CHICAGO — A federal judge has refused to dismiss a sex discrimination class action against McDonald's, in which female employees of the world's largest fast food chain are seeking more than $500 million in damages.
Jamelia Fairley and Ashley Reddick sued McDonald’s in April 2020 in Chicago, alleging sexual harassment and retaliation at more than 100 restaurants in Florida. They said the chain “creates and permits a toxic work culture from the very top” and said the company “has long been aware of, and failed to address, this endemic problem.”
Fairley and Reddick, both in their 20s, worked at a McDonald’s in Sanford, Fla. They said that location is one of about 100 restaurants in Florida and 650 nationwide owned and operated by McDonald’s rather than a franchisee. They seek compensatory damages of at least $100,000 per potential class member.
Douglas Werman
| Werman Salas P.C.
According to the complaint, Fairley said a male co-worker made sexual comments toward her beginning in December 2018, which then allegedly progressed to “frequent physical assaults,” involving at least one other colleague. She alleged coworkers and supervisors routinely witnessed the alleged incidents without reporting them or intervening. She alleged the company failed to train its shift managers about “responsibility to report and prevent sexual harassment” and also didn’t provide adequate human resources tools.
Fairley also levied allegations about corporate employees’ failure to adequately investigate or inhibit the harassment and said McDonald’s reduced her hours. She alleged when she requested a transfer, McDonald's would only offer her a position at a location where one of her alleged harassers was working, despite other locations having openings.
Reddick said the company fired her in September 2018 for reporting sexual harassment. She detailed her experiences with a male coworker who made unwelcome remarks and physical contact and showed her explicit photos on a phone. She also said the company allowed customers to harass her verbally.
In an opinion issued July 20, U.S. District Judge Franklin Valderrama said the women adequately pleaded an employment relationship with McDonald's and that their allegations of “inadequate policies and training relating to sexual harassment” were sufficient to defeat a motion to dismiss. He also said the plaintiffs weren’t required to first present every fact alleged in their class action in Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filings.
“Two paragraphs contained in both plaintiffs’ EEOC charges work together to make it clear that their charges contained pattern and/or practice claims relating to sex discrimination and hostile work environment against defendants, and not just the individual managers named in the charges,” Valderrama wrote.
McDonald’s also failed to convince Valderrama that Reddick’s claim of a hostile work environment was barred by statutory limitations and that she failed to state a retaliation claim, though the latter was “a close call,” because she filed a complaint with a manager in May 2018 and wasn’t fired until September. However, McDonald’s relied on a case in which a worker had a six-year gap between an EEOC complaint and alleged retaliation, whereas Reddick’s timetable was “not sufficiently long to make it implausible that Reddick was terminated in retaliation.”
Valderrama further refused a motion to dismiss class allegations, saying the plaintiffs’ complaint adequately alleges common experiences among workers, as well as companywide conduct perpetuating the alleged abuses. He also said all but one case McDonald’s used to argue its position involved dismissal after discovery.
Class certification could be inhibited, because proposed class and sucblass members worked at more than 100 restaurants, Valderrama said. But the judge said that concern also isn’t enough to warrant dismissal. He further noted there are potential conflicts of interest in that some class members might also have worked in low-level managerial roles and contributed to the overall allegations. But he said the plaintiffs agreed to propose further subclasses or to narrow class definitions later in proceedings, should the evidence require them to do so.
McDonald’s has until Aug. 10 to answer the first amended complaint.
The plaintiffs are represented by attorneys Douglas M. Werman, Maureen A. Salas and Sarah J. Arendt, of Werman Salas P.C., of Chicago, and Eve H. Cervantez, Danielle Leonard and Elizabeth Vissers, of Altshuler Berzon, of San Francisco.
McDonald's is represented by attorneys Jonathan C. Bunge, Daniel R. Lombard and Manisha M. Sheth, of the firm of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, of Chicago and New York.