This paper examines a legal case involving racial and sexual discrimination against African-American and female employees at a McDonald's franchise in Canada. The author analyzes the allegations of intentional racial slurs, discriminatory hiring practices, and sexual harassment by management, then applies the Canadian Human Rights Act and relevant HR management frameworks to demonstrate how legal protections should have prevented these violations. The paper argues that even large, established corporations can fail in their HR responsibilities and shows how proper implementation of anti-discrimination policies would create safer, more equitable workplaces.
According to an article in HR Reporter, McDonald's faced a worker lawsuit on a franchise operator's alleged racial and sexual discrimination. Fifteen African-American employees reported that they were fired because the owner, Michael Simon, believed they did not represent the company's image and began hiring white staff members instead. The workers reported that supervisors would complain about having "too many black people in the store" and called them names such as "ghetto" (Murphy, 2015). In addition to racial discrimination, female workers claimed they were sexually harassed by Simon.
When the workers reported these incidents, they did not receive a response from McDonald's Corporation. Rev. Kevin Chandler stated that McDonald's "turns its back on its workers when they face discrimination" (Murphy, 2015). In December, the agency's general counsel office ruled that the company violated the rights of employees openly, and a hearing was scheduled for March (Murphy, 2015).
This case drew attention because it involved racial discrimination and inequality faced by African-Americans in the workplace. Upon reading the article, it was difficult to process that racial discrimination remains a problem employees face in the modern world. It was particularly striking that such discrimination occurred in a professional environment, especially at a well-known multinational corporation. More troubling was the expectation that McDonald's would apologize to the affected workers; instead, the company ignored the incident. The case also revealed that McDonald's was facing significant human resources management failures.
This case demonstrates that even behind successful companies, serious problems concerning human rights can exist. A strong company like McDonald's should be well aware of the laws and regulations concerning discrimination. According to Schwing, Das, Wagar, Fassina, and Bulmash (2013), the government establishes rules and laws that govern the relationship between employee and employer. In 1977, the Canadian Human Rights Act was passed by Parliament, with a focus on preventing discrimination throughout the country. The Canadian Human Resource Management: A Strategic Approach notes that discrimination based on race and color is forbidden in every province and territory.
Schwing et al. (2013) also explains that "discrimination can be intentional or unintentional, subtle or very open." Understanding this distinction is critical for identifying violations. In the McDonald's case, the racial discrimination was clearly intentional, as supervisors deliberately made disparaging comments and made hiring decisions based on race.
According to the workers who were fired, supervisors at McDonald's deliberately called them "ghetto" to demean them. The former employees also reported that supervisors made frequent complaints about "too many black people in the store" (Murphy, 2015). These racial comments were intentional and formed the basis for the discriminatory terminations.
Schwing et al. (2013) emphasizes that intentional discrimination constitutes a violation of employment law. The franchise operator's documented hiring preference for white staff members, combined with the offensive language and negative comments about African-American employees, represents textbook discriminatory practice. The workers' allegations align precisely with legal definitions of racial discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act.
Beyond racial discrimination, multiple female employees complained about sexual harassment. According to the allegations, they were "inappropriately touched by a male supervisor who also sent them naked photos" (Murphy, 2015). The supervisor allegedly "offered better working conditions in exchange for sex" (Murphy, 2015), a classic example of quid pro quo harassment. Katrina Stanfield, a manager at McDonald's, reported that she "faced constant abuse" from the owner "before she was fired last year" (Murphy, 2015).
Schwing et al. (2013) note that harassment can include "displaying of pornographic pictures," as well as "unnecessary physical contact such as touching, patting, pinching, or punching". The complaints filed by former workers fit the legal definition of harassment. According to the Canadian Human Rights Act, "it is a discriminatory practice in matters related to employment" (Schwing et al., 2013). McDonald's failure to respond to these reports, let alone investigate or take corrective action, constitutes corporate negligence in human resources management.
"How legal compliance creates equitable and safe workplaces"
You’re 86% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.