Guzman v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.

Background

Adriana Guzman, Juan Pablo Aldana Lira, and Jonathan Poot moved to certify a class in their employment-discrimination case against Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. and Chipotle Services, LLC. The plaintiffs asserted claims under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act for disparate-treatment discrimination, disparate-impact discrimination, racial or national-origin harassment, failure to prevent discrimination and harassment, and retaliation.

For class-certification purposes, the plaintiffs focused on two alleged policies: an unwritten English-only policy that prohibited employees from speaking Spanish in the workplace, and a promotion policy requiring employees to demonstrate a subjective level of English proficiency before becoming eligible for management positions. They proposed a class of current and former hourly employees who were Hispanic or of Mexican national origin and worked at Chipotle restaurants in California from November 14, 2011, until the case was resolved. The parties agreed that the proposed class included approximately 43,000 employees at about 400 California restaurants.

Other rulings in the order

The court granted the plaintiffs’ request for judicial notice of documents from other proceedings, but stated that it would not treat allegations in those documents as established facts. The court also struck the defendants’ separate evidentiary objections because they did not comply with the court’s local rules, and it did not consider those objections in deciding the motion.

Standing and class definition

The defendants argued that the named plaintiffs lacked constitutional standing because they were not injured by the alleged policies. The court rejected that argument for this stage of the case. It found that the plaintiffs’ declarations described alleged discrimination and harassment, including restrictions on speaking Spanish and difficulties obtaining promotions because of English-language skills. The court therefore found that the plaintiffs had shown enough injury to proceed with the Rule 23 analysis.

The defendants also argued that the proposed class was too broad because some Hispanic or Mexican-national-origin employees might speak English fluently, speak only English, or prefer to speak English. The court treated that argument as part of its analysis of commonality and typicality rather than as a separate barrier to certification.

Rule 23 analysis

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 requires a proposed class to satisfy four requirements: numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation. The plaintiff must also satisfy at least one additional requirement under Rule 23(b), such as showing that common issues predominate over individual issues and that a class action is the superior method of resolving the dispute.

The court found that numerosity was satisfied because the proposed class included more than 40,000 people. It found, however, that the plaintiffs did not establish commonality or typicality.

For commonality, the plaintiffs needed significant proof that Chipotle operated under a general policy of discrimination that could be evaluated for the class as a whole. The court found that the evidence concerning the English-only policy consisted primarily of the experiences of eight declarants and several people involved in other lawsuits. The declarants described different restrictions: some were told they could not speak Spanish at all, some were restricted only in particular situations, and at least one was not prohibited from speaking Spanish but was questioned about handling orders in English. The court concluded that these differing accounts showed managerial discretion and variation among restaurants, not a standardized company-wide policy.

The court reached a similar conclusion about the alleged promotion policy. The plaintiffs offered language-program materials and employee accounts, but the materials did not identify which positions required English proficiency, what level of proficiency was required, or when an employee could be denied promotion because of language skills. The evidence also showed that managers decided what proficiency was needed and how it would be evaluated, without a written policy or consistent framework. The court found that employees in only four of the 400 California restaurants had provided evidence that managers told them they needed to improve their English to be promoted.

The court also found that typicality was not established. The three named plaintiffs worked at the same restaurant under the same general managers during overlapping periods, while the proposed class covered employees at hundreds of restaurants. Even the named plaintiffs described different experiences concerning when they could speak Spanish and how English proficiency affected promotions. Because the plaintiffs had not shown that the proposed class members were exposed to the same policies or conduct, the court could not conclude that the named plaintiffs’ experiences were typical of the class.

The defendants challenged adequacy of representation based on the fact that some named plaintiffs or declarants eventually held supervisory positions. The court found no factual or legal basis to conclude that the named plaintiffs had a conflict of interest with other class members. The court did not identify adequacy as a reason to deny certification, but it ultimately found that commonality and typicality were not satisfied.

Because the plaintiffs failed to satisfy commonality under Rule 23(a), the court did not need to complete the second part of the certification analysis under Rule 23(b). The court nevertheless noted that the more demanding predominance requirement under Rule 23(b)(3) also was not satisfied because common issues did not predominate over individualized questions.

Disposition

Judge Gilliam denied the motion for class certification. The order did not decide whether Chipotle violated California law or whether the alleged policies were discriminatory or harassing. The court set a further case-management conference for February 11, 2020, at 2:00 p.m.