Sousa v. Chipotle Services, LLC.
No. 25-2008. 3/2/2026. D.N.M. Judge McHugh. New Mexico Human Rights Act—Age Discrimination—Pretext—Summary Judgment.
March 2, 2026
In 2019, Chipotle Services, LLC (Chipotle) hired 54-year-old Sousa as a field leader, a position that reports to a team director. When he was hired, Sousa had over 35 years of experience in the restaurant industry. During Sousa’s tenure as a field leader, he was responsible for overseeing between six to nine Chipotle restaurants in New Mexico. In 2021, Sousa began reporting to team director Hannan, who was about five years younger than Sousa. In February 2022, Sousa received an employee award and an annual review of “Meets Expectations.” But shortly thereafter, a Chipotle employee reported a substantial roach infestation at one of Sousa’s restaurants. From March 21 through March 24, 2022, two different Chipotle facilities specialists conducted site audits of four restaurants under Sousa’s responsibility, which all failed to meet Chipotle’s cleanliness standards, though they each received a passing score overall and had no observed pest activity. On March 28, 2022, Hannan met with Sousa and gave him a form terminating Sousa’s employment, indicating that the reason for the termination was “Food Safety Standards.” The termination form documented three prior verbal warnings Hannan had given to Sousa and reported details about Hannan’s conversations with Sousa regarding the cleanliness problems. Hannan also gave Sousa two documents marked “Final Warning,” which contained similar information to the termination notice. Sousa filed a complaint against Chipotle in state court, alleging that Chipotle violated his rights under the New Mexico Human Rights Act (the Act) by discriminating against him due to his age. Chipotle removed the action to the federal district court pursuant to the court’s diversity jurisdiction. Chipotle subsequently moved for summary judgment, arguing that the undisputed evidence showed that Sousa was terminated for not maintaining food safety standards and for failing to keep his restaurants clean. The district court granted the motion and dismissed Sousa’s claims with prejudice.
On appeal, Sousa contended that a reasonable jury could find that Hannan’s professed reason for terminating him was pretextual based on Hannan’s decision to give Sousa two documents marked “Final Warning” at the same time as his termination form. Sousa asserted that Hannan’s creation of these documents made his credibility doubtful, because a jury could infer that Hannan created these records to give the false appearance that he had given Sousa multiple chances to improve his conduct when Hannan had not. The New Mexico Supreme Court applies the test under McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802–05 (1973), to analyze discrimination claims under the Act. Under McDonnell Douglas, the plaintiff must present a prima facie case of discrimination. If the plaintiff meets this burden, the employer must then articulate a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for its actions, and if it does so, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to show that the employer’s justification is pretextual. The parties did not dispute that Sousa can make a prima facie case of discrimination or that Chipotle put forth a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for his termination, so this appeal turned on the pretext issue. Here, Sousa presented no evidence to contradict Hannan’s testimony that he created the two final warnings on the advice of the human resources (HR) department, so Hannan’s undisputed testimony on this point must be accepted as true. Further, Sousa did not argue that the HR representative instructed Hannan to create the final warnings as a pretext for age discrimination. Therefore, Sousa did not show that a jury could infer pretext based on the two final warnings he received simultaneously with his termination notice. Sousa thus did not present sufficient evidence of pretext to survive summary judgment.
Sousa also argued that because he presented evidence of two other employees who were accused of similar misconduct but not disciplined, the district court was required to deny the summary judgment motion and allow the jury to decide whether he was similarly situated to these other employees. However, Sousa did not present sufficient evidence to show that he was treated differently than similarly situated employees.
Sousa further contended that Chipotle’s termination of field worker Rodriguez, in combination with his own termination, demonstrates a pattern of age discrimination. Hannan terminated 55-year-old Rodriguez’s employment on January 6, 2022. Here, the undisputed record evidence establishes that Rodriguez was terminated after one of the stores she was responsible for experienced an “extraordinary and unusual” pest infestation involving thousands of cockroaches. And Sousa did not dispute that a pest infestation of this magnitude is a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for a field leader to be terminated. Accordingly, Sousa’s pattern evidence did not show disparate treatment between comparable individuals and was thus insufficient to defeat summary judgment.
Sousa additionally asserted that a jury could infer pretext based on the disproportionate response of his termination compared to his overall outstanding job performance. A company is allowed to exercise its judgment when determining how severely to discipline an employee for different types of conduct, and the relevant inquiry is not whether an employer’s proffered reasons were correct but whether the employer honestly believed those reasons and acted in good faith. Here, no evidence supports an inference that Hannan did not honestly believe the reasons he gave for terminating Sousa. Nor is there evidence that Chipotle’s policies support lesser discipline than termination for a field leader who has experienced a persistent pest problem in one restaurant and widespread cleanliness issues in other restaurants. Therefore, the Tenth Circuit declined to second-guess Chipotle’s business judgment that the pest and cleanliness problems at Sousa’s stores warranted termination despite his previous high performance.
Lastly, Sousa argued that the summary judgment evidence, considered as a whole, gave rise to an inference that Hannan used the pest and cleanliness issues at Sousa’s stores as a pretext for age discrimination. However, Sousa failed to produce sufficient evidence from which a jury could reasonably find that Hannan did not terminate him based on the undisputed pest and cleanliness problems at his stores but instead terminated him based on his age.
The summary judgment was affirmed.