Absent allegations of control, McDonald’s not liable for franchisee rejecting older job applicant

By Joy Waltemath

By Lorene D. Park, J.D.

Because a plaintiff did not plead that McDonald’s USA was involved in or had authority over her alleged employment relationship with a franchisee that allegedly discriminated against her based on age and race in rejecting her job application, a federal district court in Alabama dismissed the franchisor from her suit. The court also ordered her to provide a more definite statement, because her “shotgun pleading” did not link particular factual allegations to claims or to the remaining defendants (Beckley v. McDonald’s USA, LLC, February 7, 2017, Albritton, W.).

The plaintiff, a 70-year-old Caucasian woman, applied to work at a McDonald’s in Montgomery, Alabama. Before applying, she spoke to the store owner, who said she would be happy to help her get a job. When the plaintiff visited the location, the African-American manager told her that they were hiring and that she needed “a pleasant and friendly face on the front.” The plaintiff completed the application as instructed and was informed she would be called sometime the next week to set up an orientation. However, she didn’t receive a call.

Denied chance to prove herself. She went back to the store and the manager told her “I do not believe that you could move fast enough to work the front order computer.” This, claimed the plaintiff, suggested she was “simply too old” for the job. After the plaintiff asked for a chance to prove herself, the manager relented. When the plaintiff returned for orientation, the manager wasn’t there. She asked if the assistant manager thought she could do the job and she was told “Of course you can.” However, the assistant manager called the manager to confirm the orientation, and after that conversation told the plaintiff she would not be hired.

Shotgun pleading? The plaintiff filed suit under Title VII and the ADEA, alleging discrimination based on race and age. As defendants, she named McDonald’s USA, LLC, the franchisee Emerald Management Corp., and “Fictitious Defendants A-Z.” Moving to dismiss or for a more definite statement, McDonald’s USA first argued that the plaintiff’s complaint was deficient because it was a “shotgun pleading.” Specifically, it did not ascribe actionable conduct to particular causes of action and to individual defendants, thus placing an “onerous duty” on the court and McDonald’s to sift through to match claims to facts. The court agreed, and found that a more definite statement was warranted.

McDonald’s USA was not “employer.” The court also agreed with McDonald’s argument that the plaintiff did not plausibly allege McDonald’s USA, LLC is her “employer” under Title VII or the ADEA. Though the plaintiff responded that she is entitled to discovery on this issue, the court explained that she first had to meet the requisite plausibility standard with respect to employer liability. For example, a franchisor may qualify as an employer if it has “control over fundamental aspects of the employment relationship” of the franchisee’s employee.

Here, the plaintiff alleged that franchisee Emerald was the employer and she alleged unlawful actions taking place at a franchisee’s store location, but she did not plead a theory of liability against franchisor McDonald’s USA. Indeed, the complaint did not contain a single factual allegation indicating the franchisor was either involved in, had authority over, or even controlled her purported employment with Emerald. To the contrary, she provided only a threadbare legal conclusion that it was “considered an employer” under the statutes. Because that was not enough to state a plausible claim, McDonald’s USA was dismissed from the action.

Source:: Absent allegations of control, McDonald’s not liable for franchisee rejecting older job applicant