Baker v. McDonald's Corp.

Decision Date04 December 1987
Docket NumberNo. 83-6313-Civ.,83-6313-Civ.
PartiesRobert J. BAKER, Plaintiff, v. McDONALD'S CORPORATION, Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida

William N. Hutchison, Jr., Fort Lauderdale, Fla., for plaintiff.

Jeffrey McClellan, Atlanta, Ga., for defendant.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

PAINE, District Judge.

This cause is before the Court upon the defendant McDONALD's CORPORATION's (hereafter referred to as McDONALD's)1 motion for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. The only response to this motion made on behalf of the plaintiff is an unfiled, undocketed, affidavit, dated June 4, 1984, which is located on the left-hand side of the Court file (Volume II) (i.e., separate from the pleadings and documents which are an official part of the court record).2 No memorandum in opposition to the motion for summary judgment (D.E. 25) was filed by plaintiff's counsel.3

The plaintiff brought this action against McDONALDS and several individual employees of McDONALDS alleging violations of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, and violations of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 19834, 1985 and 2000e. Specifically, the plaintiff claims that he was the victim of racial and sex discrimination; he seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as damages.

After a review of the record before us, including the plaintiff's deposition (consisting of three (3) volumes), affidavits submitted by the defendant, relevant pleadings and memoranda, and plaintiff's unfiled affidavit, we find that there is no genuine issue of material fact which remains to be decided and that the defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In accordance therewith, we make the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Findings of Fact

The plaintiff is a black male. He was initially hired by McDONALDS CORP. on August 1, 1976 as a manager trainee Plaintiff's Deposition, Volume I, p. 76 (D.E. 56). He was assigned to work at one of the company's Ft. Lauderdale stores. After three weeks, he was promoted to second assistant manager Plaintiff's deposition, Volume I, p. 83. Thereafter, plaintiff's advancement was rapid — the plaintiff admits that he progressed upwards through the company ranks at a faster-than-normal pace Plaintiff's deposition; Volume I p. 96.5

In approximately February, 1981, plaintiff became an area supervisor Plaintiff's deposition; Volume I, p. 110. As area supervisor, plaintiff was responsible for the overall supervision of four to five stores in Broward and/or Dade Counties Plaintiff's deposition, Volume I, p. 111.

As part of his work responsibilities, plaintiff was required to evaluate the store managers at each store within his jurisdiction, as well as help resolve personnel problems within each store Plaintiff's deposition, Volume I; pp. 111-112; pp. 197-201.6 In addition, plaintiff understood that his duties included the prevention and elimination of racial and sex discrimination within the workplace Plaintiff's deposition, Volume II; pp. 50-54.

As part of his training, Baker received instruction in personnel, labor and human relations Plaintiff's deposition, Volume I; pp. 113-116. In late 1981, sexual harassment was discussed in one of these courses. At one point during a group discussion, it was stated that merely touching a female employee could be interpreted as sexual harassment Plaintiff's deposition, Volume I; p. 116.7

During plaintiff's employment, McDONALDS maintained the following policy:

Non-Discrimination at McDonald's
It is McDonald's policy to treat employees and applicants for employment fairly and without regard to race, color, sex, religion, national origin, age or handicap. This policy applies to all employment practices including recruiting, hiring, pay rates, promotions, and other terms and conditions of employment and terminations. McDonald's also prohibits any form of harassment, joking remarks or other abusive conduct directed at employees because of their race, color, sex, religion, national origin, or handicap. Any employee who feels subjected to such behavior should immediately report it to their supervisor, their supervisor's supervisor, or Personnel Manager. Such reports will be investigated thoroughly. If the report has merit, disciplinary action will be taken against the offender. Depending on the severity of the misconduct, the disciplinary action could range from a warning to termination.

D.E. 25; Attachment to Affidavit of Jamie Measey.

Although plaintiff claims that he had never seen a copy of the written policy statement Plaintiff's deposition, Volume I; pp. 117-118, he had some "common sense" understanding of what would constitute unacceptable behavior Plaintiff's deposition, Volume I; pp. 122-124, 149; Volume II; pp. 50-54. For instance, on at least one occasion, Baker reprimanded several male employees for making alleged suggestive remarks to a female employee Plaintiff's deposition, Volume I; pp. 123-124.

In March, 1982, two female employees who were under Baker's supervision complained to Jamie Measey, the assistant Personnel Manager, that the plaintiff had made sexual advances toward them D.E. 25; Affidavit of Jamie Measey. The affidavits of those employees, attached to the motion for summary judgment, describe attempts by the plaintiff to establish an intimate relationship with each woman.

Beverly Froeba, a swing manager under plaintiff's supervision, relates an incident which occurred in March, 1982. After making repeated remarks over a period of months to Mrs. Froeba that he wished to "get together" with her,8 Baker approached Mrs. Froeba and invited her out for a drink. Mrs. Froeba accepted after Baker told her that two other employees would be joining them. She and Baker went to a restaurant, where Baker again repeated his remark that he wished to "get together" with her. He added that "his wife didn't always give him everything he wanted and that sometimes he wanted something different." D.E. 25; Attachment 2. When the other employees did not appear, Mrs. Froeba requested that they leave the restaurant, and they did so.

Jean Acierno, a store manager under Baker's supervision, states that Baker had invited her out for drinks frequently. One evening in February, 1982, Baker called her on the telephone, at home, insisting that he needed to see her about an urgent matter. In the face of his insistence, she finally capitulated, and stated that since she could not leave her children alone, he should come to her house.

Upon arrival, Baker stated his business—to Ms. Acierno, his "urgent" matter seemed somewhat trivial. Ms. Acierno states that, once the matter had been discussed and disposed of, Baker began talking about his marital problems. He informed Ms. Acierno that he dated other women and then said "Jean, I want you." Ms. Acierno replied that he could not have her, at which point Baker urged Ms. Acierno to have sex with him. Ms. Acierno states that Baker twice attempted to touch her in an intimate manner. Eventually, he left D.E. 25; Attachment 3.

These incidents were reported to Robert Weissmuller, the regional supervisor. On April 5th, Terry Lovelace (the operations manager and plaintiff's immediate supervisor) met the plaintiff by arrangement at the regional office and informed him that Mr. Weissmuller wished to speak with him later that day Plaintiff's deposition, Volume I; p. 160. The plaintiff was informed then that there were charges of sexual harassment made against him Plaintiff's deposition, Volume I; p. 160. Baker and Lovelace spent approximately 45 minutes together, discussing the Jean Acierno incident Plaintiff's deposition, Volume I; pp. 161-163.9 When Baker talked with Jamie Measey that same day, he was told that there were actually four or five complaints of sexual harassment against him. Plaintiff's deposition, Volume I; p. 164.

At approximately 5:30 PM, Baker met with Mr. Weissmuller. After asking Baker whether he knew of the complaints against him, Weissmuller informed Baker that an investigation of the charges would be made Plaintiff's deposition, Volume I; p. 166. Two days later, Plaintiff was told to stay out of his stores pending the conclusion of the investigation Plaintiff's deposition, Volume I; p. 158. Apparently, he was given leave with pay Plaintiff's deposition, Volume I; p. 144.

An investigator for McDONALD's interviewed several employees who were working or had worked with Baker, in addition to Beverly Froeba and Jean Acierno D.E. 25; Attachment 4.10 These employees stated the following: Two female employees stated that Baker frequently made joking remarks to them, asking when they could go to bed together (Baker admits to telling jokes involving sex in the presence of female employees Plaintiff's Deposition, Volume I; pp. 105-108, 224). Mr. Baker's former supervisor, Harry Coaxum (a black male—See, Plaintiff's deposition, Volume II, p. 186) received a complaint from a black female employee named "Alice" Plaintiff's deposition, Volume II; p. 185 that the plaintiff had rubbed his sexual organs against her. He states that he took no disciplinary action against Baker, as Baker had denied that the incident occurred. Mr. Coaxum does state that he warned the plaintiff that sexual harassment could result in termination D.E. 25; Attachment 5. Preshell Mills, a black female, states that Bob Baker told her at a conference in St. Petersberg that the only way to get ahead at McDONALD's was to go to bed with her superiors. She states that, at the time, Baker had much more experience than she did as a store manager and that she understood his comments to mean that she should go to bed with him D.E. 25; Attachment 6.

At the conclusion of this investigation, the plaintiff was called into Mr. Wisemuller's office again (on April 20th). He was told at that time that he was terminated from employment at McDONALD's.

...

To continue reading

Request your trial
44 cases
  • Lowden v. William M. Mercer, Inc., Civ. A. No. 94-11351-RCL.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts
    • October 17, 1995
    ... ... the Thirteenth Amendment may form the basis of a suit brought pursuant to § 1985(3)." Baker v. McDonald's Corporation, 686 F.Supp. 1474, 1480 (S.D.Fla.1987), affm'd., 865 F.2d 1272 (11th ... ...
  • Goss v. Stream Global Servs., Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa
    • March 19, 2015
    ... ... Pardus , 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 555-56 (2007)). Thus, the factual background presented here is based on ... "as the same thing as the 'state action' required under the Fourteenth Amendment." Rendell-Baker v. Kohn , 457 U.S. 830, 838 (1982) (quoting United States v. Price , 383 U.S. 787, 794 (1966)); ... ...
  • Lake Lucerne Civic Ass'n v. Dolphin Stadium
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida
    • July 31, 1992
    ... ... Supp. 684 ... LAKE LUCERNE CIVIC ASS'N, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, ... DOLPHIN STADIUM CORP., a Florida corporation, et al., Defendants ... No. 87-1546-CIV ... United States District ... the thirteenth amendment may form the basis of a suit brought pursuant to § 1985(3)." Baker v. McDonald's Corp., 686 F.Supp. 1474 (S.D.Fla.1987), aff'd, 865 F.2d 1272 (11th Cir.1988), ... ...
  • Del Elmer; Zachay v. Metzger, Civ. 96-2112-B(CM).
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of California
    • March 12, 1997
    ... ... See, e.g., Sanders v. A.J. Canfield Co., 635 F.Supp. 85, 87 (N.D.Ill.1986), Baker v. McDonald's Corp., 686 F.Supp. 1474 (S.D.Fla.), aff'd., 865 F.2d 1272, cert. denied, 493 ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Say what? Confusion in the courts over what is the proper standard of review for hearsay rulings.
    • United States
    • Suffolk Journal of Trial & Appellate Advocacy Vol. 18 No. 1, February - February 2013
    • February 1, 2013
    ...610 (Iowa Ct. App. 1998); Adams & Weeg, supra note 225, at 569. (227) McElroy, 637 N.W.2d at 502 (citing Baker v. McDonald's Corp., 686 F.Supp. 1474, 1478 n.10 (S.D.Fla.1987)) ("Generally, out-of-court statements may be relevant in sexual harassment actions to prove either notice or res......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT