The EEOC filed suit against Del Taco due to sexual harassment complaints from “young female employees.” They claim that at least three male supervisors harassed the young women. The female employees filed complaints and faced retaliation instead of relief.
On September 18, McDonald’s employees in 10 cities will walk out in protest against the working conditions and sexual harassment. This stems from a May, 10, action where women and girls filed EEOC complaints against McDonald’s saying they had been sexually harassed at work. The EEOC has not opted to take up the case against McDonald’s at this point, but that doesn’t mean they won’t. The EEOC tends to take its time before making a decision on which cases to take.
Last week, the National Labor Relations Board issued a new ruling (open to comment right now) that said they were returning to the 2015 standard of joint employer status. This means that it’s less likely that an employee suing a Del Taco or McDonald’s franchise will be able to access the deep pockets of the corporation, even if they win.
To keep reading, click here: Del Taco and McDonald’s Face Sexual Harassment Claims–Is Fast Food a Haven for Harassers?
3 thoughts on “Del Taco and McDonald’s Face Sexual Harassment Claims–Is Fast Food a Haven for Harassers?”
Any workplace in which the employees are teenagers working their first jobs, or are otherwise vulnerable, has the potential to become a haven for all types of abusive conditions.
As most of these fast food places are a franchise owner based operation, this falls under the problem with dealing with an ingrown nepotism ignored by the owner to the detriment of the lower hourly employees. Any complaints by any employees result in the individual person getting blacklisted in that specific job in that specific geographic area. I believe you covered both of these topics in previous articles via an HR outsider view (what should be done versus what actually occurs)
Yes, this is a virtual hotbed of potential abuse of employees by those privately owned franchises. The HR for these owners has to walk a fine line because they have to cover the employer’s needs/ decision to keep a specific individual (who may be a family member) in a position and making sure employees are free of conditions that might be labeled detrimental.
The only way out of this abuse is to leave that job in such a way that employer doesn’t blacklist them for a competitor job position.
Are we really discussing whether or not those with a slight predilection to bullying and sexually harassing vulnerable, low-paid and most probably very young women, are unlikely to seek out the places where they work?
Comments are closed.