 Cea awe 79. In light of the willful, knowing and intentional assault, plaintiff seeks an award for punitive damages and exemplary damages in an amount according to proof at trial. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BATTERY AGAINST DEFENDANT RUBEN HERNANDEZ AND DOES 1 THROUGH 100 80. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 79 are realleged and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 81. Defendant Hernandez touched plaintiff in a harmful manner. Defendant Hernandez touched plaintiff while making sexually charged comments. On several occasions, defendant Hernandez forcibly hugged plaintiff Ariana Castaneda as she attempted to escape his grasp; he would also touch and caress her back and waist and regularly rub up against her. 82. Plaintiff did not consent to the touching. 83. Plaintiff was offended by defendant Hernandez’s touching. 84. A reasonable woman in plaintiff's situation would have been offended by the touching. 85. Plaintiff was harmed. 86. Defendant’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing plaintiff's harm. As a proximate result of defendant’s willful, knowing, and intentional battery against plaintiff, she has sustained and continues to sustain losses in earnings and other employment benefits. 87. Asa proximate result of defendant’s willful, knowing, and intentional battery against Plaintiff, she has suffered and continues to suffer emotional distress, mental and physical pain, anguii in and suffering, loss of sleep, loss of appetite, all to her damage in a sum according to proof. MW a PLAINTIFF ARIANA CASTANEDA’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES ‘Ttoshua Rite & Associates 2 2 a com 818.788.1123, 88. In light of the willful, knowing, and intentional battery, Plaintiff seeks an award of punitive and exemplary damages in an amount according to proof. SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR RETALIATION AGAINST DEFENDANT CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC. AND DOES 1 THROUGH 100 Government Code Section 12940(h) 89. The allegations set forth in paragraphs I through 88 are realleged and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 90. Plaintiff complained to her managers and supervisors about the harassment by defendants Aguilar, Hernandez, Lee and Morcillo. In her first complaint, plaintiff was ignored when voicing objections to the harassment, Subsequent complaints were similarly ignored. 91. Plaintiffs work conditions worsened after making her protected complaints. Plaintiff's work conditions became more hostile and she was ostracized at Chipotle as a complaining pariah. Plaintiff's protected complaints were a substantial motivating reason for the retaliatory measures taken against her including her termination. 92. Plaintiff was harmed. 93. Defendants retaliation was a substantial factor in causing her harm. 94. As a proximate result of defendant’s willful, knowing, and intentional retaliation against plaintiff, she has sustained and continues to sustain losses in earnings and other employment benefits. 95. Asa proximate result of defendant’s willful, knowing, and intentional retaliation against plaintiff she has suffered and continues to suffer emotional distress, mental and physical pain, anguish, pain and suffering, loss of sleep, loss of appetite, anxiety, depression and shame. Mt Mt 16 PLAINTIFF ARIANA CASTANEDA’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES “T.Joshua Ritz & Associates [Attorneys-At-Law STZ 91 £8 oe aan 10 u 12 13 4 15 16 7 18 19 20 2 2 23 24 25 26 2 28 96. Plaintiff has incurred and continues to incur legal expenses and attorneys? fees. Plaintiff will seek the recovery of her attorneys” fees and costs at the conclusion of this lawsuit. 97. In light of the willful, knowing, and intentional retaliation, Plaintiff seeks an award of punitive and exemplary damages in an amount according to proof. EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FAILURE TO PREVENT DISCRIMINATION, HARASSMENT AND RETALIATION AGAINST DEFENDANT CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC. AND DOES 1 THROUGH 100 Government Code Section 12940(k) 98. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 97 are realleged and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 99. Plaintiff was subjected to harassing conduct, discrimination and retaliation because of her gender and actual and/or perceived disability and later her medical condition. Defendant Chipotle failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the harassment, discrimination and retaliation plaintiff suffered. 100. Plaintiff was harmed. 101. Defendant's failure to take reasonable steps to prevent the discrimination, harassment and retaliation was a substantial factor in causing plaintiff's harm. 102. Asa proximate result of the failure to prevent discrimination, harassment and retaliation, plaintiff has sustained losses in earnings and other employment benefits. 103. Asa proximate result of the failure to prevent discrimination, harassment and retaliation, plaintiff has suffered and contines to suffer humiliation, emotional distress, mental and physical pain and anguish, >in and suffering, loss of sleep, loss of appetite, migraines, panic attacks, anxiety, depression and shame. 104. In light of the willful, knowing and intentional failure to prevent discrimination, harassment and retaliation, plaintiff seeks an award of punitive and exemplary damages in an amount according to proof at trial. 17 PLAINTIFF ARIANA CASTANEDA’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 7. Joshua Ritz & Associates [Attorneys-AtLaw grat gT/ eB 103. Plaintiff'has incurred and continues to incur legal expenses and attorneys’ fees, Plaintiff will seek the recovery of her attorneys’ fees and costs at the conclusion of this lawsuit. NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION, TRAINING AND RETENTION OF EMPLOYEES AGAINST DEFENDANT CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC. AND DOES 1 THROUGH 100 106. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 105 are realleged and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 107. Plaintiff Castaneda has been harmed because Chipotle negligently supervised, trained and retained employees Aguilar, Hernandez, Lee and Morcillo. 108. Defendants Aguilar, Hernandez, Lee and Morcillo were unfit to work in an environment requiring no harassment or discrimination. Chipotle knew or should have known these employees were unfit to remain an employee of Chipotle. 109. Plaintiff has been harmed. The unfitness of defendants Aguilar, Hernandez, Lee and Morcillo harmed plaintiff. 110. —Chipotle’s negligent supervision, training and retention of Aguilar, Hernandez, Lee and Morcillo were a substantial factor causing plaintiff's harm. 111, Plaintiff's damages include, but are not limited to, lost earnings, future earning capacity and other employment benefits. Plaintiff has also suffered and continues to suffer depression, anxiety, loss of sleep, depression, shame, loss of appetite, humiliation, emotional distress, pain and suffering, anxiety, depression and shame. Mt mM Mm" Mt Mt a 18 PLAINTIFF ARIANA CASTANEDA’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Joshua Ritz & Associates neys-At-Law w.schllp.com 838.788.1123 g1pz/ 91 ea a TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FAILURE TO REASONABLY ACCOMMODATE AGAINST DEFENDANT CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC. AND DOES 1 THROUGH 100 Government Code Section 12940(m) 112. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 111 are realleged and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 113. Atall relevant times, plaintiff Castaneda was an employee of defendant Chipotle, an employer subject to the provisions of the California Fair Employment & Housing Act. 114, On or about February 2016, plaintiff Castaneda began experiencing severe left arm, left shoulder and lower back pain following an incident where she fell while taking the trash out. 115. Plaintiff Castaneda was suffering an injury that qualifies as a disability under the Fair Employment & Housing Act. 116. Chipotle was aware Ms. Castaneda was suffering an injury that qualifies as, a disability as she notified General Manager Aguilar of the incident leading to her disability. 117. Plaintiff required accommodation in the form of time off to see a doctor and the avoidance of physical duties that would exacerbate her injury. 118. Plaintiff was able to perform the essential duties of her position with reasonable accommodation. Her general duties could have easily been accommodated as there were many other available employees who could have handled her tasks temporarily. Plaintiff was willing and able to perform all other duties and could have performed additional duties to facilitate other employees performing her tasks. 119. Plaintiff Castaneda was continually required to engage in physical duties which exacerbated her condition in violation of the only accommodation she was seeking, ae PLAINTIFF ARIANA CASTANEDA’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES. T Joshua Ritz & Associates, Attorneys-At-Law giargt£a 120. Defendant Chipotle failed to provide reasonable accommodation for plaintiff Castaneda’s temporary disability. Ms. Castaneda was forced to work without reasonable accommodation and was disciplined when she did not perform to Manager Morcillo’s expectations and ultimately wrongfully terminated, 121. Plaintiff Castaneda has been damaged. 122. Plaintiff's damages include, but are not limited to, lost earnings and other employment benefits. He has also suffered and continues to suffer humiliation, emotional distress, mental and physical pain and anguish, pain and suffering, all to her damage in a sum according to proof at trial. 123. Defendant Chipotle’s failure to provide reasonable accommodation was a substantial factor in causing plaintiff Castaneda’s harm. 124, Defendant Chipotle’s failure to accommodate plaintiff Castaneda was willful, knowing, and an intentional form of discrimination against plaintiff. Accordingly, plaintiff will seek punitive damages in an amount in accordance with proof atrial. 125. Plaintiff Castaneda has incurred and continues to incur legal expenses and attorneys’ fees. Plaintiff will seek recovery of her attorneys’ fees and costs at the conclusion of trial. ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FAILURE TO ENGAGE IN A GOOD-FAITH INTERACTIVE PROCESS AGAINST DEFENDANT CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC. AND DOES 1 THROUGH 100 Government Code Section 12940(n) 126. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 125 are realleged and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 127. Atall relevant times, plaintiff Castaneda was an employee of defendant Chipotle, an employer subject to the provisions of the California Fair Employment & Housing Act. Plaintiff Castaneda had a physical 20 lity and medical condition that PLAINTIFF ARIANA CASTANEDA’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, at @ www chip. com 818.788.1123 10 ul 12) 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2B 24 25 26 27 28 was known to defendant Chipotle, Ms. Castaneda immediately reported the incident to General Manager Aguilar who ignored Ms. Castaneda’s need for medical attention and also failed to prepare an incident report or engage in an interactive process to determine the extent of her injuries. 128. Plaintiff Castaneda requested defendant Chipotle provide reasonable medical care and some form of accommodation for her temporary disability and medical condition. Defendant Chipotle refused to accommodate her medical condition by modifying her non-essential duties. 129. Plaintiff Castaneda was at all relevant times willing to participate in an interactive process to determine whether reasonable accommodation could be made so that she would be able to perform the essential job requirements of her position at defendant Chipotle. 130. Defendant Chipotle failed to participate in a timely good-faith interactive process with plaintiff Castaneda to determine whether reasonable accommodation could be made. Rather than providing plaintiff the simple accommodation she required, defendant terminated her. 131. Despite its affirmative duty to do so, defendant Chipotle failed to engage in a timely, good-faith interactive process with plaintiff Castaneda about briefly excusing her from physical duties which exacerbated her condition. Rather than allowing plaintiff Castaneda to recover from her physical injuries and accommodating her by briefly reassigning her to other duties, defendant Chipotle wrongfully terminated plaintiff Castaneda. 132, Plaintiff Castaneda has been damaged. Plaintiff Castaneda’s damages include, but are not limited to, lost earnings and other employment benefits. She has also suffered and continues to suffer humiliation, emotional distress, mental and physical pain and anguish, and pain and suffering. 133. Defendant Chipotle’s failure to engage in an interactive process was a substantial factor in causing plaintiff Castaneda’s harm. 21 PLAINTIFF ARIANA CASTANEDA’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Joshua Rite & Associates Roos Ov cs aerns) 10 u 12 13 14! 15 16. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 134. Defendant Chipotle’s conduct was willful, knowing, and an intentional form of discrimination against plaintiff. Accordingly, plaintiff will seek punitive damages in an amount in accordance with proof at trial. 135. Plaintiff Castaneda has incurred and continues to incur legal expenses and attorneys’ fees. Plaintiff will seek recovery of her attorneys’ fees and costs at the conclusion of trial. TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR RETALIATION FOR EXERCISING RIGHTS UNDER THE CALIFORNIA FAMILY RIGHTS ACT (VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT § 12945.2(1)) AGAINST DEFENDANT CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC. AND DOES 1 THROUGH 100 136. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 135 are realleged and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 137. Defendant Chipotle retaliated against plaintiff Castaneda because she took or sought leave under the California Family Rights Act. 138. Atall relevant times, defendant Chipotle was an employer subject to the provisions of the California Family Rights Act. 139. Atall relevant times, plaintiff was employee eligible to take leave under the California Family Rights Act. 140. Plaintiff Castaneda exercised her right to take leave under the California Family Rights Act for a qualifying purpose. 141. Because Plaintiff Castaneda exercised her rights under the California Family Rights Act, she suffered adverse employment actions — including a hostile work environment. Had Plaintiff Castaneda not exercised her rights under the California Family Rights Act, these adverse actions would not have been taken against her. 142. Plaintiff Castaneda has been damaged. Her damages include, but are not limited to, lost earnings and other employment benefits. She has also suffered and 22 PLAINTIFF ARIANA CASTANEDA’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1|| continues to suffer humiliation, emotional distress, mental and physical pain and anguish, 2]] pain and suffering, loss of sleep, loss of appetite, migraines and panic attacks, all to her damage in a sum according to proof at trial. Bo 143, Defendant's retaliation was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff Castaneda’s harm. Plaintiff's request for medical leave and use of medical leave were substantial motivating reasons for the adverse employment actions taken against her. 144. In light of the willful, knowing and intentional retaliation, Plaintiff seeks an award of punitive and exemplary damages in an amount according to proof at trial. we we a om 145. Castaneda has incurred and continues to incur legal expenses and attorneys’ 10]| fees. Plaintiff will seek the recovery of her attorneys’ fees and costs at the conclusion of 11]| this lawsuit. 12 ‘THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION j 13 FOR DENIAL OF RIGHTS UNDER THE CALIFORNIA. : 14|| FAMILY RIGHTS ACT AGAINST DEFENDANT CHIPOTLE MEXICAN z 15 GRILL, INC. AND DOES 1 THROUGH 100 i 16 146, The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 145 are realleged and 17|| incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 18 147. Atall relevant times, defendant Chipotle was an employer covered by the 19|| California Family Rights Act. 20 148. Atall relevant times, Plaintiff Castaneda was an employee eligible to exercise medical leave under the California Family Rights Act. 149. Plaintiff Castaneda sought to exercise her rights to take medical leave under the California Family Rights Act for qualifying purposes. Plaintiff took medical leave herself attributable to her medical reasons, which include but are not limited to the 25|| injuries suffered as a result of her fall. 91 & 150. Plaintiff Castaneda provided reasonable notice of her medical injuries. THU 9 £0 _ 27|| Defendant Chipotle discouraged her from exercising her rights under the California 28|| Family Rights Act. 23 PLAINTIFF ARIANA CASTANEDA’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, joshua Ritz & Associates 2 a wa we So we aa MW 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20} 21 22 23 24| 25 26' 27) 28 151. Plaintiff Castaneda has been damaged. Her damages include, but are not limited to, lost earnings and other employment benefits. She has also suffered and continues to suffer humiliation, emotional distress, mental and physical pain and anguish, pain and suffering, loss of sleep, loss of appetite, migraines and panic attacks, all to her damage in a sum according to proof at trial. 152. Defendant’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff Castaneda’s harm. 153. Defendant’s conduct was intentional and malicious. Plaintiff Castaneda will seek an award of punitive and exemplary damages in an amount according to proof at trial. 154, Castaneda has incurred and continues to incur legal expenses and attorneys” fees. Plaintiff will seek the recovery of her attorneys’ fees and costs at the conclusion of this lawsuit. FOURTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS AND DOES 1 THROUGH 100 155. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 154 are realleged and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 156. Defendants intended to cause plaintiff emotional distress, or at a minimum, acted with reckless disregard of the probability that plaintiff would suffer emotional distress. 157. Plaintiff has suffered severe emotional distress and physical manifestations of that emotional distress. 158. Defendants’ conduct was a substantial factor in causing plaintiff's severe emotional distress. 159, Plaintiff's damages include, but are not limited to, lost earnings, future earning capacity and other employment benefits. Plaintiff has also suffered and continues to suffer depression, anxiety, loss of sleep, depression, shame, loss of appetite, 24 PLAINTIFF ARIANA CASTANEDA’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES “Joshua Ritz & Associates [Attorneys-At-Law giersgir ta wie wn So ara W 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 2 2 23 24 25 26 27 28 humiliation, emotional distress, pain and suffering, anxiety, depression and shame. 160. In light of the willful, knowing and intentional infliction of emotional distress, plaintiff seeks an award of punitive and exemplary damages in an amount according to proof. FIFTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR VIOLATION OF ARTICLE I, SECTION 8 OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION AGAINST DEFENDANT CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC. AND DOES 1 THROUGH 100 161. The allegations set forth in paragraphs | through 160 are realleged and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 162. Article I, Section 8 of the California Constitution provides that A person may not be disqualified from entering or pursuing a business, profession, vocation, or employment because of sex, race, creed, color, or national or ethnic or 163. Plaintiff was harassed, discriminated against and retaliated against because of her gender and pregnancy. This intentional misconduct violates Article I, Section 8 of the California Constitution. 164. Plaintiff has been damaged. 165. Plaintiffs damages include, but are not limited to, lost earnings, future earning capacity and other employment benefits. Plaintiff has also suffered and continues to suffer depression, anxiety, loss of sleep, depression, shame, loss of appetite, humiliation, emotional distress, pain and suffering, anxiety, depression and shame. 166. Defendant’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing plaintiff's harm. 167. In light of defendant's willful, knowing and intentional discrimination against plaintiff, plaintiff seeks an award of punitive and exemplary damages in an amount according to proof at trial. Ml MW pis PLAINTIFF ARIANA CASTANEDA’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES ‘TJoshua Rite & Associates ‘Attorneys-At-Law gtazrgty £0 ym 818.788.1123 we a an een 10 u 12 13 14) 1S 16 7 18 19 20 = 2 2B 4 25 26 27 28 SIXTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR WRONGFUL TERMINATION IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY AGAINST DEFENDANT CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC. AND DOES 1 THROUGH 100 168. The allegations set forth in paragraphs | through 167 are realleged and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 169. Plaintiff was wrongfully terminated. Plaintiff's wrongful termination was substantially motivated by her gender, her complaints concerning sexual harassment and her refusal to consent or otherwise acquiesce to the legally actionable misconduct detailed in paragraphs 14 through 34. Plaintiff was also wrongfully terminated because of her actual and/or perceived disability and/or medical condition, her need for medical leave, her exercise of medical leave rights and her need for brief, reasonable accommodation. Plaintiff's wrongful termination violates the public policies contained in the California Fair Employment & Housing Act, including the California Family Rights Act, and Article I, Section 8 of the California Constitution. 170. Plaintiff Ariana Castaneda has suffered and continues to suffer harm due to the wrongful discharge. 171. Defendants’ wrongful termination of plaintiff Ariana Castaneda is a substantial factor in causing her harm. As a proximate result of the wrongful termination, plaintiff has sustained losses in earnings and other employment benefits. As a proximate result of the wrongful termination, plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer humiliation, emotional distress, mental and physical pain and anguish, pain and suffering, loss of sleep, anxiety, depression and shame. 172. In light of defendants’ wrongful termination of plaintiff, plaintiff seeks an award of punitive and exemplary damages in an amount according to proof at trial. REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL 173, Plaintiff requests a trial by jury. Mt 26 PLAINTIFF ARIANA CASTANEDA’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES. T. Joshua Rit & Associates [Attormeys-At-Law com 818.788.1123, gtOz gir £8 ame onnens) So ew aa i 12) 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 22 — m4 — 26 27 28 PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Ariana Castaneda prays for judgment, including joint and several liability, against each Defendant as follows: 1. For compensatory damages, including lost wages (back pay and prospective compensation), employment benefits and medical expenses according to proof on each cause of action; For mental and emotional distress damages on each cause of action; For punitive damages; For attorneys’ fees; For an award of interest, including prejudgment interest, at the legal rate; For costs of suit incurred; and BI GS Pl p> to i For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and appropriate. DATE: March 16, 2016 T. JOSHUA RITZ & ASSOCIATES BY: T_JOSHUA ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF ARIANA CASTANEDA 27 PLAINTIFF ARIANA CASTANEDA’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES DEPARTMENT OF FaiR EMPLOYMENT & HOUSING DIRECTOR KEW Kis scneeeseser Tod a0070023000 wwwmeh gov ema orate @dehcagov March 15, 2016 RE: Notice of Filing of Discrimination Complaint DFEH Matter Number: 738387-216221 Right to Sue: CASTANEDA / CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC. To All Respondent(s): Enclosed is a copy of a complaint of discrimination that has been filed with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) in accordance with Government Code section 12960. This constitutes service of the complaint pursuant to Government Code section 12962. The complainant has requested an authorization to file a lawsuit. This case is not being investigated by DFEH and is being closed immediately. A copy of the Notice of Case Closure and Right to Sue is enclosed for your records. Please refer to the attached complaint for a list of all responcent(s) and their contact information, No response to DFEH is requested or required. Sincerely, Department of Fair Employment and Housing waauwee 10 Ww 12 B 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 2 2 g1ez/9tr ea COMPLAINT OF EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION BEFORE THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING Under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.) in the Matter of the Complaint of DFEH No. 738387-216221 |ARIANA CASTANEDA, Complainant. 14724 Ventura Blvd, Suite 510 [Sherman Oaks, California 91403 vs. CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC., Respondent. 16443 Canoga Avenue [Woodland Hills, California 91367 Complainant alleges: 1. Respondent CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC. is a subject to suit under the California Fait Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq). Complainant believes respondent is subject to the FEHA. 2. On or around February 10, 2016, complainant alleges that respondent took the following adverse actions against complainant: Discrimination, Harassment, Retaliation Asked impermissible non-job-related questions, Denied a good faith interactive process, Denied a work environment free of discrimination and/or retaliation, Denied employment, Denied family care or medical leave, Denied reasonable accommodation, Denied reinstatement, Terminated, . Complainant believes respondent committed these actions because of their: Disability, Engagement in Protected Activity, Family Care or Medical Leave, Medical Condition - including Cancer, Sex- Gender 3. Complainant ARIANA CASTANEDA resides in the City of Sherman Oaks, State of Cali ‘complaint includes co-respondents please see below. if 5. Complaint = DFEH No. 738387 216227 Date Filed: March 15, 2016 Card awe S Co-Respondents: PABLO AGUILAR (6443 Canoga Avenue Woodland Hills California 91367 RUBEN HERNANDEZ 6443 Canoga Avenue Woodland Hills Arizona 91367 ‘TOMMY LEE 6443 Canoga Avenue Woodland Hills Califomia 91367 ERICK MORCILLO 6443 Canoga Avenue Woodland His Califomia 91367 Complaint = DFEH No. 738587 216221 Date Filed March 15, 2016 ware u 12 13 4 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 22 Additional Complaint Details: Plaintiff Ariana Castaneda began working for Chipotle on or about December 2013. She worked at several Chipotle locations and was working at the Warner Center site since May 2015 when she was wrongfully terminated February 10, 2016. Ms. Castanedas initial position with Chipotle was Kitchen Prep. She received positive performance reviews, and after holding several other positions, was eventually promoted to Kitchen Lead. Ms. Castanedas direct supervisors were General Manager Pablo Aguilar, Supervisor Ruben Hernandez, Service Manager Tommy Lee and Service Manager Erick Morcillo (the Managers). Since arriving at the Warner Center Chipotle location, Ms. Castaneda faced harassment and discrimination on account of her gender and later her medical condition. As a Kitchen Lead, Ms. Castaneda was required to wear a different uniform, which General Manager Patlo Aguilar was required to provide. On multiple occasions, Pablo Aguilar purposely order2d a black uniform shirt for Ms. Castaneda that was several sizes too small so that the shirt would be very tight fiting, Ms. Castaneda specifically requested an extra-large shirt, which would have been an appropriate size for her. When she complained to Mr. Aguilar about the shirt size, Mr. Aguilar responded, Try it on anyways! Then Mr. Aguilar inquired whether Ms. Castaneda was unhappy with the shirt by stating, Is it because your tits are too big? Ms. Castaneda told Mr. Aguilar to stop speaking to her in that manner and to order her the proper fitting shirt she had requested. Subsequently, Pablo Aguilar again ordered a shirt that was a smaller size than Ms. Castaneda had requested and again harassed Ms, Castaneda for having large breasts. General Manager Pablo Aguilar then encouraged Supervisor Hernandez to plead with Ms. Castaneda by telling her, Come on let me see how that fits you, and It doesnt fit because your boobs are too big, huh? Then, Mr. Aguilar and Mr. Hernandez both announced, her tits are too big, as they laughed and called other managers to tell them how Ms. Castanedas breasts were too large for the Chipotle uniform, Look it doesnt fit her because her boobs are too big and her tits are too big! Though it was apparent Ms. Castaneda would not fit into the uniform shirt that had been ordered, General Manager Pablo Aguilar would continue insisting Ms. Castaneda try on the shirt to see how it fits. Ms, Castaneda protested and asked for the taunting to stop. Ms. Castaneda called the Managers pigs for continuing to discuss her breast size and pleading with her to try on a shirt that was too small for her. Managers Erick Morcillo and Tommy Lee would use cerogatory names for female ‘employees in the presence of Ms. Castaneda. Managers Morcillo and Lee would regularly make inappropriate remarks about a former employee named Sabrina who they called big boob Sabrina! They would also make comments such as, Did you see Sabrina, the one with the big boobs. Managers Morcil o and Lee also regularly mocked Sabrina because of a yelp review where a former customer left a negative remark about her, Did you see what they wrote about Sabrina, not even because she had big tits did they write something good about her. Must have beer a bitch who wrote it! Further, in the presence of Ms. Castaneda, Managers Morcillo would regularly call female a ‘plant = DFEH No, 798387 21622 Date Filed March 15,2016 i §toz/s1se0 employees at Chipotle bitches and/or these fuckin bitches! They would also comment in Spanish, estas pinche viejas, which means this fuc

    You might also like