Chipotle wrongfully accuses worker of theft and fires her. Then Chipotle pays dearly. - Mark P. Loftus

September 26, 2025

I saw this online story by Rachel Seigel of the Washington Post a couple weeks ago.

Jeanette Ortiz worked at a California Chipotle for 14 years. She had moved up to a General Manager position and was making around $72,000 a year. Chipotle’s practice going back several years, was to have armored cars swing by and swap out large bills for smaller bills. One day, in the fall of 2014, the armored car never showed. And there was an extra $636 dollars laying around as a result. Ortiz found the money, placed it in a manila envelope, sealed it and stapled it. She then contacted corporate to let them know about the extra money. She then put the money into a safe, in view of a surveillance camera.

In December, 2014, Ortiz filed a Workers’ Compensation claim, alleging she suffered from carpal tunnel. She had filed prior Workers’ Comp claims and her bosses weren’t happy to hear about another one.

On January 3, 2015, Ortiz texted her boss as well as two other supervisors and alerted them the money she had put in the safe back in October was gone. Ortiz reported she and an assistant manager had last seen the money on December 30, 2014. Chipotle then decided to bring in another manager to review the surveillance tape. That manager said the footage showed Ortiz taking the money from the safe and putting it in her backpack. Ortiz adamantly denied doing so and demanded to see the footage. Chipotle corporate types responded that corporate policy did not permit them to show her the footage. Ortiz was then fired.

Ortiz sued the Chipotle for wrongful termination, lost wages, damage to her reputation and emotional distress. At trial evidence was adduced that there is no actual written policy forbidding employees from reviewing surveillance video. To make matters worse, no video of Ortiz taking the money was ever produced. Chipotle said that they had “filmed over” the footage. Oops. Chipotle lawyers argued that while Chipotle had no ill will toward Ortiz, Chipotle felt betrayed after Ortiz allegedly stole the money – especially after supporting Ortiz through multiple pregnancies and work injuries. So Chipotle was betting that despite the missing videotape, they could convince a jury that Ortiz stole the money. Chipotle was very, very wrong.

The jury awarded Ortiz $6 million dollars in emotional distress and $1.97 million for loss of past and future wages.

Shortly after the verdict, the parties reached a confidential settlement in order to avoid a further award of punitive damages.

Red Tesla sedan driving on a road.
September 26, 2025
According to online reports, Tesla ignored a $60 million dollar settlement overture in the wrongful death case that ultimately resulted in a $242 million dollar jury verdict against the car maker. The lawsuit grew out of 2019 crash where a Tesla Model S with Autopilot engaged, plowed through a Florida intersection and crashed into a Chevy Tahoe. Neima Benavides Leon and her boyfriend, Dillon Angulo were standing near the Tahoe when the Tesla crashed into it. Leon was killed and Angulo suffered serious injuries. A lawsuit was filed against Tesla, asserting that although the Autopilot feature was engaged, the vehicle did not brake. Florida law permits a monetary demand to be issued before trial. If the defendant fails to accept the demand within 30 days it is considered rejected. If the plaintiff then goes to trial and secures a verdict 25% greater than the offer, the defendant is on the hook for plaintiff’s investigative expenses and attorneys’ fees. Tesla is appealing the jury verdict, citing “substantial errors of law and irregularities at trial.”.
Johnson's baby powder container, white bottle, blue text, red seal, 400g.
September 26, 2025
This important ruling got kind of lost in the news cycle. A couple weeks ago, the United States Supreme Court refused to vacate a $2.2 billion dollar ovarian cancer verdict against Johnson & Johnson[“J & J”]. The verdict was originally returned by a Missouri jury in 2018 on behalf of 22 women. The original verdict was actually $4.7 billion but a Missouri Appellate Court reduced the award to $2 billion. Each of the women claimed that there was asbestos and asbestos-laced talc in J & J talcum powder products they used, and they developed ovarian cancer as a result. Asbestos is known to cause cancer. Talc, in its raw form is often found in close proximity to naturally occurring asbestos. When J & J mined talc, that talc sometimes contained asbestos. And that asbestos sometimes found its way into J & J personal hygiene products. [In 2019, J & J recalled 33,000 bottles of J & J products after FDA testing found asbestos in test samples]. J & J, has known of the risk of asbestos contamination in talc products since the 1970’s. Some 21,000 plus ovarian cancer cases are pending against J & J throughout the United States.
Movie poster for
September 26, 2025
Reports today say that DuPont and the State of New Jersey have reached a $2 Billion dollar settlement arising out of DuPont’s release of “forever chemicals” into soil, wetlands and other areas in New Jersey – and then forgetting to clean up the mess they made. The settlement with DuPont is reportedly the largest environmental settlement ever obtained by a state. “Forever chemicals” – also known as PFAS(referring to per and polyfluoroalkyl substances) are man-made chemicals that are used in an extensive variety of products as they are both water and grease-resistant. The chemicals are linked to litany of health problems, including increased risk of certain cancers(kidney, testicular and breast) liver damage, thyroid issues and reproductive problems(such as decreased fertility, low birthweight and developmental problems). NJ.Com is reporting that one of the sites where DuPont created munitions created such significant contamination in the environment that over 300 homes required filters to prevent toxic chemicals from seeping into their homes. The settlement terms provide that DuPont will spend $875 millions cleaning up the contamination and set aside another $125 million to cover other damages that may arise. Additionally, DuPont will also set p a $1.2 billion funding source and reserve fund of $475 million to ensure that even if the company fails to make payments, or goes bankrupt, public funds will not be used. For a stark introduction into the nature of PFAS, check out Dark Waters, a compelling and criminally underrated movie based on the decades old fight waged by attorney Robert Bilott against DuPont for contaminating West Virginia rural communities.