article: On December 18, 2013, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"), on behalf of a Muslim crew person, filed a lawsuit in the Eastern District Court of California under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 against McDonald's Corporation. The EEOC sought injunctive relief, compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and prejudgment interest, claiming that the defendant discriminated against one if its employees based on his religion, Islam, when it refused to accommodate the employee's religious belief to wear a beard at work, resulting in the employee's constructive discharge. The employee began working as a crew person for the defendant in around 2001 and was promoted to Crew Trainer in 2003. In July and August 2005, the employee informed the defendant of his religious belief of wearing a beard at work. The defendant allegedly did not allow him to wear a beard and so the employee was constructively discharged. On December 19, 2013, the EEOC filed an amended complaint. Also, on the same day, the District Court (Judge Anthony W. Ishii) issued a consent decree for two years. Among other things, the defendant agreed to pay the employee $50,000, which was characterized as non-wage compensation for emotional distress. The decree was entered in December 2013 and scheduled to last until December 2015. No further docket entries exist, so the case is closed.
summary: On December 18, 2013, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, on behalf of a Muslim crew person, filed a lawsuit in the Eastern District Court of California under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 against McDonald's Corporation. The EEOC alleged that the defendant discriminated against one if its employees based on his religion, Islam, when it refused to accommodate the employee's religious belief to wear a beard at work, resulting in the employee's constructive discharge. On December 19, 2013, the District Court issued a consent decree for two years where, among other things, the defendant agreed to pay the employee $50,000.