[00:00:00] Speaker 04:
Susa versus Chipotle Services, docket 25-20-08.

[00:00:06] Speaker 04:
Council, ready when you are.

[00:00:09] Speaker 02:
Good morning.

[00:00:10] Speaker 02:
May it please the court?

[00:00:11] Speaker 02:
My name is Alexandra Jones.

[00:00:13] Speaker 02:
I represent the appellant, Donald Susa, in this matter, and I do intend on reserving approximately three minutes for rebuttal.

[00:00:21] Speaker 02:
The only issue in this case is whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Chipotle

[00:00:28] Speaker 02:
by finding that there was no material issue of fact with respect to pretext in this case.

[00:00:33] Speaker 02:
Mr. Susa filed his claim based solely on the New Mexico Human Rights Act, claiming that he was discriminated on the basis of age when he was wrongfully terminated.

[00:00:45] Speaker 02:
There is no dispute that Mr. Susa has met his prima facie burden for age discrimination under the New Mexico Human Rights Act.

[00:00:53] Speaker 02:
The only issue that

[00:00:56] Speaker 02:
the district court ruled on was that there was not evidence sufficient to establish pretext.

[00:01:03] Speaker 02:
In making that finding, the district court, in our view, improperly weighed the credibility of witnesses and made findings of fact that were improper at the summary judgment level.

[00:01:15] Speaker 02:
It is also my view that the district court ignored controlling Supreme Court precedent in New Mexico, which states that pretext is normally an issue for the jury,

[00:01:26] Speaker 02:
and that it is largely a credibility issue that comes down to issues of fact and circumstantial evidence that cannot be determined by a court and should not be determined by a court at the summary judgment stage.

[00:01:40] Speaker 02:
I also want to point out in Lincoln v. BNSF-RICO, this court has consistently held that pretext does not have to be demonstrated in any specific way.

[00:01:50] Speaker 02:
It can be demonstrated through inconsistencies and plausibilities and the like.

[00:01:56] Speaker 02:
That's exactly what this case is about.

[00:01:58] Speaker 02:
It's about all of the inconsistencies surrounding Mr. Seuss's termination.

[00:02:03] Speaker 02:
There are three specific points that I think the court got wrong in this case when it comes to pretext.

[00:02:10] Speaker 02:
There is inconsistencies involving the false written warnings that were issued contemporaneous to the final termination notice in this case.

[00:02:18] Speaker 03:
Can we talk about those, please?

[00:02:20] Speaker 03:
Yes.

[00:02:21] Speaker 03:
The false warnings as you describe them.

[00:02:24] Speaker 03:
I guess I have a hard time understanding how those warnings could in any way be evidence of pretext.

[00:02:34] Speaker 03:
They're kind of nonsensical because they're dated the same day of termination.

[00:02:37] Speaker 03:
And I think Judge Browning described them as, quote, cooked up.

[00:02:46] Speaker 03:
How could that give rise to pretext when, as I understand the argument it is, they were cooked up, to use the district court's words, to show that he was given an opportunity to sort of correct his conduct?

[00:02:59] Speaker 03:
But again, they're dated the same day as the termination.

[00:03:02] Speaker 03:
So can you help me understand how those could possibly be evidence of pretext?

[00:03:06] Speaker 02:
Sure.

[00:03:06] Speaker 02:
Absolutely, Your Honor.

[00:03:07] Speaker 02:
I think just what the court said is that it's supposed to create this appearance that he was given an opportunity to improve his conduct, and he wasn't.

[00:03:16] Speaker 02:
And it goes to Mr. Hannon's state of mind.

[00:03:19] Speaker 02:
In Young vs. Dillon, it talks about what we're talking about here is whether the decision maker actually believed what they were doing was correct and justified.

[00:03:27] Speaker 02:
And in this case, I think the fact that Mr. Hannon felt the need to create these two, I'm calling them false warnings because they never were warnings in this case.

[00:03:37] Speaker 03:
But if his intent was

[00:03:39] Speaker 03:
to show that there was documentation to say, look, the company gave Mr. Sousa an opportunity to correct, and he didn't, so that's why we fired him.

[00:03:49] Speaker 03:
I mean, you would think if they were going to give false warnings, they would, you know, make it a different date.

[00:03:53] Speaker 03:
How about 90 days prior, 180 days prior?

[00:03:56] Speaker 03:
Again, that's why I'm just having a hard time understanding how that could be pretext.

[00:03:59] Speaker 02:
The documentation, if that was the only reason why they were created, then why not just give the final termination notice, which was a combination of these two final written warnings.

[00:04:09] Speaker 02:
I mean, their difference in substance is very confusing and very suspect.

[00:04:14] Speaker 02:
Why would he go back and create?

[00:04:16] Speaker 02:
I'm sorry, go ahead.

[00:04:17] Speaker 01:
Mr. Hannon testified that the only reason he did it was because HR told him to.

[00:04:25] Speaker 01:
And I don't see any evidence that you have put forward that contradicts that statement.

[00:04:34] Speaker 01:
And in order for you to create a material issue of fact on that, wouldn't you have had to come forward with some evidence calling into question Mr. Hannon's testimony?

[00:04:45] Speaker 02:
I don't think so, Your Honor.

[00:04:47] Speaker 02:
I think that that is a credibility determination about whether or not he's telling the truth on that.

[00:04:51] Speaker 02:
I think the fact that the person who he alleges told him that has no recollection of stating that, has no citations to any policies or reasons as to why Chipotle would issue two final warnings concurrent to a termination calls into question the credibility of whether or not that's true or whether that's just an after-effect excuse that he's come up with

[00:05:14] Speaker 02:
because he's realized that issuing the two final warnings at the same time is suspect.

[00:05:19] Speaker 01:
So again, I think that goes... Helgett versus City of Hays, I mean, we rejected the idea that a plaintiff can withstand a summary judgment merely by arguing that a jury could disbelieve a defendant's uncontested testimony.

[00:05:37] Speaker 01:
So yes, the jury does have the

[00:05:41] Speaker 01:
obligation to determine credibility, but if you're going to argue that somebody's statement is not true, you've got to give them something to work with, don't you?

[00:05:52] Speaker 02:
I think so, Your Honor, but again, focusing on the fact that there is no explanation, there's no reason provided as to why this would occur in this method is that evidence that calls into question.

[00:06:06] Speaker 02:
Why would you do that?

[00:06:07] Speaker 02:
That doesn't make any sense.

[00:06:09] Speaker 02:
As Judge Browning said, looks like it's cooked up.

[00:06:12] Speaker 02:
Why are you creating these false records if there's no nefarious reason to do so?

[00:06:17] Speaker 02:
And so I think that we have provided evidence that calls into question whether or not that's true, combined with the fact that there is no written communications where HR is telling him to do that, despite the fact that there are multiple written communications surrounding the termination.

[00:06:34] Speaker 02:
Why is there no written communication directing him to do that?

[00:06:37] Speaker 02:
So I think all of that is more than us just saying they may not believe him.

[00:06:41] Speaker 02:
We don't have any legitimate business reason for Chipotle creating these two final written warnings.

[00:06:49] Speaker 02:
On top of that, just by the nature of how they were delivered concurrent to the final termination, it contained factual inaccuracies.

[00:06:58] Speaker 02:
And there's multiple inaccuracies as far as

[00:07:02] Speaker 02:
the exaggerations that Mr. Hannon gave regarding the conditions of the restaurant, Mr. Sousa unequivocally in his deposition states that they're inaccurate.

[00:07:12] Speaker 02:
And so I think Mr. Hannon's creation of these written warnings are attempting to exaggerate the situation, make it look worse than it really was, and I think he's doing that to justify a decision which he knows is not founded.

[00:07:26] Speaker 04:
Does it matter that, as I understand it, Chipotle doesn't have a progressive discipline system?

[00:07:31] Speaker 02:
I don't think it matters that they don't have a progressive discipline system to the extent that they were not required to follow one.

[00:07:39] Speaker 02:
What is concerning to me is that it seems to me that by creating these two written warnings, that shows a consciousness of wrongdoing on behalf of Mr. Hannon, like he feels like he should have given Mr. Sousa multiple opportunities to correct these issues because I think he does that with other younger employees.

[00:07:58] Speaker 02:
And that comes into where I think he shows preferential treatment

[00:08:01] Speaker 02:
towards these younger employees and other field leaders in the same position who have documented pest issues, documented cleanliness issues, and he's not doing anything in those cases.

[00:08:15] Speaker 02:
No progressive discipline.

[00:08:17] Speaker 02:
He talks about verbal warnings that he gives them.

[00:08:19] Speaker 02:
But the treatment between Mr. Sousa and these employees who have documented issues is preferential.

[00:08:28] Speaker 04:
Who created the forms, the warning, and the termination?

[00:08:32] Speaker 02:
Mr. Hannon.

[00:08:34] Speaker 04:
And so I guess it's Ms.

[00:08:37] Speaker 04:
Barcelona just said, yes, go ahead.

[00:08:41] Speaker 02:
She says she doesn't remember doing that.

[00:08:43] Speaker 04:
According to Mr. Hannon.

[00:08:44] Speaker 02:
According to Ms.

[00:08:45] Speaker 02:
Barcelona.

[00:08:46] Speaker 04:
Oh, yes.

[00:08:47] Speaker 04:
That's what Mr. Hannon says.

[00:08:49] Speaker 02:
Mr. Hannon says, HR told me to create the final warnings.

[00:08:52] Speaker 02:
And when I asked Ms.

[00:08:52] Speaker 02:
Barcelona in her testimony, why on earth would you ever do that?

[00:08:56] Speaker 02:
She said, the only reason I can think of, again, not giving me a direct explanation for this case, but the only reason I can think of is documentation purposes.

[00:09:04] Speaker 02:
Well, the final termination notice is documentation.

[00:09:08] Speaker 02:
And especially in a company that doesn't have a progressive discipline policy, why would you need to create the two final written warnings if it was really only for documentation purposes?

[00:09:17] Speaker 04:
What about Judge Browning's findings on the comparative?

[00:09:22] Speaker 02:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:09:23] Speaker 02:
I think what he is expecting of plaintiff in this case is to find another case that fits this fact pattern exactly.

[00:09:31] Speaker 02:
And I don't think that that's appropriate under the pretext analysis.

[00:09:35] Speaker 02:
He relies on Garcia, which is factually distinct from this case.

[00:09:40] Speaker 02:
It was a reverse discrimination case.

[00:09:42] Speaker 02:
where she hadn't even established her prima facie burden.

[00:09:47] Speaker 02:
And he says, oh, you know, you were supposed to find infractions that were nearly identical to this.

[00:09:53] Speaker 02:
First of all, I don't think that's the standard under New Mexico law, even if it is.

[00:09:57] Speaker 02:
We have established that.

[00:09:59] Speaker 02:
We have Orkin records of Mr. Sanchez in Phoenix who has

[00:10:04] Speaker 02:
continuous pest sightings throughout his Orkin records.

[00:10:07] Speaker 02:
And it goes on to talk about the cleanliness issues.

[00:10:10] Speaker 02:
We have declarations from the facilities managers that was in those restaurants who talks about the cleanliness issues, how they would fail.

[00:10:19] Speaker 01:
What seems to be missing, though, is evidence that Mr. Cannon was aware of reports

[00:10:32] Speaker 01:
And I think, I mean, would you agree that what's relevant here is what Mr. Hannon knew?

[00:10:40] Speaker 02:
I agree it's relevant and I would point the court to Josh Amy's declaration as well as his testimony.

[00:10:47] Speaker 02:
It's in Appendix, starts on the first volume of the Appendix 217.

[00:10:52] Speaker 02:
He talks extensively about Mr. Hannon knowing about these issues involving Mr. Sanchez.

[00:10:58] Speaker 02:
Mr. Hannon testifies that he knows that the store that Lady Shaparo supervised failed the eco-shore audits.

[00:11:07] Speaker 02:
This idea that an eco-shore audit, which is literally only there for the health and safety of the community and to make sure that the store is clean and safe, is not of comparable seriousness to these arbitrary internal audits

[00:11:23] Speaker 02:
It's disingenuous.

[00:11:25] Speaker 02:
I mean, that is definitely just as serious of an issue.

[00:11:29] Speaker 02:
And the fact that Ms.

[00:11:31] Speaker 02:
Shaparo receives no discipline, no write-ups, not even a verbal warning for a failed eco-shirt audit when that store has never failed an eco-shirt audit under Mr. Sousa's supervisory role, it's going too far.

[00:11:46] Speaker 02:
It's going into issues that we believe the jury should be able to determine.

[00:11:50] Speaker 02:
We're not comparing apples and oranges like the cases, excuse me, Judge Browning relied upon.

[00:11:56] Speaker 02:
We have the same supervisor.

[00:11:58] Speaker 02:
We have similar issues.

[00:12:00] Speaker 02:
We have food and safety issues.

[00:12:02] Speaker 02:
We are pointing to comparator evidence that we believe is sufficient to get to a jury.

[00:12:07] Speaker 04:
And with that... The district court seemed to think it was important how long the uncleanliness, pest, lack of control had occurred.

[00:12:17] Speaker 02:
So two issues with that.

[00:12:18] Speaker 02:
One, again, I think that the false warnings were created to make it appear that there was longer issues than existed.

[00:12:27] Speaker 02:
Second of all, that's contrary again to what Mr. Hannon states in an email on March 17th, which is also cited in our record, where he states the store is clean, the drains are clean.

[00:12:39] Speaker 02:
So that is a material issue of fact.

[00:12:42] Speaker 02:
On top of that, if you look at the Oregon records from Mr. Sanchez, those went on for months.

[00:12:47] Speaker 02:
It continuously talks about how the pest issues continued for months.

[00:12:52] Speaker 02:
It's the same amount of time that it went on.

[00:12:54] Speaker 02:
And with that, Your Honor, I'd like to reserve the rest of my time, if that's all right.

[00:13:01] Speaker 00:
Good morning, Your Honors.

[00:13:02] Speaker 00:
May it please the Court?

[00:13:04] Speaker 00:
My name is Betsy Bulat, and I'm proud to represent Appalee Chipotle Services LLC in this appeal.

[00:13:09] Speaker 00:
As Ms.

[00:13:10] Speaker 00:
Jones accurately recited for the court, this is a case where there is a single claim of age discrimination under the New Mexico Human Rights Act at issue.

[00:13:19] Speaker 00:
The only question before the court today is whether there is evidence sufficient to submit to a jury that age was the but for cause of Mr. Sousa's termination.

[00:13:31] Speaker 00:
Chipotle submits there was not.

[00:13:33] Speaker 00:
Even under the de novo standard of review that applies here,

[00:13:36] Speaker 00:
and viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Mr. Susa.

[00:13:40] Speaker 00:
As I begin my argument, I invite the panel to ask any questions that may see fit.

[00:13:45] Speaker 00:
To start, the undisputed facts here show that Mr. Susa failed to remediate a serious cockroach infestation spanning over two months.

[00:13:55] Speaker 00:
In the week prior to his termination, he

[00:13:58] Speaker 00:
failed to meet cleanliness standards at not one but four of his restaurants in a single week.

[00:14:04] Speaker 00:
Chipotle properly exercised its business judgment and found that it presented unacceptable risks to retain Mr. Sousa in the face of these

[00:14:13] Speaker 00:
cleanliness and food safe issues.

[00:14:15] Speaker 04:
It wasn't abrupt about face though in that he had received recognition for clean stores or running a good ship at his stores as well as getting a pay increase, right?

[00:14:28] Speaker 04:
Temporaneously.

[00:14:30] Speaker 00:
What the record shows, Your Honor, is that he met sales goals.

[00:14:33] Speaker 00:
He was not recognized at any point for cleanliness or food safe conditions.

[00:14:37] Speaker 00:
And that was for the 2021 year.

[00:14:40] Speaker 00:
So he received a merit increase based on his sales performance in 2021.

[00:14:46] Speaker 00:
There was nothing related to cleanliness or food safe standards associated with that.

[00:14:54] Speaker 00:
And I respectfully disagree that it was an about face.

[00:14:58] Speaker 00:
Mr. Hannon met with Mr. Sousa on February 9th of 2022 and they had a lengthy conversation regarding

[00:15:06] Speaker 00:
his failure to keep the University of New Mexico Chipotle in good clean order.

[00:15:11] Speaker 00:
This conversation continued on for the next six weeks.

[00:15:16] Speaker 00:
Mr. Sousa admits he was in constant contact with his supervisor, Mr. Hannon, about his restaurant, both UNM and others, about their cleanliness and food safe conditions.

[00:15:27] Speaker 04:
All right.

[00:15:27] Speaker 04:
Well, here's what I'm talking about.

[00:15:29] Speaker 04:
And you can tell me that I'm wrong, and I'll double check.

[00:15:34] Speaker 04:
My information is in 21, in a routine weekly video message to the company, Chipotle recognized SUSE as a top performing field leader in the company.

[00:15:43] Speaker 04:
The recognition was based on SUSE's stores receiving an AB rating, which refers to Chipotle store rating system that considers cleanliness.

[00:15:52] Speaker 00:
An AB rating, Your Honor, considers multiple factors.

[00:15:55] Speaker 00:
I believe it's upwards of 20 factors.

[00:15:58] Speaker 04:
Is cleanliness one of them?

[00:16:01] Speaker 00:
I'm not sure, Your Honor.

[00:16:03] Speaker 00:
What I do know is that the record indicates that Mr. Hannan recognized performance based on sales performance.

[00:16:10] Speaker 00:
And he did hit that for 2021.

[00:16:12] Speaker 00:
There's no dispute about that.

[00:16:13] Speaker 00:
There's no dispute that his restaurants weren't making money.

[00:16:17] Speaker 00:
There is evidence that he wasn't meeting food safe and cleanliness conditions in 2022, in the about the two month period that we're talking about here.

[00:16:27] Speaker 01:
So to survive- Why aren't Mr. Chaparro and Mr. Sanchez

[00:16:31] Speaker 01:
helpful comparators here.

[00:16:35] Speaker 00:
Thank you for that question, Your Honor.

[00:16:36] Speaker 00:
I'll start with Ms.

[00:16:37] Speaker 00:
Chaparro.

[00:16:38] Speaker 00:
The only evidence in the record that she engaged in anything comparable or similar to Mr. Sousa's misconduct is one failed eco-sure audit in July of 2022.

[00:16:48] Speaker 00:
And that was at the same University of New Mexico restaurant that experienced the cockroach infestation under Mr. Sousa.

[00:16:55] Speaker 00:
That was a single third-party food safety audit that she failed.

[00:17:00] Speaker 00:
There was no evidence of any of her culpability in that.

[00:17:05] Speaker 00:
There was no evidence that the restaurants were unclean as part of that audit.

[00:17:10] Speaker 03:
I'm sorry, counsel.

[00:17:11] Speaker 03:
What do you mean there's no evidence of her culpability?

[00:17:13] Speaker 03:
Isn't that her responsibility?

[00:17:16] Speaker 00:
So she'd had the restaurant for one or two months.

[00:17:19] Speaker 00:
There was never a finding made that the issues there were related to her.

[00:17:24] Speaker 00:
She had only had the restaurant for a number of, you know, four to six weeks.

[00:17:27] Speaker 03:
But who else would they be related to?

[00:17:29] Speaker 00:
to Mr. Sousa, who turned the restaurant over to her in the prior two months.

[00:17:34] Speaker 03:
Well, but if Mr. Sousa was terminated because on February 8th, there was an infestation call and then he gets fired on March 28th, that's not even two months, then why would Ms.

[00:17:49] Speaker 03:
Chaparro be held to account if she gets the restaurant turned over to her from Mr. Sousa and then two months later, there's still cleanliness issues?

[00:17:58] Speaker 00:
It's a fair question, Your Honor, but what I will say is the record has no evidence showing any of Ms.

[00:18:04] Speaker 00:
Chaparro's culpability other than the fact that she failed this audit.

[00:18:08] Speaker 00:
So it could be a fair assumption or an inference that Your Honor is drawing from the record, but the record itself doesn't associate this failed audit with anything that she did wrong.

[00:18:16] Speaker 03:
Well, then why shouldn't we read the record to say there's no evidence that Mr. Suso was culpable?

[00:18:22] Speaker 00:
I would respectfully disagree there is, Your Honor.

[00:18:24] Speaker 00:
So in the first instance on February 7,

[00:18:28] Speaker 00:
Mr. Susa was notified of the cockroach infestation.

[00:18:30] Speaker 00:
He didn't let his supervisor know about that until he never did.

[00:18:36] Speaker 00:
The next day Mr. Hannon was copied on an email after it had been escalated.

[00:18:40] Speaker 00:
So that type of issue should have been immediately escalated.

[00:18:44] Speaker 00:
They had a meeting on February 9th to talk about the issue and Mr. Hannon told Mr. Susa, you need to stay on this, remediate this and fix it.

[00:18:53] Speaker 00:
And they stayed in constant communication about that and he didn't.

[00:18:57] Speaker 00:
In fact, on March 17th, Mr. Hannon learned not only was the cockroach infestation persisting, that Mr. Sousa had allowed the Orkin treatments, the extermination treatments, to drop off.

[00:19:11] Speaker 00:
And not only that, he knew about it.

[00:19:13] Speaker 00:
He knew they had dropped off and didn't ask them to come back.

[00:19:17] Speaker 01:
And on that March 17th... I thought the evidence was that as soon as he found out that they weren't coming as frequently, he directed them to start coming every day or every other day as they were before.

[00:19:30] Speaker 00:
He did at some point, Your Honor, but not immediately.

[00:19:32] Speaker 00:
As of March 17th, he had not done that.

[00:19:37] Speaker 00:
Following that March 17th meeting, he did do that.

[00:19:41] Speaker 01:
And... When did he learn that they weren't coming as frequently?

[00:19:47] Speaker 00:
I don't know if the exact date is in the record, but there is evidence that it was weeks.

[00:19:52] Speaker 00:
It was a matter of weeks.

[00:19:56] Speaker 00:
And at that March 17th meeting preceding the termination, he was there not only with Mr. Hannon, who saw upwards of six cockroaches, but another field leader that worked for Mr. Hannon named Elsa Armandarez, and a cockroach fell on her from the ceiling.

[00:20:14] Speaker 00:
This is something that if he was actually in his restaurants, it's something that he would have noticed.

[00:20:28] Speaker 03:
Is the field manager's responsible for the cleanliness of the store?

[00:20:32] Speaker 03:
And it seems to be the evidence was there was an infestation of cockroaches.

[00:20:36] Speaker 03:
And that's a problem for him because that's his responsibility.

[00:20:39] Speaker 03:
What I'm having trouble though is on the comparator evidence.

[00:20:43] Speaker 03:
I guess I understood the Miss Chaparro distinguish meant to be something other and different than, well, there's no evidence her culpability.

[00:20:52] Speaker 03:
I mean, it's her store.

[00:20:54] Speaker 03:
She's the field manager.

[00:20:55] Speaker 03:
So she's in charge of making sure it's clean.

[00:20:59] Speaker 03:
Is there another way to distinguish her as a comparator to Mr. Sousa, other than saying, well, it's his responsibility, we're going to hold him to it, but not her, because we don't have evidence of culpability?

[00:21:10] Speaker 00:
Absolutely, Your Honor.

[00:21:11] Speaker 00:
It's the frequency of the misconduct and the severity of the misconduct.

[00:21:14] Speaker 00:
And I think a helpful case to look at is the Kendrick versus Penske transportation case from the 10th Circuit.

[00:21:23] Speaker 00:
And that's a case where the plaintiff there was terminated

[00:21:26] Speaker 00:
after getting into a physical altercation with another employee, he bumped chests with him and he was fired for it.

[00:21:33] Speaker 00:
There was a comparator employee there who took a crowbar and threatened another employee but didn't actually make physical conduct with the other employee.

[00:21:42] Speaker 00:
And the 10th Circuit supported the employer's decision in terminating the plaintiff there because they allowed them to find that a physical touching was more severe.

[00:21:53] Speaker 00:
than simply threatening someone, where a touching didn't actually occur.

[00:21:57] Speaker 00:
Similar conduct, but not the same.

[00:22:00] Speaker 00:
So here, we have a failed audit.

[00:22:03] Speaker 00:
Yes, Mr. Sousa didn't meet cleanliness standards in four audits, and he had a long cockroach infestation.

[00:22:09] Speaker 00:
So kind of similar, but less severe, and certainly different under the Penske case.

[00:22:16] Speaker 03:
Do you think the standard... Go ahead, Judge McHugh.

[00:22:19] Speaker 01:
I was just going to switch to Mr. Sanchez, but if you want to still talk about Ms.

[00:22:24] Speaker ?:
Shaparo.

[00:22:25] Speaker 03:
No.

[00:22:25] Speaker 03:
No, please proceed.

[00:22:27] Speaker 01:
It seems like we have more evidence about Mr. Sanchez in store than we do about Ms.

[00:22:34] Speaker 01:
Shaparo's.

[00:22:36] Speaker 01:
And it does seem that there was a bad roach infestation at store 861, and that there was a rodent issue in store 1684.

[00:22:50] Speaker 01:
and store 898 had persistent cleanliness problems, apparently due to using too much water to wash the floors.

[00:23:00] Speaker 01:
And cockroaches were seen a year after Sousa's termination, and this store originally was Mr. Sousa's.

[00:23:10] Speaker 01:
Cockroaches were seen throughout store 3642.

[00:23:12] Speaker 01:
That sounds, how is that not,

[00:23:20] Speaker 00:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:23:23] Speaker 00:
I'll attempt to go store by store.

[00:23:24] Speaker 00:
So store 861 was Tiffany Rodriguez's store, not Mr. Sanchez's.

[00:23:31] Speaker 00:
She took it over from him in September of 2020.

[00:23:37] Speaker 00:
And two months later, she was terminated for a cockroach infestation that she failed to remediate.

[00:23:43] Speaker 00:
So if anything, Your Honor, that shows consistent treatment among managers who engaged in the same or similar misconduct.

[00:23:51] Speaker 00:
To go on to restaurant 1684, there wasn't any cockroach sighting at this restaurant.

[00:23:57] Speaker 00:
This was a rodent sighting, and it was a rat that came in through a hole in the ceiling.

[00:24:02] Speaker 00:
And this is important to look at why pest sightings or rodent sightings or cleanliness issues at all occurred in a restaurant.

[00:24:10] Speaker 00:
Because to show pretext, it can't just be showing similar misconduct.

[00:24:15] Speaker 00:
It must show that there's no

[00:24:17] Speaker 00:
other non-discriminatory explanation for why the similar misconduct was treated differently.

[00:24:23] Speaker 00:
The rodent sighting at 1684 was different because there was a structural issue.

[00:24:27] Speaker 00:
There was a hole in the ceiling.

[00:24:30] Speaker 00:
There was no evidence of Mr. Sanchez not being proactive or mishandling the sighting, and it was quickly fixed.

[00:24:37] Speaker 00:
With respect to store 898, there were multiple cockroach sightings there, you're correct.

[00:24:43] Speaker 00:
But these were also structurally related.

[00:24:45] Speaker 00:
There was a grouting issue under the door where the grout kept deteriorating in that restaurant.

[00:24:51] Speaker 00:
Mr. Sanchez promptly responded and diligently attempted to resolve those sightings.

[00:24:56] Speaker 00:
All of this testimony, Your Honor, is at page 309 to 310 of the appellate record with respect to page, to store 1684.

[00:25:06] Speaker 00:
That's at 306 to 307 and 315 of the appellate record.

[00:25:11] Speaker 00:
With respect to store 3642, this is not a restaurant that has ever been raised by plaintiff appellant in this appeal that I've seen.

[00:25:23] Speaker 00:
So I'm not prepared to address that.

[00:25:25] Speaker 00:
But what I do know is that there's no evidence in the record that Mr. Hannon knew anything about any issue at that particular restaurant.

[00:25:34] Speaker 03:
Council, when we're looking at comparator evidence, there's some disagreement about the standard that applies under New Mexico law, whether it's nearly identical or comparable seriousness.

[00:25:43] Speaker 03:
Do you think it makes a difference to our analysis and the outcome?

[00:25:47] Speaker 03:
Which standard?

[00:25:48] Speaker 00:
I don't, Your Honor, because the district court analyzed the comparator evidence under both standards.

[00:25:53] Speaker 00:
And if you look at pages 89 and 87 of the order,

[00:25:58] Speaker 00:
You can see the judge's analysis with respect to Ms.

[00:26:01] Speaker 00:
Shaparo under the comparable seriousness standard and Mr. Sanchez under that standard.

[00:26:09] Speaker 00:
And just to direct your honors to the appellate record going back to the comparators, everything that we have, all of the evidence we have on the misconduct of Mr. Sanchez, there's no evidence that Mr. Hannon was aware of it.

[00:26:25] Speaker 00:
The only thing we have in the record is that Mr. Hannon thought there might have been an issue.

[00:26:29] Speaker 00:
There's no other evidence that all of the specific issues at the restaurants that we detailed in our reply brief before the district court was something that Mr. Hannon was aware of or addressed.

[00:26:41] Speaker 00:
In my final minute, I did want to address the appellant's argument that the district court did not consider the evidence of pretext as a whole.

[00:26:50] Speaker 00:
First of all, there's no indication that

[00:26:52] Speaker 00:
the district judge didn't consider the evidence the whole.

[00:26:55] Speaker 00:
It was a 98-page order that exhaustively detailed the appellant's evidence of pretext.

[00:27:02] Speaker 00:
So there are no magic words that a district judge has to use to say, I considered the evidence as a whole.

[00:27:07] Speaker 00:
That would be a hyper-technical and absurd requirement that the 10th Circuit doesn't apply and doesn't require.

[00:27:14] Speaker 00:
And plaintiff's counsel or appellant's counsel appears to contend that even if,

[00:27:21] Speaker 00:
There are none of her arguments amount to pretext.

[00:27:24] Speaker 00:
The sheer number of arguments is to pretext.

[00:27:27] Speaker 00:
So it'd be sufficient to get to trial.

[00:27:29] Speaker 00:
But mathematical precepts show that 0 plus 0 plus 0 doesn't equal 3.

[00:27:35] Speaker 00:
It still equals 0.

[00:27:36] Speaker 00:
So here, the fact that Mr. Sousa has numerous arguments about pretext doesn't, by their mere number, make them sufficient to survive summary judgment.

[00:27:47] Speaker 00:
This exact argument was considered by the 10th Circuit and rejected in the Riggs versus Airtran Airways case, 497 F3rd, 1108, 10th Circuit, 2007.

[00:27:58] Speaker 00:
So here we would submit that this panel affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment.

[00:28:05] Speaker 00:
I thank you for your time and consideration.

[00:28:07] Speaker 04:
Thank you, counsel.

[00:28:07] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:28:12] Speaker 02:
Thank you, your honor.

[00:28:13] Speaker 02:
To follow up on what was just said about

[00:28:16] Speaker 02:
Ms.

[00:28:16] Speaker 02:
Shapiro can't be held responsible and there's no indication that it was her responsibility for the failed EcoShirt audit.

[00:28:23] Speaker 02:
Well, then that begs the question as to why Tiffany Rodriguez was fired for a store that she just inherited for Edwin Sanchez, who was never disciplined for any of his cleanliness issues at that store and whose name was actually still on the store when the only other person in her 50s under Pat Hannon's control

[00:28:43] Speaker 02:
was fired for similar issues.

[00:28:45] Speaker 02:
Opposing counsel seems to think that that shows consistency.

[00:28:48] Speaker 02:
I think it shows a pattern of discrimination.

[00:28:51] Speaker 02:
That Mr. Hannon was intent on getting the two only individuals who were in their 50s, who were close to vesting on their 401K, who had a bigger financial interest in this corporation out of his team

[00:29:07] Speaker 02:
Making room for the two younger employees that he wanted on his team which were both in their 20s and 30s So no does a pattern have to include the employees who are 40 or older as well.

[00:29:19] Speaker 02:
I Don't think so your honor not when it comes to pretext

[00:29:23] Speaker 02:
I think that, again, the overall cumulative argument is not zero plus zero plus zero equals three.

[00:29:29] Speaker 02:
It's the fact that we've got to take a step back and look at what happened altogether and look at the fact that Mr. Hannon took the only two individuals who were over 50, replaced them with younger employees.

[00:29:42] Speaker 02:
He used an extremely common issue as indicated by all of the Oregon records in Mr. Sanchez's case, as indicated by the failed eco-share audits.

[00:29:52] Speaker 02:
Cleanliness and pest issues are common in the restaurant industry.

[00:29:56] Speaker 02:
He capitalized on those only with respect to these two employees and with respect to Mr. Susa, did not give him any opportunity to improve and his treatment of Mr. Susa was completely disparate to the other younger employees on his team.

[00:30:11] Speaker 02:
And so for that reason, I think we have established at a minimum a material issue of fact with respect to pretext and would ask the court to reverse the district court's ruling.

[00:30:20] Speaker 04:
Thank you, counsel.

[00:30:22] Speaker 04:
Thank you for your arguments.

[00:30:24] Speaker 04:
The case is submitted and counsel are excused.