1 

895585.5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

TUBONIMI BOB-MANUEL, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) Case No. 12 cv 00750 

 ) 

v. ) Judge Ruben Castillo 

 ) 

CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC., ) Magistrate Judge Martin 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 

Plaintiff, TUBONIMI BOB-MANUEL, by and through his attorneys, Franczek Radelet 

PC, and pursuant to leave of court, for his First Amended Complaint against Defendant, 

CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC., states as follows: 

Nature of Case 

1. Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant to recover damages proximately 

caused by Defendant’s illegal discriminatory and/or retaliatory treatment during his employment 

and termination of his employment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as 

amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. (“Title VII”), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 

29 U.S.C. § 621, et seq. (“ADEA”), Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. § 

1981 (“Section 1981”), and the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 

§ 12101 et seq. (“ADA”); and illegal retaliatory discharge in violation of the Illinois Worker's 

Compensation Act, 820 ILCS 305/1 et seq., and the common law and public policy of the State

of Illinois. 

Case: 1:12-cv-00750 Document #: 48 Filed: 01/15/13 Page 1 of 16 PageID #:164
2 

895585.5

Jurisdiction and Venue 

2. This Court has original jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims under 28 U.S.C. § 

1331, and 28 U.S.C. § 1343, and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. 

3. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Illinois common law 

claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). 

4. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 and 42 U.S.C. § 

2000e-5(f)(3) because Defendant’s illegal acts complained of herein took place at Defendant’s 

Oak Park, Illinois restaurant located within the geographical jurisdictional boundaries of this 

Court. 

5. On March 5, 2010, Plaintiff Tubonimi Bob-Manuel (hereafter “Tubonimi”) filed 

his initial timely charge of illegal discrimination and retaliation with the local district office of 

the EEOC, Charge No. 440-2010-02723, a copy of which is attached hereto as Tab A. 

6. On September 23, 2011, following Defendant’s March 2011 termination of his 

employment, Tubonimi timely amended his initial Charge No. 440-2010-02723 to add his illegal 

termination claim, a copy of which is attached hereto as Tab B. 

7. On November 3, 2011, the EEOC issued its Notice of Right to Sue in connection 

with Tubonimi’s Charge No. 440-2010-02723, a copy of which is attached hereto as Tab C. This 

case is being filed within 90 days of Tubonimi’s receipt of the EEOC Right to Sue Notice. 

The Parties 

8. Tubonimi is a 55-year-old, Nigerian-born, United States citizen of the Black race 

residing at all relevant times in the Village of Hillside, Cook County, Illinois. 

Case: 1:12-cv-00750 Document #: 48 Filed: 01/15/13 Page 2 of 16 PageID #:165
3 

895585.5

9. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., (hereafter 

“Chipotle”), was a foreign corporation licensed to conduct business in Illinois and operating 

numerous retail restaurants within Illinois and within the jurisdiction of this Court. 

10. Chipotle at all relevant times employed in excess of 100 persons at its various 

restaurants, offices and other facilities within this Court’s geographical jurisdiction, and thus was 

and is an employer and covered entity as defined under Title VII, the ADEA, and the ADA. 

Pertinent Facts 

11. Tubonimi started employment with Chipotle in November 2008 as an 

Associate/Management Trainee in its Oak Park, Illinois, restaurant. 

12. Within several weeks of his start, Chipotle terminated Tubonimi’s management 

training stating to him that the company was suspending the management trainee program. 

13. A significantly younger, Caucasian, presumably American-born employee who 

started as Associate/Management Trainee at the same time as Tubonimi was allowed to continue 

training and ultimately promoted to General Manager of a different area Chipotle restaurant. 

14. Thereafter, at least two other significantly younger, Caucasian, presumably 

American-born and non-disabled employees were hired and trained as managers one of which 

Chipotle promoted to a management position. 

15. Tubonimi was thereafter subjected to different, less favorable terms and 

conditions of employment than other Associates including, but not limited to, being primarily 

assigned to work back office jobs such as dishwasher and food prep, having his work hours cut, 

having his performance scrutinized closer, not getting his job performance reviewed on a timely 

basis, not getting breaks from work, disregarding his medical work restrictions, and being 

subjected to harsher application of work rules including attendance and tardiness rules. 

Case: 1:12-cv-00750 Document #: 48 Filed: 01/15/13 Page 3 of 16 PageID #:166
4 

895585.5

16. In or around early 2009, Tubonimi began complaining to various management 

employees that he believed the different lass favorable treatment he was receiving was because 

of his race, national origin and/or age. 

17. In or about mid-2009, Tubonimi developed high blood pressure as a result of 

work-related stress resulting from the differential, less favorable treatment he received. 

Tubonimi also developed kidney disease and congenital heart failure as a result of the high blood 

pressure. 

18. In or about late 2009 or early 2010, Tubonimi developed a hernia as a result of 

frequently having to lift garbage cans at work weighing approximately 80 to 100 pounds. 

19. In or about mid-2010, Tubonimi developed eye disease, which severely limited 

his ability to see out of his right eye. 

20. These medical conditions constituted physical impairments that substantially 

limited Tubonimi in one or more major life activities, including but not limited to lifting, 

working, seeing, and performing manual tasks. 

21. Tubonimi informed his supervisors at Chipotle of these medical conditions upon 

being diagnosed with them, and subsequently provided documentation from his doctors 

regarding his medical work restrictions and requested reasonable accommodations with respect 

to fulfilling his job duties. 

22. After learning of Tubonimi’s medical conditions and associated work restrictions, 

Chipotle did not discuss the medical work restrictions with him or accommodate him by, e.g., 

allowing him to stop lifting the heavy garbage cans, take breaks, or sit down after a certain 

length of time. 

Case: 1:12-cv-00750 Document #: 48 Filed: 01/15/13 Page 4 of 16 PageID #:167
5 

895585.5

23. In or about late 2009 or early 2010, Tubonimi met with a Chipotle HR 

representative and other managers and again complained that he had been subjected to the 

aforementioned less favorable treatment and actions because of his race, national origin, age, 

and/or disability. 

24. Tubonimi also filed a written complaint with Chipotle’s Human Resources 

Department in or about March 2010 complaining of less favorable treatment and actions because 

of his race, national origin, age, and/or disability. 

25. Tubonimi is not aware that Chipotle investigated his complaints, or took any 

reasonable action to stop such disparate treatment.

26. In December 2010, Tubonimi slipped and fell at work seriously injuring his left 

hip and right arm (hereafter the “workplace accident”). 

27. Tubonimi immediately reported the workplace accident to Chipotle, who in turn 

reported it to its workers’ compensation insurance carrier. 

28. Tubonimi thereafter received medical treatment and related therapy for the 

injuries he sustained in the workplace accident, was examined numerous times by Chipotle’s 

clinic physician, and was off of work for a period of approximately 4 to 6 weeks. 

29. After his return to work, Tubonimi asked the then store General Manager for 

compensation for the period of time that missed work because of the workplace accident. 

30. On March 11, 2011, Chipotle terminated Tubonimi’s employment for alleged 

(and pretexual) charges of failure to follow directions and/or insubordination. 

31. Tubonimi’s job performance at all relevant times met or exceeded Chipotle’s 

legitimate expectations. 

Case: 1:12-cv-00750 Document #: 48 Filed: 01/15/13 Page 5 of 16 PageID #:168
6 

895585.5

32. Tubonimi was at all relevant times qualified to perform the essential functions of 

his position. 

Count I: Race Discrimination in Violation of Title VII 

33. Tubonimi restates and fully incorporates into Count I his allegations set forth in 

Paragraphs 1 through 32, above. 

34. Title VII makes it unlawful to discriminate against any individual in the terms, 

conditions or privileges of employment on the basis of his or her race. 

35. Chipotle failed to promote Tubonimi and subjected him to the above-described 

less favorable terms and conditions of employment, failed to take proper steps to address 

Tubonimi’s complaints of discrimination and harassment, and terminated his employment 

because of his race in violation of Title VII. 

36. Chipotle treated similarly-situated, non-Black employees more favorably than 

Tubonimi. 

37. As a direct and proximate result of Chipotle’s illegal race discrimination as 

described above, Tubonimi has suffered mental and physical pain and anguish, a loss of wages, 

including, but not limited to, salary, bonuses, a loss of employment benefits and other pecuniary 

and non-pecuniary damages. 

38. Chipotle knew that its discriminatory acts as described above were prohibited by 

Title VII, or acted with reckless disregard to that possibility. 

Count II: National Origin Discrimination in Violation of Title VII 

39. Tubonimi restates and fully incorporates into Count II his allegations set forth in 

Paragraphs 1 through 38, above. 

40. Title VII makes it unlawful to discriminate against any individual in the terms, 

conditions or privileges of employment on the basis of his or her race. 

Case: 1:12-cv-00750 Document #: 48 Filed: 01/15/13 Page 6 of 16 PageID #:169
7 

895585.5

41. Chipotle failed to promote Tubonimi and subjected him to the above-described 

less favorable terms and conditions of employment, failed to take proper steps to address 

Tubonimi’s complaints of discrimination and harassment, and terminated his employment 

because of his national origin in violation of Title VII. 

42. Chipotle treated similarly-situated, non-Nigerian employees more favorably than 

Tubonimi. 

43. As a direct and proximate result of Chipotle’s illegal national origin 

discrimination as described above, Tubonimi has suffered mental and physical pain and anguish, 

a loss of wages, including, but not limited to, salary, bonuses, a loss of employment benefits and 

other pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. 

44. Chipotle knew that its discriminatory acts as described above were prohibited by 

Title VII, or acted with reckless disregard to that possibility. 

Count III: Race, Color and/or Ethnicity Discrimination 

in Violation of Section 1981 

45. Tubonimi restates and fully incorporates into Count III his allegations set forth in 

Paragraphs 1 through 44, above. 

46. Section 1981 makes it unlawful for an employer such as Chipotle to discriminate 

against any person in the terms and privileges of employment, or to take any adverse action 

against any person because of his or her race, color or ethnicity. 

47. Chipotle failed to promote Tubonimi and subjected him to the above-described 

less favorable terms and conditions of employment, failed to take proper steps to address 

Tubonimi’s complaints of discrimination and harassment, and terminated his employment 

because of his race, color and/or ethnicity in violation of Section 1981. 

Case: 1:12-cv-00750 Document #: 48 Filed: 01/15/13 Page 7 of 16 PageID #:170
8 

895585.5

48. Chipotle treated similarly-situated employees not born Nigeria, or not descendants 

of Nigerians more favorably than Tubonimi. 

49. Chipotle knew that its discriminatory acts as described above were prohibited by 

Section 1981, or acted with reckless disregard to that possibility. 

Count IV: Retaliation in Violation of Title VII 

50. Tubonimi restates and fully incorporates into Count IV his allegations set forth in 

Paragraphs 1 through 49, above. 

51. Title VII makes it unlawful for an employer to discriminate against an employee 

because he or she has opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice by Title VII, 

or made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, 

proceeding, or hearing under Title VII. 

52. Tubonimi in good faith believed that above-described less favorable terms and 

conditions of employment that he was subjected to were illegal workplace discrimination and/or 

harassment. 

53. As described above, Tubonimi’s complaints to Chipotle and March 2010 EEOC 

charge against Chipotle were protected opposition and participation activity under Title VII. 

54. Chipotle failed to promote Tubonimi and subjected him to the above-described 

less favorable terms and conditions of employment, failed to take proper steps to address 

Tubonimi’s complaints of discrimination and harassment, and terminated his employment 

because of his protected activity in violation of Title VII. 

55. Chipotle treated similarly-situated, non-complaining and/or non-charge filing 

employees more favorably than Tubonimi. 

56. As a direct and proximate result of Chipotle’s illegal retaliation as described 

above, Tubonimi has suffered mental and physical pain and anguish, a loss of wages, including, 

Case: 1:12-cv-00750 Document #: 48 Filed: 01/15/13 Page 8 of 16 PageID #:171
9 

895585.5

but not limited to, salary, bonuses, a loss of employment benefits and other pecuniary and nonpecuniary damages, and he is expected to incur future damages. 

57. Chipotle knew that its retaliatory acts as described above were prohibited by Title 

VII, or acted with reckless disregard to that possibility. 

Count V: Age Discrimination in Violation of the ADEA 

58. Tubonimi restates and fully incorporates into Count V his allegations set forth in 

Paragraphs 1 through 57, above. 

59. It is unlawful under the ADEA for an employer to fail or refuse to hire or to 

discharge any individual or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to his 

compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's age; 

or, to limit, segregate, or classify its employees in any way which would deprive or tend to 

deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect her status as 

an employee, because of such individual's age. See 29 U.S.C. § 623(a). 

60. Chipotle failed to promote Tubonimi and subjected him to the above-described 

less favorable terms and conditions of employment, failed to take proper steps to address 

Tubonimi’s complaints of discrimination and harassment, and terminated his employment 

because of his age in violation of the ADEA. 

61. Chipotle treated similarly-situated, significantly younger employees more 

favorably than Tubonimi. 

62. As a direct and proximate result of Chipotle’s illegal discrimination as described 

above, Tubonimi has lost, and is expected to continue to lose, income in the form of wages and 

prospective retirement benefits, social security and other benefits in a sum to be proven at trial, 

and has suffered emotional pain, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and other nonpecuniary losses. 

Case: 1:12-cv-00750 Document #: 48 Filed: 01/15/13 Page 9 of 16 PageID #:172
10 

895585.5

63. Chipotle knew that its discriminatory acts were prohibited by the ADEA, or acted 

with reckless disregard to that possibility. 

Count VI: Retaliatory Discharge in Violation of the Illinois Workers’ 

Compensation Act, and Illinois Common Law and Public Policy 

64. Tubonimi restates and fully incorporates into Count VI his allegations set forth in 

Paragraphs 1 through 63, above. 

65. Tubonimi’s workplace accident and related injuries and medical treatment, as 

well as his requests to be compensated for the time he missed work due to the workplace 

accident, all as described above, are activities protected by the Illinois Worker's Compensation 

Act, 820 ILCS 305/1 et seq. (the “Act”). 

66. Chipotle was well aware of Tubonimi’s protected activities under the Act when it 

decided to terminate his employment. 

67. Chipotle terminated Tubonimi’s employment in retaliation for his protected 

activities under the Act. 

68. As a direct and proximate result of Chipotle’s illegal retaliation against Tubonimi, 

he has suffered a loss of wages, including but not limited to salary, bonuses, a loss of 

employment benefits and other pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. 

69. The above described retaliatory conduct by Chipotle was willful and wanton, and 

with reckless disregard and indifference to the law and the public policy of Illinois, and to 

Tubonimi’s rights. Chipotle should therefore be subject to punitive damages as an example to 

deter others from engaging in conduct of this kind. 

Count VII: Retaliation in Violation of the ADEA 

70. Tubonimi restates and fully incorporates into Count VII his allegations set forth in 

Paragraphs 1 through 69, above. 

Case: 1:12-cv-00750 Document #: 48 Filed: 01/15/13 Page 10 of 16 PageID #:173
11 

895585.5

71. Tubonimi in good faith believed that he was subjected to less favorable terms and 

conditions of employment as described above, and that these actions by Chipotle constituted 

illegal workplace discrimination and/or harassment.

72. As described above, Tubonimi’s complaints to Chipotle and his March 2010 

EEOC charge against Chipotle were protected opposition and participation activity under the 

ADEA. 

73. Chipotle failed to promote Tubonimi and subjected him to the above-described 

less favorable terms and conditions of employment, failed to take proper steps to address 

Tubonimi’s complaints of discrimination and harassment, and terminated his employment 

because of and in retaliation for his protected activity, in violation of the ADEA. 

74. Chipotle treated similarly-situated, non-complaining and/or non-charge filing 

employees more favorably than Tubonimi. 

75. Chipotle knew that its retaliatory acts as described above were prohibited by the 

ADEA, or acted with reckless disregard to that possibility. 

76. As a direct and proximate result of Chipotle’s illegal retaliation as described 

above, Tubonimi has suffered mental and physical pain and anguish; a loss of wages, including, 

but not limited to, salary, bonuses, a loss of employment benefits; and other pecuniary and nonpecuniary damages; and he is expected to incur future damages. 

Count VIII: Discrimination in Violation of the ADA 

77. Tubonimi restates and fully incorporates into Count VIII his allegations set forth 

in Paragraphs 1 through 76 above. 

78. The ADA makes it unlawful to discriminate against any qualified individual in the 

terms, conditions or privileges of employment on the basis of his or her disability. 

Case: 1:12-cv-00750 Document #: 48 Filed: 01/15/13 Page 11 of 16 PageID #:174
12 

895585.5

79. As described above, Tubonimi was at all relevant times a qualified individual 

entitled to the statutory protection of the ADA in that he suffers from physical impairments that 

substantially limit him in one or more major life activities. 

80. Chipotle failed to promote Tubonimi and subjected him to the above-described 

less favorable terms and conditions of employment, failed to take proper steps to address 

Tubonimi’s complaints of discrimination and harassment, and terminated his employment 

because of his disability in violation of the ADA. 

81. Chipotle treated similarly-situated, non-disabled employees more favorably than 

Tubonimi. 

82. Chipotle knew that its discriminatory acts as described above were prohibited by 

the ADA, or acted with reckless disregard to that possibility. 

83. As a direct and proximate result of Chipotle’s illegal disability discrimination as 

described above, Tubonimi has suffered mental and physical pain and anguish; a loss of wages, 

including, but not limited to, salary, bonuses, a loss of employment benefits; and other pecuniary 

and non-pecuniary damages; and he is expected to incur future damages. 

Count IX: Failure to Accommodate in Violation of the ADA 

84. Tubonimi restates and fully incorporates into Count IX his allegations set forth in 

Paragraphs 1 through 83, above. 

85. As described above, Tubonimi was at all relevant times a qualified individual 

entitled to the statutory protection of the ADA in that he suffers from physical impairments that 

substantially limit him in one or more major life activities. 

86. Despite the fact that Tubonimi advised Chipotle of his disabilities and provided 

supporting documentation from his doctors of his medical work restrictions, Chipotle failed to 

Case: 1:12-cv-00750 Document #: 48 Filed: 01/15/13 Page 12 of 16 PageID #:175
13 

895585.5

provide a reasonable accommodation to Tubonimi and failed to engage in an “interactive 

process” with Tubonimi. 

87. Chipotle knew that its discriminatory acts as described above were prohibited by 

the ADA, or acted with reckless disregard to that possibility. 

88. As a direct and proximate result of Chipotle’s illegal disability discrimination as 

described above, Tubonimi has suffered mental and physical pain and anguish; a loss of wages, 

including, but not limited to, salary, bonuses, a loss of employment benefits; and other pecuniary 

and non-pecuniary damages; and he is expected to incur future damages. 

Count X: Retaliation in Violation of the ADA 

89. Tubonimi restates and fully incorporates into Count X his allegations set forth in 

Paragraphs 1 through 88, above. 

90. Tubonimi in good faith believed that he was subjected to less favorable terms and 

conditions of employment as described above, and that these actions by Chipotle constituted 

illegal workplace discrimination and/or harassment.

91. As described above, Tubonimi’s complaints and requests for accommodation to 

Chipotle, and his March 2010 EEOC charge against Chipotle, were protected opposition and 

participation activity under the ADA. 

92. Chipotle failed to promote Tubonimi and subjected him to the above-described 

less favorable terms and conditions of employment, failed to take proper steps to address 

Tubonimi’s complaints of discrimination and harassment, failed to accommodate Tubonimi’s 

medical work restrictions, and terminated his employment because of and in retaliation for his 

protected activity, in violation of the ADA. 

93. Chipotle treated similarly-situated, non-complaining and/or non-charge filing 

employees more favorably than Tubonimi. 

Case: 1:12-cv-00750 Document #: 48 Filed: 01/15/13 Page 13 of 16 PageID #:176
14 

895585.5

94. Chipotle knew that its retaliatory acts as described above were prohibited by the 

ADA, or acted with reckless disregard to that possibility. 

95. As a direct and proximate result of Chipotle’s illegal retaliation as described 

above, Tubonimi has suffered mental and physical pain and anguish; a loss of wages, including, 

but not limited to, salary, bonuses, a loss of employment benefits; and other pecuniary and nonpecuniary damages; and he is expected to incur future damages. 

Prayer for Relief Common to all Counts 

 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff TUBONIMI BOB-MANUEL respectfully requests that this 

Court enter judgment in his favor and against Defendant CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC., 

as follows: 

A. Order Defendant to make Tubonimi whole by paying him appropriate back pay 

and reimbursement for lost pension, social security and other benefits and out-ofpocket expenses, plus pre-judgment interest in an amount to be shown at trial; 

B. Order Defendant to immediately reinstate Tubonimi to his former position or one 

comparable thereto; or, in the alternative, order Defendant to pay Tubonimi an 

appropriate amount of front pay; 

C. Order Defendant to pay Tubonimi compensatory damages in the maximum 

amount allowable under the law; 

D. Order Defendant to pay Tubonimi punitive damages in the maximum amount 

allowable under the law; 

E. Order Defendant to pay Tubonimi’s costs incurred in bringing this action, 

including, but not limited to, expert witness fees and reasonable attorneys’ fees; 

F. Try all issues of fact to a jury; and, 

Case: 1:12-cv-00750 Document #: 48 Filed: 01/15/13 Page 14 of 16 PageID #:177
15 

895585.5

G. Grant such other relief as the Court deems just. 

Respectfully submitted, 

TUBONIMI BOB-MANUEL 

 By: /s/ Lindsey M. Marcus – 6297111 

 lmm@franczek.com 

David P. Radelet - 6181286 

dpr@franczek.com 

Lindsey M. Marcus - 6297111 

Franczek Radelet PC 

300 South Wacker Drive 

Suite 3400 

Chicago, IL 60606 

(312) 986-0300 

Dated: January 15, 2013 

Case: 1:12-cv-00750 Document #: 48 Filed: 01/15/13 Page 15 of 16 PageID #:178
895585.5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 The undersigned attorney hereby certifies that she caused a true and correct copy of the 

foregoing PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT to be served upon counsel of 

record via filing with the CM/ECF system on this 15th day of January, 2013:

 Tanya E. Milligan 

 Jacqueline Guesno 

 Messner & Reeves, LLC 

 1430 Wynkoop Street 

 Suite 300 

 Denver, Co 80202 

 Cynthia Alkhouja 

 David Stein 

 Pretzel & Stouffer, Chartered 

 One South Wacker Drive 

 Suite 2500 

 Chicago, IL 60606 

 

 /s/ Lindsey M. Marcus - 6297111______ 

 Lindsey M. Marcus 

Case: 1:12-cv-00750 Document #: 48 Filed: 01/15/13 Page 16 of 16 PageID #:179