Question

Case Application 5-B

ENORMOUS SETTLEMENT WITH FIRED MANAGER PROVIDES LESSONS FOR CHIPOTLE

“She's the American Dream. Just a hard‐working person, and when you call somebody a thief, you destroy their life. You're not going to be able to get a job anywhere with that label hanging over your head,” according to the attorney for Jeanette Ortiz after the long‐time Chipotle general manager was fired for stealing $636.

Jeanette Ortiz worked an average of 50 hours a week for 14 years at Chipotle. She earned $72,000 a year and was up for a promotion that would earn $100,000 a year when she was fired. The previous month, an armored car that was supposed to pick up large bills didn't show up. Ortiz put the money in an envelope and stapled it shut. She contacted the corporate office about the extra money and locked it in a safe located below a security camera. A few weeks later, she texted three superiors to tell them that the money was missing.

A manager looked at the surveillance video from the camera above the safe and determined that Ortiz took the money and put it in her backpack. When Ortiz asked to see the video, she was told that it was against company policy, although there was no actual written policy to that effect.

Ortiz denied the claims and suspected that she had been framed for the theft in retaliation for a worker's compensation claim she had filed for an injured wrist about the same time. When she filed the claim, her supervisor asked her to minimize the injury so her doctor wouldn't require her to take medical leave. Ortiz refused to lie to her doctor and took the medical leave. She was notified about the theft and fired while on medical leave.

Chipotle offered $1,000 to drop her claim of retaliation and wrongful dismissal. She refused. When the case went to court two years later, Chipotle claimed that it had lost the surveillance video. Managers had also deleted text messages concerning her firing and notes about the theft had been lost. There were discrepancies about the date that the money went missing that couldn't be cleared up due to the missing video.

The jury deliberated only four hours before ruling that Ortiz was not a thief and had been framed by Chipotle management in retaliation for her worker's compensation claim. She was awarded $6 million for emotional distress and $1.97 million for loss of past and future wages. She was also entitled to punitive damages, which were settled out‐of‐court.⁵²

Questions

1. After examining the “factors to consider when disciplining” and the “Hot‐Stove Rule” in Chapter 5, do you think that Chipotle adequately considered these in firing Ortiz? What elements were most important to your decision? (LO 6)

Answer 1

The case clearly reveals that it's a pure case of framing the employee for her refusal to favor the interest of the management and also going against it. It is pointless even to discuss whether Chipotle management has examined the factors to be considered while disciplining and the Hot stove rule. They didn't even had the common sense to think about the after effects of unnecessarily blaming and employee for the crime she has not committed. Even a normal individual with common sense can understand that there is no need for a person to steal $636, that too when she is waiting for a promotion which will fetch her a salary of $1 million. They themselves have agreed that the extra money was kept in the shelf below the security camera. Why would a person with an intention to steal the money keep the same money below the security camera? As a part of the domestic inquiry when Ortiz asked for the footage of the CCTV camera, she was refused the same too. And later on informing the jury that the all evidences against her including the video footage is missing clearly reveals that it's a pure case of victimization for Ortiz's non cooperation with the demands of the management.

As mentioned earlier, there is no consideration of any disciplinary procedure as well as the hot stove rule when the whole case is faked. It is clear that the management has tried to book Ortiz, but her confidence on self made the management ended with paying a huge sum of compensation. It is to be remembered that victimizing employees on the ground of baseless claims will land the management in trouble and as in this case they will incur a huge financial burden too. When ever there is a difference opinion between the management and the employee on any terms of employment, it is better to discuss and finish the matter between them than getting through unethical ways.