Facts

Lucia Cortez filed suit against Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc. and Chipotle Services LLC in relation to the termination of her employment.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff, 29, was an assistant store manager at a Chipotle in Granada Hills, and employee of Chipotle for nearly eight years. In 2016, plaintiff took an unpaid leave after suffering a miscarriage, diagnosis of major depression and anxiety disorder, resulting from the miscarriage. She subsequently requested additional time off to attend the first-available appointment with her medical provider so that she could obtain a different prescription to remedy her continuing symptoms. Plaintiff claimed Chipotle granted the extension, but then rescinded it and fired her for failure to return from leave. Cortez claimed she was fired because of her disability and/or in retaliation for taking leave time, instead of being accommodated. Cortez further contended that she did not return from leave because Chipotle granted her an extension of her leave and refused to allow her to return after Chipotle rescinded that extension. Cortez also contended that Chipotle never advised her that the medical documentation she submitted was insufficient and failed to provide her with an opportunity to provide additional medical documentation.

Cortez alleged claims for pregnancy/disability discrimination, retaliation, failure to prevent discrimination, wrongful termination, failure to accommodate, and failure to engage in the interactive process.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Chipotle contended that it granted Cortez a leave of absence longer than was protected under either the FMLA or the CFRA. Despite, this plaintiff never provided any documentation to substantiate a medical need for the leave.

Chipotle contended that when plaintiff requested futher leave, Cortez did not have medical documentation describing the need for more time off. Similarly, Chipotle contended that Cortez communicated to the manager that she might not be medically approved to return to work and as such, Chipotle asked for documentation from her doctor describing her inability to work, which was never provided. Moreover, Chipotle contended that she did not provide a doctor's note clearing her to return to work. As a result, Chipotle contended that the position needed to be filled and she was terminated for failing to return to work after the expiration of her approved leave.

Result

The jury rendered a verdict in favor of Chipotle.

Deliberation

four hours