McDonald’s franchise owner in Muleshoe settles out of court for sexual harassment claims
MULESHOE (KSMX)- The franchise owner of the McDonald’s restaurant in Muleshoe agreed to settle out of court with federal regulators for sexual harassment.
Credle Enterprises LLC will pay $240,000 to the EEOC to be split between eight women and will pay another $100,000. The corpartion will also provide to the EEOC a list of all female employees who worked from May 2017 through December 2018.
Credle will remain under court supervision for four years and promises that the manager of the Muleshoe McDonald’s, who was the center of the allegations, has been fired.
The May 2017 lawsuit stated, “The sexual harassment was perpetrated by two males, including the General Manager of the Muleshoe, Texas, store. The sexual harassment included but was not limited to physical touching, sexual jokes, and display of pornographic images.”
The two men were not listed by name in the lawsuit.
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS
11. Since at least May 2017, Defendant has engaged in unlawful employment practices at its Muleshoe, Texas facility, in violation of Section 703(a)(1) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000(e)(a)(1).
12. Defendant owns and operates three McDonald’s franchises in northwest Texas,
including one McDonald’s restaurant in Muleshoe, Texas.
13. Since at least 2017, Defendant has engaged in unlawful employment practices in
violation of §703(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2(a). Such unlawful employment practices include subjecting [four women] to harassment on the basis of their sex that unreasonably interfered with their work environment.
14. The sexual harassment was perpetrated by two males, including the General Manager of the Muleshoe, Texas, store.
15. The General Manager of the Muleshoe store had management and/or supervisory authority over [four women].
16. The sexual harassment included but was not limited to physical touching, sexual jokes, and display of pornographic images.
17. Defendant received complaints from female employees about the sexual harassment by the two males, but Defendant failed to prevent further harassment by taking prompt effective remedial measures.
18. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 11-17 above were intentional.
About Post Author
