McDonald’s is being sued in Virginia by ten former employees for racial discrimination.
The suit alleges that some employees were fired from one franchise because there were “too many black people”.
It is being backed by a group campaigning for better wages for fast-food workers and the local Virginia National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.
McDonald’s has not yet commented specifically on the suit.
The company issued a general statement, saying: “McDonald’s has a long-standing history of embracing the diversity of employees, independent franchisees, customers and suppliers, and discrimination is completely inconsistent with our values.
“McDonald’s and our independent owner-operators share a commitment to the well-being and fair treatment of all people who work in McDonald’s restaurants.”
The suit is part of a continuing effort on the part of labor organizers to hold McDonald’s responsible for the behavior of its franchisees.
McDonald’s and other restaurant groups have argued that it should not be held responsible for the behavior and labor practices of franchisees.
However, their position has been weakened by the US National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
It ruled that McDonalds “could be held jointly liable for labor and wage violations by its franchise operators” in July.
Since then, current and former employees have filed lawsuits against many McDonald’s franchises and the larger corporation alleging wage theft and other illegal practices.
In the lawsuit filed in Virginia on January 22, which is not part of the NLRB’s larger activity, 10 former employees – nine of whom are African-American and one of whom is Hispanic – allege that they were subject to “rampant racial and sexual harassment” by supervisors at three restaurants run by McDonald’s franchisee Michael Simon.
Michael Simon became franchise operator of the three restaurants in late 2013, when the majority of the employees at the restaurants were African-American.
Soon after, the suit alleges Michael Simon instituted a plan to hire more white employees, with supervisors allegedly telling employees that the restaurants were “too dark” and they needed to hire new employees to “get the ghetto out of the store”.
Subsequently, in mid-2014, a large number of white employees were hired and several of the African-American employees who are part of the suit were fired.
The fired workers alleged that when they attempted to contact McDonald’s corporate office, there was no response.
McDonald’s is due to report its Q4 2014 earnings before US markets open on January 23.
Hong Kong’s Court of Final Appeal has ruled that domestic workers are not eligible to apply for permanent residency, ending a two-year battle that has split opinion.
The case had centred on Evangeline Banao Vallejos, a maid from the Philippines who has worked in Hong Kong for more than 17 years.
Domestic workers had argued that denying them permanent residency was unconstitutional.
The ruling has implications for Hong Kong’s 300,000 domestic workers.
These workers come mainly from the Philippines and Indonesia, often spending years in the territory.
Hong Kong’s Court of Final Appeal has ruled that domestic workers are not eligible to apply for permanent residency
“The FDH [foreign domestic helper] is obliged to return to the country of origin at the end of the contract and is told from the outset that admission is not for the purposes of settlement and that dependants cannot be brought to reside in Hong Kong,” the Court of Final Appeal said in a written judgement.
Evangeline Banao Vallejos was “speechless but calmly resigned”, her lawyer, Mark Daly said.
“While we respect the judgment we disagree with it,” Mark Daly said.
“[The ruling is] not a good reflection of the values we should be teaching youngsters and people in our society.”
Evangeline Banao Vallejos had filed the appeal jointly with Daniel Domingo, another Filipino domestic helper, who had lived in Hong Kong for 28 years.
The issue of right of abode is a sensitive subject in Hong Kong, with campaigners arguing that not allowing foreign domestic workers to settle in Hong Kong amounts to discrimination.
Eman Villanueva, spokesman for the Asian Migrants’ Coordinating Body, said that the ruling “gave its judicial seal to unfair treatment and the social exclusion of foreign domestic workers in Hong Kong”.
An initial ruling from the High Court in 2011 said that domestic workers should not be excluded from a rule that allows foreigners to settle in the city after seven years of uninterrupted residency.
Foreigners in other jobs can apply for permanent residency after seven years, which enables them to work and vote in Hong Kong without a visa.
The 2011 ruling led to protests in Hong Kong, with some anxious that allowing the maids to apply for residency would lead to an influx of domestic workers and place a strain on public services.
In March 2012, the government won an appeal against the High Court ruling.
The government had estimated that 125,000 helpers would be eligible to apply for abode, and if each had a spouse and two children, that number of potential new residents could reach 500,000 – although campaigners said that only a fraction of those eligible were likely to apply.
Monday’s judgement by Hong Kong’s Court of Final Appeal puts an end to the two year legal battle.
Hong Kong’s domestic workers receive a guaranteed minimum wage, statutory holidays and annual paid leave.
But their lack of residency rights means that if they leave an employer, they have only two weeks to find a new job before being required to leave the country.
In Monday’s ruling, the top court also
rejected a request from the Hong Kong government to seek advice from the Chinese government on the matter. It said that the court was able to reach the ruling through reading Hong Kong’s Basic Law alone.
Seeking a legal interpretation from Beijing could potentially have sparked public criticism that the Hong Kong government was undermining its judicial independence.
Hong Kong is governed under the principle of “one country, two systems”, under which China has agreed to give the region a high degree of autonomy and to preserve its economic and social systems for 50 years from the date of the handover.
IKEA has said it regrets that images of women are missing from the Saudi version of its catalogue.
Women are clearly present in corresponding images in the firm’s English-language catalogue.
The Swedish furniture company said “excluding women from the Saudi Arabian version of the catalogue is in conflict with the IKEA Group values”.
It attributed the gaffe to the fact its Saudi operation is run by a franchisee.
IKEA Saudi catalogue removes women from its pages
Several images in the catalogue, published on IKEA’s Saudi website, show women completely absent in a number of promotional scenes.
The same images in other versions of the catalogue include women.
IKEA said it was reviewing its “routines” in response to the issue.
“We support the fundamental human rights of all people and we do not accept any kind of discrimination,” the company said in a statement.
Islamic Sharia law is applied strictly in Saudi Arabia, where the ruling Al Saud family espouses a fundamentalist interpretation of Islam known as Wahhabism.
Women live under various restrictions, including no right to drive, and must be covered whenever they are outside the home.
Saudi leader King Abdullah is seen as trying to cautiously introduce reforms, some aimed at loosening restrictions on women’s right to vote.
IKEA, which posted net profits of almost 3 billion euros ($3.9 billion) last year, operates three branches in Saudi Arabia.