Tag: McDonald’s

EEOC Sues McDonald's for Disability Discrimination

mcdonalds logoFast Food Giant Denied Sign Language Interpreter for Deaf Applicant

KANSAS CITY, Mo. — McDonald’s Corporation and McDonald’s Restaurants of Missouri violated federal law by refusing to accommodate and hire a deaf applicant, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed today.

According to the suit, Ricky Washington, who is deaf, applied online for a job at a McDonald’s restaurant in Belton, Mo. in June 2012. Washington indicated on his application that he attended Kansas School for the Deaf. Washington also said he had previous job experience working as a cook and clean-up team member at a McDonald’s restaurant in Louisiana in 2009. When the Belton restaurant manager learned Washington needed a sign language interpreter for his job interview, she canceled the interview and never rescheduled it, despite Washington’s sister volunteering to act as the interpreter. Restaurant management continued to interview and hire new workers after Washington made several attempts to schedule an interview.

Such alleged conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), which prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities in employment and requires employers to make reasonable accommodations for job applicants so they will have equal opportunities during the application process. EEOC filed its lawsuit (EEOC v. McDonald’s Corporation, et al, 4:15-cv-01004-FJG) in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. EEOC seeks back pay, compensatory and punitive damages, and injunctive relief, including training for all McDonald’s managers on accommodations for applicants with disabilities, particularly those who are deaf.

EEOC St. Louis District Director James R. Neely, Jr. said, “Removing obstacles in the hiring process for people with disabilities is a national priority for EEOC. All employers, but especially large ones, should join with the agency to make sure everyone has equal access to the employment process.”

“People with disabilities have one of the highest unemployment rates in the country,” added EEOC Regional Attorney Andrea G. Baran. “Providing equal employment opportunities to all job applicants – including those with disabilities – is not just the law, it is good for our economy and our workplaces.”

According to company information, McDonald’s is a global fast food provider that serves over sixty-nine million customers per day in 100 different countries.  The Belton, Mo. restaurant is owned and operated by the corporation’s world-wide headquarters in Oak Brook, Illinois.

Eliminating barriers in recruitment and hiring is one of six national priorities identified by EEOC’s Strategic Enforcement Plan (SEP).

The St. Louis District Office oversees Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma and a portion of southern Illinois.

EEOC is responsible for enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination.

The original content can be viewed here.

© Copyright U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

EEOC Sues McDonald’s for Disability Discrimination

mcdonalds logoFast Food Giant Denied Sign Language Interpreter for Deaf Applicant

KANSAS CITY, Mo. — McDonald’s Corporation and McDonald’s Restaurants of Missouri violated federal law by refusing to accommodate and hire a deaf applicant, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed today.

According to the suit, Ricky Washington, who is deaf, applied online for a job at a McDonald’s restaurant in Belton, Mo. in June 2012. Washington indicated on his application that he attended Kansas School for the Deaf. Washington also said he had previous job experience working as a cook and clean-up team member at a McDonald’s restaurant in Louisiana in 2009. When the Belton restaurant manager learned Washington needed a sign language interpreter for his job interview, she canceled the interview and never rescheduled it, despite Washington’s sister volunteering to act as the interpreter. Restaurant management continued to interview and hire new workers after Washington made several attempts to schedule an interview.

Such alleged conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), which prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities in employment and requires employers to make reasonable accommodations for job applicants so they will have equal opportunities during the application process. EEOC filed its lawsuit (EEOC v. McDonald’s Corporation, et al, 4:15-cv-01004-FJG) in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. EEOC seeks back pay, compensatory and punitive damages, and injunctive relief, including training for all McDonald’s managers on accommodations for applicants with disabilities, particularly those who are deaf.

EEOC St. Louis District Director James R. Neely, Jr. said, “Removing obstacles in the hiring process for people with disabilities is a national priority for EEOC. All employers, but especially large ones, should join with the agency to make sure everyone has equal access to the employment process.”

“People with disabilities have one of the highest unemployment rates in the country,” added EEOC Regional Attorney Andrea G. Baran. “Providing equal employment opportunities to all job applicants – including those with disabilities – is not just the law, it is good for our economy and our workplaces.”

According to company information, McDonald’s is a global fast food provider that serves over sixty-nine million customers per day in 100 different countries.  The Belton, Mo. restaurant is owned and operated by the corporation’s world-wide headquarters in Oak Brook, Illinois.

Eliminating barriers in recruitment and hiring is one of six national priorities identified by EEOC’s Strategic Enforcement Plan (SEP).

The St. Louis District Office oversees Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma and a portion of southern Illinois.

EEOC is responsible for enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination.

The original content can be viewed here.

© Copyright U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

“Do You Want Liability With That?” The NLRB McDonald’s Decision that could undermine the Franchise Business Model (Part II)

 

McBrayer NEW logo 1-10-13

 

Yesterday’s post discussed the decision of NLRB’s General Counsel to hold McDonald’s Corp. jointly responsible with its franchise owners for workers’ labor complaints. The decision, if allowed to stand, could shake up the decades-old fast-food franchise system, but it does not stop there. The joint employer doctrine can be applied not only to fast food franchises and franchise arrangements in other industries, but also to other employment arrangements, such as subcontracting or outsourcing.

This decision could also impact the pricing of goods and services, as franchisors would likely need to up costs to offset the new potential liability. Everything from taxes to Affordable Care Act requirements could be affected if the decision stands.

If you are a franchisor and are currently in what could be determined to be a joint employer relationship, consider taking steps to further separate and distinguish your role from that of your franchisee. While franchisors should always take reasonable measures to ensure that franchisees are in compliance with applicable federal and state employment laws, they should take care to not wield such force over them to give the appearance of a joint-employer relationship.

We will be following the NLRB decision and keep you updated as the issue progresses.

ARTICLE BY

Luke A. Wingfield
 
OF 
McBrayer, McGinnis, Leslie and Kirkland, PLLC

“Do You Want Liability With That?” The NLRB McDonald’s Decision that could undermine the Franchise Business Model

McBrayer NEW logo 1-10-13

On July 29, 2014 the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) General Counsel authorized NLRB Regional Directors to name McDonald’s Corp. as a joint employer in several complaints regarding worker rights at franchise-owned restaurants. Joint employer liability means that the non-employer (McDonald’s Corp.) can be held responsible for labor violations to the same extent as the worker’s “W-2” employer.

In the U.S., the overwhelming majority of the 14,000 McDonald’s restaurants are owned and operated by franchisees (as is the case with most other fast-food chains). The franchise model is predicated on the assumption that the franchisee is an independent contractor – not an employee of the franchisor. Generally, the franchisor owns a system for operating a business and agrees to license a bundle of intellectual property to the franchisee so long as on the franchisee adheres to prescribed operating standards and pays franchise fees. Franchisees have the freedom to make personnel decisions and control their operating costs.

Many third parties and pro-union advocates have long sought to hold franchisors responsible for the acts or omissions of franchisees – arguing that franchisors maintain strict control on day-to-day operations and regulate almost all aspects of a franchisee’s operations, from employee training to store design. Their argument is that the franchise model allows the corporations to control the parts of the business it cares about at its franchises, while escaping liability for labor and wage violations.

The NLRB has investigated 181 cases of unlawful labor practices at McDonald’s franchise restaurants since 2012. The NLRB has found sufficient merit in at least 43 cases. Heather Smedstad, senior vice president of human resources for McDonald’s USA, called the NLRB’s decision a “radical departure” and something that “should be a concern to businessmen and women across the country.” Indeed it is, but it is important to note that General Counsel’s decision is not the same as a binding NLRB ruling and that it will be a long time before this issue is resolved, as McDonald’s Corp. will no doubt appeal any rulings.

ARTICLE BY

Luke A. Wingfield
 
OF 
McBrayer, McGinnis, Leslie and Kirkland, PLLC

“Do You Want Liability With That?” The NLRB McDonald’s Decision that could undermine the Franchise Business Model

McBrayer NEW logo 1-10-13

On July 29, 2014 the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) General Counsel authorized NLRB Regional Directors to name McDonald’s Corp.as a joint employer in several complaints regarding worker rights at franchise-owned restaurants. Joint employer liability means that the non-employer (McDonald’s Corp.) can be held responsible for labor violations to the same extent as the worker’s “W-2” employer.

In the U.S., the overwhelming majority of the 14,000 McDonald’s restaurants are owned and operated by franchisees (as is the case with most other fast-food chains). The franchise model is predicated on the assumption that the franchisee is an independent contractor – not an employee of the franchisor. Generally, the franchisor owns a system for operating a business and agrees to license a bundle of intellectual property to the franchisee so long as on the franchisee adheres to prescribed operating standards and pays franchise fees. Franchisees have the freedom to make personnel decisions and control their operating costs.

Many third parties and pro-union advocates have long sought to hold franchisors responsible for the acts or omissions of franchisees – arguing that franchisors maintain strict control on day-to-day operations and regulate almost all aspects of a franchisee’s operations, from employee training to store design. Their argument is that the franchise model allows the corporations to control the parts of the business it cares about at its franchises, while escaping liability for labor and wage violations.

The NLRB has investigated 181 cases of unlawful labor practices at McDonald’s franchise restaurants since 2012. The NLRB has found sufficient merit in at least 43 cases. Heather Smedstad, senior vice president of human resources for McDonald’s USA, called the NLRB’s decision a “radical departure” and something that “should be a concern to businessmen and women across the country.” Indeed it is, but it is important to note that General Counsel’s decision is not the same as a binding NLRB ruling and that it will be a long time before this issue is resolved, as McDonald’s Corp. will no doubt appeal any rulings.

ARTICLE BY

Luke A. Wingfield
 
OF 
McBrayer, McGinnis, Leslie and Kirkland, PLLC

NLRB General Counsel Authorizes Complaints Asserting Franchisor Can Be Jointly Liable With Its Franchisees

Schiff Hardin Law Firm

Earlier this week, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), Richard F. Griffin, authorized the issuance of multiple complaints which include allegations that a franchisor, McDonald’s, USA, LLC, could be liable as ajoint employer with its franchisees for violations of theNational Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The text of the General Counsel’s authorization is available here.

Since 2012, McDonald’s, USA, LLC and its franchisees have been named in 181 unfair labor practice charges filed with the NLRB. In a memorandum issued to the Regional Directors, the General Counsel noted that 43 of those charges were found to have merit, while the remaining charges either were found to have no merit or are pending further investigation. The General Counsel’s action authorizes the regions in which the charges were filed to issue administrative complaints naming McDonald’s USA, LLC and its franchisees as respondents if the parties are unable to reach settlement in the 43 cases that have been found to have merit.

The authorization comes on the heels of an amicus brief filed by the General Counsel in June in Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc., urging the Board to adopt a new standard for determining joint-employer status. Under the current standard, the NLRB analyzes whether alleged joint employers share the ability to control or co-determine the essential terms and conditions of employment. TLI, Inc., 271 NLRB 798 (1984). Essential terms and conditions of employment include hiring, firing, discipline, supervision and direction of employees. Laerco Transportation, 269 NLRB 324 (1984). The putative joint employers’ control over these employment matters must be direct and immediate.

In the amicus brief, the General Counsel argued that the Board’s current standard for determining joint-employer status is significantly narrower than the traditional standard and ignores Congress’s intent that the term “employer” be construed broadly. Griffin urged the Board to adopt a new standard that accounts for the totality of the circumstances, including how putative joint employers structure their commercial dealings. Under the proposed test, joint-employer status would exist if one of the entities wields sufficient influence over the working conditions of the other entity’s employees such that meaningful bargaining could not occur in its absence.

The NLRB has not yet decided whether to adopt the General Counsel’s proposed standard, and the Browning-Ferris case is currently pending before the Board.

Implications and Recommendations

Although the General Counsel’s action has sparked a flurry of debate over the proper test for determining joint-employer status, it remains unclear whether the NLRB will accept his position. If the NLRB decides to adopt a new joint-employer standard, it would likely expand the number of entities found to be joint employers and thus potentially liable for alleged unfair labor practices, and could have ramifications under other employment laws as well, including wage and hour and discrimination cases.

ARTICLE BY

Alexis Dominguez
OF
Schiff Hardin LLP

Can the Town Make Me Change My Sign?

Giordano Logo

A business’ signage can be one of the most distinctive characteristics of its brand and one of its most important assets.  This is especially true when the sign display’s the business’ federally registered trademark and color is a feature of the mark.  But what happens when that brand runs afoul of state and local laws?

It is common place for commercial real estate development plans to impose requirements on the characteristics of the signs that tenants may display in the development.  Sometimes, those requirements impose restrictions on the colors that such signs may display.  For owners of federally registered trademarks where color is claimed as a feature of the mark, the last thing they want is to have to change the color of their sign.

For example, imagine telling McDonalds that its famous golden and red sign must be displayed in other colors, say, like this:

McDonalds Logo w Inverted Colors

For most consumers, I suspect this sounds ridiculous.  But that is exactly the obstacle that federal brand owners must overcome when faced with local zoning restrictions on color.

Fortunately, the federal trademark law provides some relief.  Or does it?   The Lanham Act expressly provides that federal law preempts state law by providing (in part):

No State or other jurisdiction of the United States or any political subdivision or any agency thereof may require alteration of a registered mark …. (15 USCA §1121(B))

While this may seem pretty clear on its face, courts are split as to whether towns can lawfully impose color restrictions on signs displaying a federally registered trademark.

Two courts in the 9th Circuit (including the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals) have shot down Tempe, Arizona’s attempts to impose such color restrictions under this section of the Lanham Act.  Blockbuster Videos, Inc. v. City of Tempe, 141 F.3d 1295 (1998); Desert Subway, Inc. v. City of Tempe, 322 F. Supp.2d 1036 (2003).  Conversely, two courts in the 2d Circuit (including  the 2d Circuit Court of Appeals) have upheld town zoning boards’ imposition of signage color restrictions as superior to the rights of federally registered trademark holders.  Payless Shoesource, Inc. v. Town of Penfield, NY, 934 F. Supp. 540 (1996); Lisa’s Party City, Inc. v. Town of Henrietta, 185 F.3d 12 (1999).

According to the 9th Circuit courts, from looking at the legislative history, it is clear that while local governments can prohibit the display of outdoor signs altogether, there is nothing to suggest that local zoning ordinances may require alteration of trademarks.  Looking at the identical legislative history and, in some cases, quoting from the same testimony, the 2d Circuit courts agreed that the law would allow local zoning ordinances to prohibit outdoor signs altogether or even materially restrict their size.  However, the 2d Circuit found that the statute was intended to prohibit state-mandated changes in the trademark  itself since the brand owner would be free to use the unaltered mark in every other aspect of its business.

So who is right?

Like any other situation where courts are split geographically, they both are.  Until the Supreme Court takes up the issue, local ordinances in the 2d Circuit are free to place restrictions on colors used in trademarks displayed on signs, whereas in the 9th Circuit (especially, Tempe, Arizona), local ordinances may not.  For those of us in other circuits, the moral of the story for brand owners is to be mindful of local zoning restrictions before committing to a store location.  Real estate developers should also be mindful of signage restrictions included in their plans when seeking local approvals.

Article By:

Kurt E. Anderson
Of: 
Giordano, Halleran & Ciesla, P.C.

Franchisors Beware: McDonald's Workers Sue for Alleged Wage and Hour Violations by Franchisees

VedderPriceLogo

Seven class action lawsuits were recently filed against McDonald’s Corp. and several McDonald’s franchisees in California, Michigan and New York. The lawsuits are a direct result of the coordinated effort by plaintiffs’ attorneys and the Service Employees International Union to pressure fast-food restaurants to pay their employees at least $15.00 per hour. The lawsuits are also part of a new strategy from the plaintiffs’ bar to sue fast-food and pizza franchisors (i.e., the “deep pocket”) for the conduct of independently owned franchisees.

The Michigan and New York class actions were filed in federal court and primarily allege that McDonald’s Corp. and the franchisees violated federal law by shaving hours from employees’ time cards, requiring employees to work off the clock and failing to pay overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. The California class actions were filed in state court and allege a variety of state labor law violations, including minimum wage and overtime violations and missed meal and rest breaks.

The lawsuits allege that McDonald’s Corp. is not only culpable for the suits relating to its corporate-owned stores, but also for its franchisees because of McDonald’s Corp.’s alleged heavy hand in monitoring and guiding the franchisees’ timekeeping, scheduling and other policies. In particular, the Michigan lawsuits allege that McDonald’s Corp. is a “joint employer” and thus also liable because it provides financial tracking computer software to franchisees, which allegedly guides when individual store managers may permit employees to be clocked in or on the clock. The software purportedly sends alerts to the manager when labor costs exceed a certain level of sales. As a result, the plaintiffs allege that managers prevented employees from clocking in (even though the employees were working) until the restaurant experienced a certain level of sales.

Generally, when determining whether a “joint employer” relationship exists, courts examine the totality of the circumstances, focusing on the economic realities of the particular relationship. A joint employment relationship may exist where two companies are deemed to share control of the employee, or one company is controlled by another company. Courts have considered a variety of factors when making this determination, including the ability to hire or fire the employees, supervision of the employees’ schedules and working conditions, determination of wages and the maintenance of employment records.

These McDonald’s lawsuits will need to overcome some very high hurdles before they may be certified as class actions due to the individualized nature of the plaintiffs’ claims and circumstances in the various stores. For example, certification may be inappropriate on a multi-store basis if McDonald’s can show that individual store managers implemented their own procedures and practices for scheduling and timekeeping. Nevertheless, these cases are a good reminder for franchisors to review the policies, training materials, software, etc., that they share with franchisees to ensure that the materials are lawful and will not inevitably lead to employees working off the clock. Lastly, franchisors should review their relationships and interactions with franchisees to ensure that they are not exercising control in a manner that could support a joint employer relationship.

Article By:

Joseph K. Mulherin
 
Of:
Vedder Price