1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.:

TEDEISHA FOLKES

Plaintiff,

v.

CHIPOTLE SERVICES, LLC

a Foreign Limited Liability Company

Defendant.

___________________________________________/

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, TEDEISHA FOLKES (hereinafter, “FOLKES” or “Plaintiff”), by and through 

her undersigned attorney, hereby files this Complaint against CHIPOTLE SERVICES, LLC

(hereinafter “Chipotle” or “Defendant”) and says:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This is an action for damages and other relief based on unlawful employment 

practices committed by Defendant pursuant to the Florida Civil Rights Act (“FCRA”), Fla. Stat. 

§ 760.01 et seq. (2017), the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act (“ADAAA”), 42 

U.S.C. § 12101, et seq. and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq.

(“Title VII”).

2. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 

U.S.C. § 1367.

3. Venue is proper in the Southern District of Florida because Plaintiff was 

employed by Defendant in this District; because Defendant, at all material times, conducted and 

continues to conduct business in the Southern District of Florida; because the acts that give rise 

Case 0:20-cv-61139-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2020 Page 1 of 15
2

to Plaintiff’s claims occurred within the Southern District of Florida; pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 

1391(b) and (c); and because Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction herein.

4. All conditions precedent to this action have been performed or waived.

PARTIES

5. Plaintiff is a member of a class protected under the FCRA, and ADAAA because 

the terms, conditions, and privileges of her employment were altered because of her 

disability/handicap. Further, Plaintiff was denied a reasonable accommodation. 

6. Plaintiff is a female who complained about sexual harassment and was subjected

to retaliation. She is therefore a member of a class protected under Title VII and the FCRA 

because the terms, conditions, and privileges of her employment were altered because of her sex, 

female, and in retaliation for complaints she made. 

7. Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of the Southern District of Florida, over the age 

of eighteen years and otherwise sui juris. 

8. Defendant is a Foreign Limited Liability Company registered to do business 

within Florida, with its principal place of business in California. Defendant has, at all times 

material hereto, conducted substantial and continuous business within the Southern District of 

Florida, and is subject to the laws of the United States and the State of Florida. 

9. Defendant has, at all times material, employed 15 or more employees for each 

working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding year in 

accordance with the Title VII, the FCRA and the ADAAA. 

10. Plaintiff has exhausted her administrative remedies by filing a timely charge of 

discrimination (“Charge”) against Defendant with the Equal Employment Opportunity 

Case 0:20-cv-61139-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2020 Page 2 of 15
3

Commission (“EEOC”) which was dually filed with the Florida Commission on Human 

Relations. 

11. Plaintiff’s Charge was filed on or about September 12, 2019, which was no more 

than 300 days after the last discriminatory event occurred, to wit: September 5, 2019. 

12. EEOC terminated its processing of the charge within 180 days of the filing of the 

charge. 

13. Plaintiff was issued a Notice of Right to Sue on or about March 13, 2020. The

Notice is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

14. Plaintiff began working for Defendant in December 2018 until her termination on 

or about September 5, 2019.

15. Plaintiff started working in Defendant’s location at 4850 N Federal Hwy, Fort 

Lauderdale, FL 33308 (“Store 1”), where Plaintiff injured her wrists and hands twice on the job 

between February 2019 and March 2019. 

16. Plaintiff immediately started treatment when her doctor ordered work limitations, 

including but not limited to, not putting her hands in the water, not lifting heavy items and not 

climbing ladders. 

17. Plaintiff showed her doctor’s note to Ramona Tenants, the General Manager for 

Store 1, who advised Plaintiff that Store 1 would not accept the note and would not 

accommodate Plaintiff’s injuries. 

18. Ramona then sent Plaintiff home because there was no position for Plaintiff in 

Store 1 due to her injury, after which Plaintiff was transferred to another location of Chipotle, at 

4220 N State Road 7, Coral Springs, FL 33073 (“Store 2”).

Case 0:20-cv-61139-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2020 Page 3 of 15
4

19. Upon the transfer to Store 2, Plaintiff showed the doctor’s note to different 

managers, hoping to get some accommodations, but all of them advised Plaintiff that Store 2 

would not take the note and therefore would not accommodate her injuries. 

20. In order to perform her job, Plaintiff had no choice but to wash the dishes, lift 

items heavier than her limitations, and climb ladders, to the detriment of her health. 

21. Jamal Daley was one of the managers at Store 2, who started harassing Plaintiff 

on the basis of her gender since the beginning of Plaintiff’s employment at Store 2. 

22. Jamal brushed against Plaintiff whenever he had the chance and he would yell at 

Plaintiff for no obvious reasons. 

23. In or about July 2019, Plaintiff started to complain about Jamal’s harassment to

other managers, Human Resources Department and Field Leaders; specifically, Jermaine Turner, 

the Field Manager, and Derik Shambaugh, the Director of the Team. 

24. Derik advised Plaintiff that the team would look into the issues and get back to 

her and Jermaine advised Plaintiff that Jamal would be reprimanded. 

25. Jamal was never reprimanded and his harassment continued. 

26. Meanwhile, Defendant’s field leaders repeatedly requested Plaintiff to resign but 

Plaintiff did not, due to her need of the job. 

27. On or about September 5, 2019, Jamal started to yell at Plaintiff and picking on 

Plaintiff since she walked in the door. 

28. Plaintiff was serving customers as usual, but Jamal would not stop picking on her, 

which was interrupting Plaintiff’s job. 

29. Plaintiff asked Jamal to stop yelling at her, about which Jamal became outraged.

Case 0:20-cv-61139-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2020 Page 4 of 15
5

30. Jamal went to talk to other managers, which eventually led to Plaintiff’s 

termination. 

31. Later on September 5, 2019, Jermaine came into Store 2 and terminated Plaintiff, 

advising that Plaintiff was terminated because she said “Shut the fuck up” to Jamal, which was 

not true. 

32. The reason Defendant provided for Plaintiff’s termination is pretextual.

33. Even if Defendant had a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason, Plaintiff’s sex 

was, at minimum, a motivating factor in Defendant’s decision for her termination1. 

34. Prior to her termination, Plaintiff was unaware of any performance deficiencies 

and she had not been previously disciplined. 

35. Plaintiff has retained the undersigned firm to prosecute this action on her behalf 

and has agreed to pay it a reasonable fee for its services.

36. Plaintiff is entitled to her reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs if she is the 

prevailing party in this action. 

COUNT I: VIOLATION OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964

(HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT)

37. Plaintiff re-alleges and re-avers paragraphs 1 – 36 as fully set forth herein. 

38. Plaintiff brings this action under the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 

(“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. §2000e for damages caused by Defendant’s unlawful employment

practices committed against Plaintiff by allowing and ratifying the sexual harassment Jamal

inflicted on Plaintiff.

39. Plaintiff is a member of a protected class, to wit, female. 

 

1 Plaintiff explicitly reserves the right to argue a mixed-motive theory applies to all counts contained herein. 

Case 0:20-cv-61139-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2020 Page 5 of 15
6

40. Jamal brushed against Plaintiff whenever he had the chance and he would yell at 

Plaintiff for no obvious reasons. 

41. Jamal was Plaintiff’s supervisor during her employment at Store 2, and Jamal’s 

sexual harassment was severe or pervasive enough to create a work environment that a 

reasonable person would consider intimidating, hostile or abusive. Jamal’s conduct was severe 

and pervasive from both a subjective and objective perspective.

42. Despite Plaintiff’s complaint to Defendant multiple times, Jamal has not, upon 

information and belief, been disciplined for his conduct.

43. Meanwhile, Defendant’s field leaders repeatedly requested Plaintiff to resign but 

Plaintiff did not, due to her need of the job.

44. Defendant’s manager, Jamal, acted with intentional disregard for Plaintiff’s rights 

as a woman and a person protected under Title VII. Defendant, by and through its officers, 

and/or supervisors, authorized, condoned, and/or ratified the unlawful conduct of Jamal, and/or 

other employees.

45. Plaintiff is entitled to such affirmative relief as may be appropriate, including, but 

not limited to, lost wages, benefits, and compensation for emotional distress, pursuant to the 

provisions of Title VII as a direct result of Defendant's discriminatory actions. 

46. Plaintiff, based on information and belief, alleges that Defendant’s actions were 

done with malice, and with disregard for her protected rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights 

Act of 1964. Defendant, by and through its officers, and/or supervisors, authorized condoned 

and/or ratified the unlawful discriminatory employment practices of its manager. Therefore, 

Plaintiff is also entitled to punitive damages from Defendant in a sum according to proof at trial. 

Case 0:20-cv-61139-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2020 Page 6 of 15
7

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff TEDEISHA FOLKES requests that:

a) The Court grant Plaintiff judgment against Defendant to compensate her for 

past and future pecuniary losses, including injury to her professional 

reputation, and emotional pain and suffering caused by Defendant's 

discriminatory treatment in an amount to be determined at trial and in 

accordance with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, § 706(g);

b) The Court require Defendant to reinstate Plaintiff to the position at the rate of 

pay and with the full benefits Plaintiff would have had if Plaintiff had not 

been discriminated against by Defendant; or, in lieu of reinstatement, award 

front pay;

c) The Court award Plaintiff the costs of this action, together with her reasonable 

attorneys' fees incurred herein, pursuant to contract and/or statute; and

d) The Court award Plaintiff such other and further relief as the Court deems 

appropriate.

COUNT II: VIOLATION OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964

(RETALIATION)

47. Plaintiff re-alleges and re-avers paragraphs 1 – 36 as fully set forth herein.

48. Plaintiff brings this action for retaliation in violation of Title VII. 

49. In or about July 2019, Plaintiff started to complain about Jamal’s harassment to 

other managers, Human Resources Department and Field Leaders 

50. As a result of Plaintiff’s complaints, Defendant’s field leaders repeatedly 

requested Plaintiff to resign and Defendant’s Field Manager, Jermaine Turner, eventually 

terminated Plaintiff on or about September 5, 2019. 

Case 0:20-cv-61139-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2020 Page 7 of 15
8

51. Plaintiff was advised that she was terminated because she said “Shut the fuck up” 

to Jamal, which is not true.

52. Defendant’s proposed reason for Plaintiff’s termination is therefore pretextual. 

53. Plaintiff’s termination constitutes an adverse employment action under Title VII. 

54. Defendant’s actions were done with malice, and with disregard for Plaintiff’s

rights to as a woman protected under the Title VII. Defendant, by and through its officers, and/or 

supervisors, authorized, condoned, and/or ratified the unlawful conduct of Jamal and/or other 

employees. Therefore, Plaintiff is also entitled to punitive damages from Defendant in a sum 

according to proof at trial. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff TEDEISHA FOLKES requests that:

a. The Court grant Plaintiff judgment against Defendant to compensate her for 

past and future pecuniary losses, including injury to her professional 

reputation, and emotional pain and suffering caused by Defendant's 

discriminatory treatment in an amount to be determined at trial and in 

accordance with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, § 706(g);

b. The Court require Defendant to reinstate Plaintiff to the position at the rate of 

pay and with the full benefits Plaintiff would have had if Plaintiff had not 

been discriminated against by Defendant; or, in lieu of reinstatement, award 

front pay;

c. The Court award Plaintiff the costs of this action, together with her reasonable 

attorneys’ fees incurred herein, pursuant to contract and/or statute; and

d. The Court award Plaintiff such other and further relief as the Court deems 

appropriate.

Case 0:20-cv-61139-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2020 Page 8 of 15
9

COUNT III: FAILURE TO ACCOMMODATE

IN VIOLATION OF THE ADA AND ADAAA

55. Plaintiff re-alleges and re-avers paragraphs 1 – 36 as fully set forth herein.

56. Plaintiff is person with a disability as that term is defined under the ADAAA in 

that she injured her wrists and hands twice on the job between February 2019 and March 2019, 

the treatment of which substantially limits her ability to perform at least one major life function, 

to wit: putting hands in the water, lifting heavy items and climbing ladders etc. without pain.

57. Plaintiff is, and at all times was, qualified to perform the essential functions of her

job with the proposed reasonable accommodation in that she was hired for the position and 

performed this position satisfactorily. 

58. Plaintiff is therefore a “qualified individual” as that term is defined in the 

Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act (“ADAAA”) § 101(8) (42 U.S.C. § 12111(8)).

59. Plaintiff was able to perform the essential functions with the requested

accommodations of not putting her hands in the water, not lifting heavy items and not climbing 

ladders.

60. Plaintiff requested a reasonable accommodation after her injury, which was 

denied in both Store 1 and Store 2. 

61. Defendant failed to provide Plaintiff with a reasonable accommodation as that 

term is defined in the ADAAA, § 101(9). 

62. Defendant refused to participate in the interactive process and demanded that 

Plaintiff perform her job without limitations to the detriment of her health. 

63. Plaintiff’s request for accommodation was reasonable and would not have caused 

Defendant undue hardship as there were other employees who could have helped out with

Plaintiff’s assignments when Plaintiff could perform her job with limitations. 

Case 0:20-cv-61139-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2020 Page 9 of 15
10

64. Because Defendant did not accommodate Plaintiff, her injuries became worse. 

65. As a result of Defendant’s actions, Plaintiff has suffered damages by way of lost 

wages and benefits, attorney’s fees, etc. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff TEDEISHA FOLKES requests judgment as follows:

a) an award of economic damages including lost wages, back pay, interest, front 

pay, and the value and/or economic impact of lost benefits;

b) compensatory damages;

c) punitive damages;

d) attorney’s fees and costs; and

e) any other award this Court deems necessary. 

COUNT IV: VIOLATION OF FCRA

(HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT)

66. Plaintiff re-alleges and re-avers paragraphs 1 – 36 as fully set forth herein. 

67. Plaintiff brings this action under the Florida Civil Rights Act, Fla. Stat. § 760.01, 

et seq., for damages caused by Defendant’s unlawful employment practices committed against 

Plaintiff by allowing and ratifying the sexual harassment Jamal inflicted on Plaintiff.

68. Plaintiff is a member of a protected class, to wit, female. 

69. Jamal brushed against Plaintiff whenever he had the chance and he would yell at 

Plaintiff for no obvious reasons. 

70. Jamal was Plaintiff’s supervisor during the her employment at Store 2, and 

Jamal’s sexual harassment was severe or pervasive enough to create a work environment that a 

reasonable person would consider intimidating, hostile or abusive. Jamal’s conduct was severe 

and pervasive from both a subjective and objective perspective.

Case 0:20-cv-61139-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2020 Page 10 of 15
11

71. Despite Plaintiff’s complaint to Defendant for multiple times, Jamal has not, upon 

information and belief, been disciplined for his conduct.

72. Meanwhile, Defendant’s field leaders repeatedly requested Plaintiff to resign but 

Plaintiff did not, due to her need of the job.

73. Defendant’s manager, Jamal, acted with intentional disregard for Plaintiff’s rights 

as a woman and a person protected under FCRA. Defendant, by and through its officers, and/or 

supervisors, authorized, condoned, and/or ratified the unlawful conduct of Jamal, and/or other 

employees.

74. Plaintiff is entitled to such affirmative relief as may be appropriate, including, but

not limited to, lost wages, benefits, and compensation for emotional distress, pursuant to the 

provisions of FCRA as a direct result of Defendant’s discriminatory actions. 

75. Plaintiff, based on information and belief, alleges that Defendant’s actions were 

done with malice, and with disregard for her protected rights under FCRA. Defendant, by and 

through its officers, and/or supervisors, authorized condoned and/or ratified the unlawful 

discriminatory employment practices of its director or nurses. Therefore, Plaintiff is also entitled 

to punitive damages from Defendant in a sum according to proof at trial. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff TEDEISHA FOLKES requests that:

e) The Court grant Plaintiff judgment against Defendant to compensate her for 

past and future pecuniary losses, including injury to her professional 

reputation, and emotional pain and suffering caused by Defendant's 

discriminatory treatment in an amount to be determined at trial and in 

accordance with the FCRA;

Case 0:20-cv-61139-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2020 Page 11 of 15
12

f) The Court require Defendant to reinstate Plaintiff to the position at the rate of 

pay and with the full benefits Plaintiff would have had if Plaintiff had not 

been discriminated against by Defendant; or, in lieu of reinstatement, award 

front pay;

g) The Court award Plaintiff the costs of this action, together with her reasonable 

attorneys' fees incurred herein, pursuant to contract and/or statute; and

h) The Court award Plaintiff such other and further relief as the Court deems 

appropriate.

COUNT V: VIOLATION OF FCRA

(RETALIATION)

76. Plaintiff re-alleges and re-avers paragraphs 1 – 36 as fully set forth herein.

77. Plaintiff brings this claim for retaliation in violation of FCRA. 

78. In or about July 2019, Plaintiff started to complain about Jamal’s harassment to 

other managers, Human Resources Department and Field Leaders 

79. As a result of Plaintiff’s complaints, Defendant’s field leaders repeatedly 

requested Plaintiff to resign and Defendant’s Field Manager, Jermaine Turner, eventually 

terminated Plaintiff on or about September 5, 2019. 

80. Plaintiff was advised that she was terminated because she said “Shut the fuck up” 

to Jamal, which is not true.

81. Defendant’s proposed reason for Plaintiff’s termination is therefore pretextual. 

82. Plaintiff’s termination constitutes an adverse employment action under FCRA. 

83. Defendant’s actions were done with malice, and with disregard for Plaintiff’s

rights as a woman protected under FCRA. Defendant, by and through its officers, and/or 

supervisors, authorized, condoned, and/or ratified the unlawful conduct of Jamal and/or other 

Case 0:20-cv-61139-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2020 Page 12 of 15
13

employees. Therefore, Plaintiff is also entitled to punitive damages from Defendant in a sum 

according to proof at trial. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff TEDEISHA FOLKES requests that:

a. The Court grant Plaintiff judgment against Defendant to compensate her for 

past and future pecuniary losses, including injury to her professional 

reputation, and emotional pain and suffering caused by Defendant’s 

discriminatory treatment in an amount to be determined at trial and in 

accordance with the FCRA;

b. The Court award Plaintiff the costs of this action, together with her reasonable 

attorneys’ fees incurred herein, pursuant to the applicable statute; and

c. The Court award Plaintiff such other and further relief as the Court deems 

appropriate.

COUNT VI: FAILURE TO ACCOMMODATE IN VIOLATION OF THE FCRA

84. Plaintiff re-alleges and re-avers paragraphs 1 – 36 as fully set forth herein.

85. Section 760.10 of the FCRA states in relevant part:

(1) it is unlawful employment practice for an employer:

(a) to discharge or to fail or refuse to hire any individual, or otherwise to 

discriminate against any individual with respect to compensation, terms, 

conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s 

race, color, religion, sex, natural origin, age, handicap, or marital status.

86. The FCRA accordingly requires employers to reasonably accommodate the actual 

handicaps/disabilities and/or records of such handicaps/disabilities of their employees.

87. Plaintiff timely informed Defendant of her work limitations due to her injuries 

and requested accommodations.

Case 0:20-cv-61139-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2020 Page 13 of 15
14

88. Defendant’s managers for both Store 1 and Store 2 refused to accept Plaintiff’s 

doctor’s note and therefore refused to provide any accommodations for Plaintiff’s injuries.

89. Defendant refused to participate in the interactive process and demanded that 

Plaintiff perform her job without limitations to the detriment of her health. 

90. Plaintiff’s request for accommodation was reasonable and would not have caused 

Defendant undue hardship as there were other employees who could have helped out with 

Plaintiff’s assignments when Plaintiff could perform her job with limitations. 

91. Because Defendant did not accommodate Plaintiff, her injuries became worse. 

92. As a result of Defendant’s failure/refusal to accommodate Plaintiff, Plaintiff has 

experienced, and will continue to experience, significant financial and economic loss in the form 

of lost wages and lost benefits. Plaintiff has also experienced, and will continue to experience, 

emotional anguish, pain and suffering and loss of dignity damages. Plaintiff accordingly 

demands lost wages, back pay, interest, front pay (or reinstatement), the value and/or economic 

impact of lost benefits/seniority, and compensatory damages. 

93. Plaintiff further seeks her attorney’s fees and costs as permitted by law.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff TEDEISHA FOLKES requests judgment as follows:

a) an award of economic damages including lost wages, back pay, interest, front 

pay, and the value and/or economic impact of lost benefits;

b) compensatory damages;

c) punitive damages;

d) attorney's fees and costs; and

e) any other award this Court deems necessary. 

Case 0:20-cv-61139-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2020 Page 14 of 15
15

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff, TEDEISHA FOLKES hereby demands trial by jury on all counts so triable 

contained herein.

Dated: June 9, 2020.

LAW OFFICES OF CHARLES EISS, P.L.

Attorneys for Plaintiff

7951 SW 6

th Street, Suite 112

Plantation, Florida 33324

(954) 914-7890 (Office)

(855) 423-5298 (Facsimile)

By: /s/ Charles M. Eiss 

CHARLES M. EISS, Esq.

Fla. Bar #612073

chuck@icelawfirm.com

TIEXIN YANG, Esq.

Fla. Bar #1010651

tiexin@icelawfirm.com

Case 0:20-cv-61139-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2020 Page 15 of 15