EEOC found cause. Conciliation failed. Now it's headed to federal court
A pregnant Ohio crew member says Chipotle pulled her job offer the day after she asked for a lifting limit.
Tara Griffin sued Chipotle Mexican Grill on May 18, 2026 in the US District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, alleging the company rescinded her crew member hire days after she disclosed her pregnancy and a doctor-ordered lifting restriction at its Cuyahoga Falls store.
According to the complaint, Griffin was interviewed on February 7, 2024 by Noah Cunningham, identified in the filing as Grill Manager, and hired the next day. She told him during the interview that she had open availability.
When Griffin came in on February 10, 2024 to collect her uniforms, she met with an assistant manager identified in the filing only as Chris LNU. The complaint says she disclosed two things: she was pregnant, and her physician had set a 20-to-30-pound lifting limit. According to the filing, the assistant manager told her Chipotle could accommodate the restriction. Griffin also flagged a second job at Burger King and says she was told that was not a problem either. Onboarding wrapped up early that day because the store was too busy to finish her training.
A day later, on February 11, 2024, the complaint says Cunningham contacted Griffin by text to tell her the hire had been rescinded and that he would not have hired her had he known she was pregnant. Griffin alleges she was never allowed to complete onboarding and was terminated effective February 22, 2024. She delivered her child on July 28, 2024.
Griffin filed a charge of sex and pregnancy discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on March 3, 2024, under Charge No. 532-2024-01988. The EEOC issued a Notice of Right to Sue on March 16, 2026, citing conciliation failure. The notice states the agency found reasonable cause to believe a violation occurred but could not obtain a settlement with Chipotle.
The complaint brings two counts. The first alleges sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978. The second alleges violations of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, including failure to accommodate Griffin's lifting restriction and failure to engage in the interactive process required by 29 C.F.R. § 1636.3(k). Griffin seeks lost wages and benefits, future earnings, non-economic damages for mental anguish, punitive damages, and attorneys' fees.
The pattern in the filing is the part HR teams will recognize. An accommodation conversation goes well in the moment - an assistant manager allegedly says the lifting limit is fine - and is reversed within a day by an alleged text from a higher-ranked manager tied to the pregnancy itself. The PWFA requires covered employers to engage in the interactive process for known pregnancy-related limitations and to provide reasonable accommodations unless they cause undue hardship.
The EEOC's reasonable-cause finding is worth noting. According to the Right to Sue notice, the agency reviewed the file, found reasonable cause to believe a violation occurred, and could not reach a settlement with Chipotle before closing its file and clearing Griffin to sue.
For HR leaders, two practical signals emerge from the complaint. First, front-line manager communications matter - a single text, as alleged here, can become the centerpiece of a federal complaint. Second, accommodation decisions made verbally during onboarding still bind the employer. If an assistant manager allegedly says yes to an accommodation, a quiet reversal the next day can land squarely in PWFA territory.
The allegations have not been tested in court. Chipotle has not yet filed a response, and no court has ruled on the claims.
