A federal judge will let a man who used to lead corporate security for McDonald’s sue the fast food giant over allegations of a retaliatory termination linked to remarks addressing what he felt were racist remarks from the company's CEO.
Michael Peaster, identified in court documents as a 35-year McDonald’s employee who spent a decade heading corporate safety, security and intelligence, sued the company and CEO Christopher Kempczisnki in federal court in Chicago. He alleged the company subjected him to racial discrimination and retaliation and intentionally inflicted emotional distress.
Peaster’s complaint focused on the public release of text messages Kempczisnki sent then-Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot after a child was shot in a McDonald’s parking lot. Kempczisnki publicly apologized for the remarks, then called a meeting at corporate headquarters. Peaster, who attended that meeting, said his takeaway was the CEO being “in denial” about how his texts could be viewed as racist.
According to Peaster, another employee asked Kempczisnki what he’d say to someone who agreed with his texts, which Peaster said appeared to blame the victim’s parents for exposing her to violence.
“I would say you would have to look at your values, and then make the right decision,” was Kempczisnki alleged response, which Peaster said he found “evasive, or worse.”
Peaster said he responded by saying: “To those employees who agreed with Christopher Kempczinski’s comments, think about their fellow employees who are in the room who live in the neighborhoods being discussed. Think about the kids who are in their homes and playing on playgrounds who are killed by stray bullets. We cannot broad brush the violence issues in Chicago to make it appear that all parents who have children who are victims to gun violence are bad parents. We have to have empathy and compassion for the majority of families who live in tough communities that work hard to provide for their family and keep them safe.”
According to Peaster, those sentences triggered racial discrimination and retribution. Although McDonald’s named him vice president of global safety, security and intelligence on Jan. 1, 2022, an officer level post, he said he was denied the opportunities and benefits associated with the position despite Kempczisnki granting the same to white corporate officers.
Peaster further alleged Kempczisnki declined to meet with him on professional topics, congratulated all new officers at an officers’ meeting aside from Peaster and directed Peaster’s supervisor, General Counsel, Desiree Ralls-Morrison, to deny Peaster access to a corporate jet. He further said the company set him up to fail in order to have a reason to fire him, such as by allegedly demanding enhanced security benchmarks without approving meaningful budget increase or allowing him to fill vacant positions.
Judge Jenkins rejected the company’s argument Peaster failed to allege racially disparate treatment. Regarding a security breach in New York, where labor activists entered a ballroom when Kempczinski was present, Jenkins said Peaster alleged the company “caused the conditions that resulted in the security breach by preventing him from running the security department effectively” as part of his broader complaint and further refused to accept the argument Peaster couldn’t allege disparate treatment and retaliation while also alleging race was the determining factor in his situation.
The company also argued the actions Peaster alleged they took against him preceding his termination fell short of the legal standard defining adverse employment actions. But Jenkins again favored Peaster’s contention that many of the allegations could be pretext for his firing. She further said McDonald’s might be able to seek summary judgment on whether certain of Peaster’s allegations rise to the level of adverse employment actions.
Jenkins also rejected an attempt to dismiss Kempczinski as a defendant, citing the specifics of Peaster’s allegations. But the judge did agree Peaster failed to sufficiently allege the kind of conduct needed to establish his claim of a hostile work environment.
“The hostility he identifies derives primarily from being ignored, excluded from expected privileges, or passed over for praise,” Jenkins wrote of Peaster. “This subtle undermining may have been harmful and — if based on discriminatory or retaliatory motives — may be actionable, but Peaster does not allege the kind of overt hostility present in viable hostile work environment claims.”
Regarding retaliation, Jenkins agreed with McDonald’s that any of Peaster’s allegations involving a July 2022 meeting regarding another former employee’s racial discrimination lawsuit were not the type of protected activity or speech that could trigger legal protections. However, she said his comments regarding the CEO’s texts with Lightfoot — aired during a staff meeting on that topic — could reasonably be inferred as Peaster trying to speak up for Black employees.
Whether or not those remarks trigger constitutional protection is a question for litigation stages beyond a motion to dismiss, Jenkins said. However, she agreed Peaster’s allegations of intentional infliction of emotional distress fall short. Although he perceived the conduct he alleged to be an outrageous attempt at punishment, “his allegations focus on his own subjective reaction” Jenkins wrote, adding the conduct, even if true, does not reach the “more blatantly offensive” actions that undergird successful claims of this nature.
Jenkins gave Peaster until Sept. 19 to amend the two counts she dismissed. The remainder of his complaint is active and discovery will continue.
Peaster is represented in the action by attorneys Carmen D. Caruso and William B. Whitner, of the Carmen D. Caruso Law Firm, of Chicago.
McDonald's is represented by attorneys Nigel F. Telman and Alexandra S. Oxyer, of the Proskauer Rose firm, of Chicago.