May, 22 2018, 12:00am EDT
#MeToo, McDonald's
Fight For $15, TIME’S UP Legal Defense Fund Confront Sexual Harassment at McDonald’s
CHICAGO
The Fight for $15, with support from the TIME'S UP Legal Defense Fund, announced Tuesday an effort to challenge widespread sexual harassment faced by McDonald's workers on the job across the country--including groping, propositions for sex and lewd comments by supervisors-- that is all too often ignored by management.
Press Conference Details:
WHEN: Tuesday, May 22, 2018 at 11am CT
WHERE: McDonald's Headquarters
WHO: Adriana Alvarez, Chicago McDonald's worker (MC)
Sharyn Tejani, Executive Director of TIME's Up Legal Defense Fund
Meredith Johnson, attorney at Altshuler Berzon
Amy Biegelsen, attorney at Outten Golden
Tanya Harrel, New Orleans McDonald's worker
Breauna Morrow, St. Louis McDonald's worker
Kimberley Lawson, Kansas City McDonald's worker
In the last several days, cooks and cashiers have filed 10 charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, alleging an array of illegal conduct in McDonald's restaurants across nine cities, workers said Tuesday. The TIME'S UP Legal Defense Fund provided financial support to investigate and file the charges, which will be officially announced Tuesday morning at a press conference outside McDonald's new downtown Chicago headquarters days ahead of the company's annual shareholder meeting. The workers who filed sexual harassment charges allege:
- Supervisors did nothing when a 15-year-old cashier in St. Louis complained of a co-worker who repeatedly harassed her using graphic, sexual language;
- Managers mocked a New Orleans woman who complained about a coworker groping her, telling her she was probably giving the worker "sex appeal" and that she should take it to the "next level" with him. When a second co-worker attempted to sexually assault her in the restaurant's bathroom, she did not report it because her first complaint was not taken seriously;
- Managers told a Durham worker they wanted to have sex with her, including one who suggested a threesome with her and a coworker and another who asked to have sex in his car. They made fun of her when she complained about a coworker who regularly propositioned her for sex; and
- A manager asked a Chicago worker if she wanted to see his penis and asked "how many dicks" she could take. He narrated lurid fantasies about what he would do if he got the worker or another crew member in the bathroom alone. She hesitated to complain because the general manager encouraged workers to flirt with customers, but when she did report the harassment, she was fired.
"McDonald's advertises all over television saying it's 'America's best first job,' but my experience has been a nightmare," said Breauna Morrow, the 15-year old who works at a St. Louis McDonald's. "I know I'm not the only one and that's why I'm speaking out, so others don't have to face the harassment I've gone through."
The charges were filed by workers in Chicago, Detroit, Durham, Kansas City (Missouri), Los Angeles, Miami, New Orleans, Orlando and St. Louis. They reveal instances when workers alerted management after experiencing sexual harassment on the job, yet their complaints were brushed off, went unaddressed, or, in some cases, they were mocked or met with retaliation, including termination.
"McDonald's has zero tolerance for any form of sexual harassment of any employee," the company's Operations and Training Manual reads. "Sexual harassment is prohibited because it may be intimidating, an abuse of power, and is inconsistent with McDonald's policies, practices and management philosophy."
The workers are demanding McDonald's effectively implement and enforce the zero-tolerance policy against sexual harassment outlined in its manual and in its franchisees' policies. They're also calling on the company to hold mandatory trainings for managers and employees and to create a safe and effective system for receiving and responding to complaints.
"The workers filing charges today want McDonald's to take sexual harassment seriously," said Eve Cervantez, an attorney with Altshuler Berzon who is working on the cases with financial support from the TIME'S UP Legal Defense Fund. "McDonald's is one of the largest restaurant chains on earth and should use its power and influence to guarantee a safe workplace."
The TIME'S UP Legal Defense Fund--housed and administered by the National Women's Law Center Fund LLC--connects those who experience workplace sexual harassment with legal and communications assistance and provides funding for legal representation in select cases, including the charges filed today.
"By funding the legal representation in these cases, we hope to help ensure that these charges will be a catalyst for significant change," said Sharyn Tejani, Director of the TIME'S UP Legal Defense Fund. "Few women working in low-wage jobs have the means or the financial security to challenge sexual harassment. As shown by these charges and thousands of intakes we have received at the Fund from women in every industry, those who report their abuse are often fired, demoted, or mocked--and since nothing is done to stop the harassment, nothing changes. McDonald's is perfectly positioned--if it chooses--to take the lead in an industry that's rampant with abuse."
In addition to the sexual harassment charges, the Durham worker alleged in her charge that she was discriminated against because she is Black. The worker said her shift manager is rude to Black workers and refers to them as "ghetto." When she reported a customer called her "burnt" and made a comment referring to lynching, the supervisor laughed, according to the charge.
Also Tuesday, a former Detroit McDonald's worker who was regularly sexually harassed by her shift manager said she was consulting with an attorney and was likely to file a suit.
The supervisor repeatedly asked her out, commented on her appearance and demanded she talk with him, she said at the press conference. On at least one occasion, he threatened to hit her with a frying pan for rebuffing his advances. He also drove to and parked in front of her house on one occasion. When she reported the behavior to the restaurant's manager, she was told she was "blowing it out of proportion." The harassment ended only when she quit.
"Even with this network of attorneys working together to give voice to women's stories, we expect that employees still face barriers to speaking out," said Amy Biegelsen, an attorney with Outten & Golden LLP who is also working on the cases with financial support from the TIME'S UP Legal Defense Fund. "Some employees may feel that they have to choose between standing up for their rights and bringing home a paycheck. Any undocumented workers may fear deportation if they speak out. Other employees might be afraid that they will not be believed, or will be ridiculed. All workers are entitled to their dignity as people, and to their rights under the law."
The charges announced Tuesday come two years after McDonald's workers in the Fight for $15 filed a series of sexual harassment charges against the company and show that despite the spotlight on the issue in Hollywood and the media, little has changed for the burger giant's frontline workers. Attorneys for the workers said they planned to ask the EEOC to consolidate or coordinate for investigation the newly filed charges, as well as some of the previously filed charges.
"The #MeToo movement may have changed things for actresses in Hollywood, but these new charges show that sexual harassment is still on the menu at McDonald's," said Adriana Alvarez, a McDonald's worker from Chicago and member of the Fight for 15 National Organizing Committee. "With support from the TIME'S UP Legal Defense Fund, workers in the Fight for $15 now have a powerful ally in our ongoing effort to make McDonald's restaurants safe places for all workers."
To help McDonald's and other fast-food workers who are harassed get the legal help they need, the Fight for $15 announced a hotline--844.384.4495-- for workers to have their charges reviewed by attorneys. The Fight for $15 and TIME'S UP Legal Defense Fund also encouraged workers to fill out the intake form on the TIME'S UP Legal Defense Fund website in order to be connected with legal information and attorneys.
Sexual harassment is rampant in the fast-food industry, according to a 2016 survey by Hart Research Associates conducted for the National Partnership for Women and Families, the Ms. Foundation and Futures without Violence. Forty percent of female fast-food workers experience unwanted sexual behavior on the job. The 2016 Hart Research survey also showed that 42 percent of women in the industry who experience unwanted sexual behavior feel forced to accept it because they can't afford to lose their jobs. It also reported that more than one in five women who face sexual harassment (21%) report that, after raising the issue, their employer took some negative action, including cutting their hours, changing them to a less desirable schedule, giving them additional duties, and being denied a raise.
"As the country's second-largest employer, McDonald's has a responsibility to set workplace standards in both the fast-food industry and the economy overall, said U.S. Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill). "The sexual harassment alleged by McDonald's cooks and cashiers in these charges is unacceptable. I applaud them for their courage in speaking out and urge corporate management to take immediate action so the women and men who are key to McDonald's billions in profits can come to work without worrying about being sexually harassed. And I thank the Fight for $15 and all those organizing to make sure that all workers receive good wages, good benefits, and the respect they deserve."
Fast food workers are coming together all over the country to fight for $15 an hour and the right to form a union without retaliation. We work for corporations that are making tremendous profits, but do not pay employees enough to support our families and to cover basic needs like food, health care, rent and transportation.
LATEST NEWS
Listen Live: US Supreme Court Hears Outrageous Argument That Trump Is Above the Law
"The American people deserve a Supreme Court that does not hesitate to declare that no one is above the law, including a former president," said one campaigner.
Apr 25, 2024
After months of delay, the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday will hear oral arguments in a closely watched case on whether former President Donald Trump should be immune from criminal charges stemming from his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss—an argument that legal experts say is both absurd and dangerous.
Listen live to the oral arguments, which are set to begin at 10:00 am ET:
Thursday's proceedings mark the high court's final argument of its current term, and pro-democracy campaigners are calling on the justices to quickly reject the former president's sweeping immunity claim so he can face trial on federal election subversion charges before his November rematch with President Joe Biden.
As Bloomberg's Greg Stohr noted earlier this week, Thursday's oral arguments give "Special Counsel Jack Smith only a narrow window to put the former president in front of a Washington jury before voters go to the polls on November 5."
"With the trial on hold until the high court rules," Stohr added, "Smith needs a clear-cut victory, and he needs it quickly."
Sean Eldridge, founder and president of the progressive advocacy group Stand Up America, said in a statement Thursday that "the Supreme Court's right-wing majority has already handed Trump a temporary victory by stalling this case for months, allowing him to delay accountability for his criminal attempts to cling to power."
"With so much at stake for our democracy, the Supreme Court should rule swiftly and decisively in this case," said Eldridge. "Accountability delayed could mean accountability denied."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Grand Jury Indicts Top Trump Aides, 11 Arizona Republicans Over 'Fake Electors' Scheme
Had it succeeded, said the state's attorney general, the scheme would have "deprived Arizona's voters of their right to have their votes counted for their chosen president."
Apr 25, 2024
A grand jury in Arizona on Wednesday charged seven aides to Donald Trump and nearly a dozen Republican officials over a "fake electors" scheme in the state that aimed to keep the former president in power after his 2020 loss to President Joe Biden.
Trump, who is currently facing nearly 90 charges across four criminal cases as he runs for another White House term, was described as "unindicted co-conspirator 1" in the 58-page indictment, which was announced by Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes.
"The people of Arizona elected President Biden," Mayes, a Democrat, said Wednesday. "Unwilling to accept this fact, the defendants charged by the state grand jury allegedly schemed to prevent the lawful transfer of the presidency. Whatever their reasoning was, the plot to violate the law must be answered for."
The indictment names former Arizona Republican Party Chair Kelli Ward, sitting state Republican Sens. Jake Hoffman and Anthony Kern, former U.S. Senate candidate Jim Lamon, and seven others as the "fake electors" who sought to declare Trump the rightful winner of the state's presidential contest.
The names of other individuals indicted by the state grand jury are redacted, but the document's descriptions make clear that former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, former Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani, and top Trump legal strategist Boris Epshteyn are among those facing felony charges—including fraud, forgery, and conspiracy.
"In Arizona, defendants, unindicted coconspirators, and others pressured the three groups of election officials responsible for certifying election results to encourage them to change the election results," the document reads. "Discussions about using the Republican electors to change the outcome of the election began as early as November 4, 2020. Those plans evolved during November based on memos drafted by [an attorney for the Trump campaign, Kenneth Chesebro]."
Mayes said Wednesday that had the fake elector scheme succeeded, it would have "deprived Arizona's voters of their right to have their votes counted for their chosen president."
"It effectively would have made their right to vote meaningless," said Mayes.
A state grand jury, made up of everyday, regular Arizonans, has handed down felony indictments in the ongoing investigation into the fake elector scheme in Arizona. pic.twitter.com/Nu8GcD4ZqJ
— AZ Attorney General Kris Mayes (@AZAGMayes) April 24, 2024
Alex Gulotta, state director of All Voting Is Local Action Arizona, said Wednesday that "the indictment of the eleven fake electors is one of the first steps required in holding these election deniers accountable for their alleged attempts to take power away from voters by disrupting our free and fair elections."
"Arizonans deserve to trust the election officials responsible for administering our elections and preserving our democracy," said Gulotta, "and this is a positive step forward as we continue to strengthen the foundations of our democracy and restore faith in our elections."
The Arizona Republicreported Wednesday that "several of the Arizona electors have previously claimed they were merely offering Congress a backup plan, though nothing in the documents they sent to Congress and the National Archives backs up that assertion."
"The indictment includes several statements the false electors made on social media that contradict those claims," the newspaper observed.
Jenny Guzman, director of Common Cause's Arizona program, said the indictment "marks the start of a new chapter for the fake elector scheme that has plagued Arizona."
"Arizonans are still dealing with the fallout from the false electors and the Big Lie about the 2020 elections," said Guzman. "We are relieved that the investigation by Attorney General Mayes has concluded and Arizonans can now know that what comes next is accountability. These efforts by these fake electors to undermine the will of Arizona’s voters have had implications far beyond their failed attempt to overthrow the 2020 election."
"This indictment can reassure all Arizonans that if anyone, regardless of their political affiliation, attempts to undermine their vote, consequences will follow," Guzman added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Watchdog Urges FEC to Investigate Trump Campaign Over Scheme for Legal Fees
"By not disclosing the vendors that actually provided legal services, the Trump-affiliated committees effectively blocked the public from knowing which attorneys and firms are being paid—and how much."
Apr 24, 2024
A campaign finance watchdog on Wednesday filed a Federal Election Commission complaint accusing former President Donald Trump's 2024 campaign, affiliated political groups, and an accounting firm of violating U.S. law in a scheme "seemingly designed to obscure the true recipients of a noteworthy portion of Trump's legal bills."
The Washington, D.C.-based Campaign Legal Center (CLC) said that "evidence appears to show an illegal arrangement between several Trump-affiliated committees and a compliance firm named Red Curve Solutions that is designed to obscure the identities of those providing legal services and how much they are being paid."
"Voters have a right to know how the presidential campaigns and other committees supporting presidential candidates spend their money."
CLC alleges that the Trump campaign, Trump's political action committee (PAC) Save America, and three affiliated organizations "violated federal reporting requirements based on a scheme in which the committees reportedly paid over $7.2 million—described as 'reimbursement for legal' costs or expenses"—to Red Curve.
The watchdog also said that Red Curve appears to be "making or facilitating illegal contributions that violate either federal contribution limits or the prohibition on corporate contributions."
According to CLC:
Red Curve is a domestic limited liability company that offers compliance and FEC reporting services but does not appear to offer any legal services. It is managed by Bradley Crate, who also serves as the treasurer for each of the five Trump-affiliated committees concerned in this complaint, as well as over 200 other federal committees.
According to filings with the FEC, Red Curve appears to have been fronting legal costs for Trump since at least December 2022, with Trump-affiliated committees repaying the company later. This arrangement appears to violate FEC rules that require campaigns to disclose not only the entity being reimbursed (here, Red Curve) but also the underlying vendor. By not disclosing the vendors that actually provided legal services, the Trump-affiliated committees effectively blocked the public from knowing which attorneys and firms are being paid—and how much they are being paid—through this arrangement.
"Voters have a right to know how the presidential campaigns and other committees supporting presidential candidates spend their money," CLC senior director of campaign finance Erin Chlopak said in a statement. "When campaigns and committees obscure that information from the public, not only do they make it difficult to determine if the law has been violated, but they deny voters the ability to make an informed choice when casting a ballot."
"The steps taken by the Trump campaign, its affiliated committees, and Red Curve Solutions concealed information about how campaign funds were used to pay former President Trump's legal expenditures, including the amounts and ultimate recipients of these expenditures—and the FEC must investigate immediately," Chlopak added.
Trump—who is the presumptive 2024 GOP presidential nominee—faces 91 federal and state felony charges related to his role in the January 6 insurrection and his organization's business practices. He is currently on trial in New York for allegedly falsifying business records related to hush money payments to cover up sex scandals during the 2016 election cycle. The twice-impeached former president has been open about his use of campaign donations to pay his legal costs.
The new CLC filing comes a day after the watchdog filed separate FEC complaints urging investigations into a pair of Trump-affiliated "scam PACs," which "pretend to fundraise for major candidates or issues while secretly diverting almost all of their donors' money back into fundraising or the fraudsters' own pockets."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular