EEOC v. Mcdonald's Restaurants of California, Inc.

Similar documents
EEOC v. Pacific Airport Services, Inc.,

Case 5:07-cv VAP-JCR Document 11 Filed 06/14/2008 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA EASTERN DIVISION

EEOC v. Parker Palm Springs Hotel

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Plaintiff, v. Lutheran Social Services of Southern California, Defendant.

EEOC v. Lawry's Retaurants, Inc,, d/b/a Lawry's The Prime Rib, Five Crowns, and Tam O'Shanter Inn

EEOC v. Wal-Mart Stores d/b/a Sam s Club

EEOC v. U-Haul International Inc.

EEOC v. NEA-Alaska, Inc.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Pizza Hut of America, Inc.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Plaintiff, v. Studley Products, Inc. and Wildwood Industries, Inc., Defendants.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Rochdale Village, Inc.

EEOC, Christopher, Bhend, and Chamara v. National Education Association, National Education Association - Alaska

EEOC & Wolansky v. United Healthcare of Florida, Inc.

EEOC and Maria Torres v. The Restaurant Company dba Perkins

EEOC v. Alyeska Pipeline Service Co.

EEOC v. Family Dollar Stores of Arkansas

EEOC v. RSG Forest Products Inc. dba Estacada Lumber Co.

EEOC & Rodriguez, et al. v. Dynamic Medical Services, Inc.

U.S. EEOC v Promens USA, Inc. and Bonar Plastics, Inc.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Bob Watson Chevrolet

EEOC v. Altec Industries

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission et al. v. Majesty Maintenance, Inc.

United States of America v. The City of Belen, New Mexico

United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Plaintiff, v. Jetson Midwest Mailers, Inc., Defendant.

EEOC v. Supreme Corporation and Supreme Northwest LLC

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Plaintiff, v. Mint Julep Restaurant Operations, LLC d/b/a Cheddar's Casual Cafe, Defendant.

EEOC v. Mason County Forest Products, LLC

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Japanese Food Solutions Inc., d/b/a Minado Restaurant

EEOC v. Applegate Holdings LLC

EEOC v. Northwest Savings Bank

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Maharaja Hospitality Inc, d/b/a Quality Inn by Choice Hotels

EEOC and David Marcotte and Robert Kerouac v. Federal Express Corp.

EEOC v. River View Coal, LLC

EEOC v. Baldwin Supply Co.

EEOC v. JEC Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a McDonalds

EEOC v. Stephens Institute d/b/a The Academy of Art College

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. American Seafoods Company

EEOC v. CMC Service of Chicago, LLC d/b/a Great Clips for Hair

EEOC v. Oglethorpe University

US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Erika Morales, et al., v. ABM Industries Inc., et al.

EEOC v. Merrill Pine Ridge, LLC

EEOC and Darmo et al. v. Pinnacle Nissan, Inc. et al.

EEOC & Suzanne Whitty v. Mount Carmel, LLC, and Benedictine Health System, et al.

EEOC v. BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc.

EEOC v. Cleveland Construction, Inc.

EEOC v. Grimmway Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Grimmway Farms; Esparza Enterprises, Inc.

EEOC v. Bice of Chicago, et al.

EEOC v. Original Hot Dog Shops, Inc. doing business as Original Hot Dog Shop, Food Gallery Original, Inc. doing business as Original Hot Dog Shop

EEOC v. John Wieland Homes and Neighborhoods, Inc.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Dutch Farms, Inc.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Sherree Salter, et al., v. The Shoe Show of Rocky Mount, Inc., Andre Jones

EEOC v. Tropiano Transportation Services, Inc.

EEOC v. Ealge Wings Industries, Inc.

EEOC & Mitchel, et al., v. Allied Aviation Services, Inc., Allied Aviation Fueling of Dallas, LP, Allied Aviation Fueling Company of Texas, Inc.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Convergys Corporation

EEOC v. Brink's Incorporated

EEOC and Thornton, et al, v. University of Phoenix, Inc. and Apollo Group, Inc.

EEOC v. Pass and Seymour, Inc. and Kennmark Group, Ltd. (Consent Decree as to Pass and Seymour)

Case 2:11-cv LRH-GWF Document 177 Filed 06/03/15 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA INTRODUCTION

EEOC v. Michoacan Seafood Group. LLC

Cornell University ILR School. Judge Karen E. Schreier

EEOC v. Consolidated Stores, Inc. d/b/a Big Lots

EEOC v. Dillard's, Inc

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Plaintiff, v. Associated Home Health Care of Palm Beach.

EEOC, et al v Lafayette College, et al.,

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. American Airlines, Inc., and Transport Workers Union Local 501

EEOC v. Moka Shoe Corporation

EEOC & Aimee Boss and Morgan Hagedon v. Bodega Bars USA, LLC d/b/a Mosaic Restaurant

EEOC v. Hannon's Food Services of Jackson Inc (d/b/a Kentucky Fried Chicken)

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Foodscience Corporation

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission et al. v. Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc., d/b/a Harbor Freight Tools

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. The Gehl Corporation d/b/a The Gehl Group

Case 1:11-cv NLH -AMD Document 61 Filed 01/24/13 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 211 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Plaintiff, v. The Pepsi Bottling Group, Inc., Defendant.

EEOC v. Eastern Engineered Wood Products, Inc.

EEOC. v. Fox News. Cornell University ILR School. Judge William H. Pauly

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Plaintiff, v. Houston Area Sheet Metal Joint Apprenticeship Committee, Defendant.

EEOC and Quianna M. Knowles v. Remedy Intelligent Staffing, Inc.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT. FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLIll~ STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DIVISION CONSENT DECREE THE LITIGATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

EEOC v. Fleming, Inc., d/b/a J. Edward's

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and Peter Servidio, Plaintiffs, v. Labranche & Co., Inc., Defendant.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Plaintiff, v. Monk's Inc., d/b/a International House of Pancakes, Defendant.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CONSENT DECREE

United States of America v. City of Lubbock, Texas

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Tri-Spur Investment Company, Inc., dba Sbarro's Italian Eatery

IllY _ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY ) CIVIL NO. COO-16S1 Z 10 COJ\.

EEOC v. Hiten Hospitality L.L.C. d/b/a Family Motor Inn and Jay Kishan Hospitality, Inc. and Mike Patel

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Betsy Ross Flag Girl, Inc. d/b/a Betsy Ross Flag Girl and Barjac Company

EEOC v. PVNF, L.L.C., d/b/a Chuck Daggett Motors and Big Valley Auto

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA ) ) ) ) INTRODUCTION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Equal Employment Opportunity ) Commission, ) Case No.: CV PHX-DAE

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Revolution Studios and Smile Productions, LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CONSENT DECREE

EEOC v. Supervalu Holdings, Inc.

United States of America v. City of Alma, Georgia and Bacon County, Georgia

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Plaintiff, and The Heil Company, Defendant.

EEOC v. Jolet II, Inc., d/b/a Thompson Care Center

( ) FftC. CV 0 S.~ (C~l\: I. BY \f'{\(' DOCKETED ON em. : i ~ \ OC OCT - 6 ani. , ~ ~ \ ~ ;.. i t. 8 OISlRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EEOC v. Zale Corporation

Transcription:

Cornell University ILR School DigitalCommons@ILR Consent Decrees Labor and Employment Law Program -- EEOC v. Mcdonald's Restaurants of California, Inc. Judge Anthony W. Ishii Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/condec Thank you for downloading this resource, provided by the ILR School's Labor and Employment Law Program. Please help support our student research fellowship program with a gift to the Legal Repositories! This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Labor and Employment Law Program at DigitalCommons@ILR. It has been accepted for inclusion in Consent Decrees by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@ILR. For more information, please contact hlmdigital@cornell.edu.

EEOC v. Mcdonald's Restaurants of California, Inc. Keywords Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Shaheed Khan, Mcdonald's Restaurants of California, Inc., 1:-cv-0-AWI-SAB, Consent Decree, Disparate Treatment, Constructive Discharge, Religion, Service, Employment Law, Title VII This article is available at DigitalCommons@ILR: http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/condec/

1 1 1 1 Anna Y. Park, CA SBN 1 UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION East Temple Street, th Floor Los Angeles, CA 00 Telephone: () -0 Facsimile: () -01 lado.legal@eeoc.gov Attorneys for Plaintiff UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Michael J. Gray, IL Bar No. Jonathan M. Linas, IL Bar No. 0 JONES DAY West Wacker Drive Chicago, Illinois 001 Telephone: () -0 Facsimile: ()- Attorneys for Defendant MCDONALD S RESTAURANTS OF CALIFORNIA, INC. U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, vs. Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MCDONALD S RESTAURANTS OF CALIFORNIA, INC., Defendant. ) Case No. 1:-cv-0-AWI-SAB CONSENT DECREE AND ORDER Consent Decree -1-

1 1 1 1 I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ( EEOC ) and Defendant McDonald s Restaurants of California, Inc. ( Defendant ) stipulate and agree to entry of this consent decree and order ( Decree ) to resolve the EEOC s complaint against Defendant in U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. McDonald s Restaurants of California, Inc., Civil Case No. 1:-cv-0- AWI-SAB (the Action ) filed in the Eastern District of California. On December 1,, EEOC brought this Action against Defendant pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1, as amended, U.S.C. 00e et seq. ( Title VII ). In the Action, the EEOC alleged that Defendant discriminated against its former employee, Charging Party Shaheed Khan, by denying him reasonable accommodation and by constructive discharge on the basis of religion, Islam, in violation of section 0(a)(1) of Title VII. II. PURPOSES AND SCOPE A. This Decree is made and entered into by and between the EEOC and Defendant (collectively the Parties ). B. The Parties have entered into this Decree for the following purposes: 1. To avoid the expense, delay, and uncertainty that would result from continued litigation;. To provide appropriate monetary and injunctive relief;. To ensure Defendant s employment practices comply with Title VII, including its prohibition against religious discrimination;. To ensure that Defendant s managers, supervisors, and employees are given effective training of their obligations under Title VII with an emphasis on providing reasonable accommodation(s) to employees because of their religion;. To ensure that Defendant provides reasonable Consent Decree --

1 1 1 1 accommodation(s) to employees because of their religion; and. To ensure that Defendant provides a workplace free from retaliation. III. RELEASE OF CLAIMS A. This Decree fully and completely resolves all issues, claims, and allegations raised or that could have been raised in EEOC Charge No. 0-0- 001 and the complaint filed on December 1, by the EEOC in U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. McDonald s Restaurants of California, Inc., Civil Case No. 1:-cv-0-AWI-SAB. The EEOC shall not bring any other action or other proceeding against Defendant or its employees arising out of EEOC Charge No. 0-0-001 or the complaint in this Action. B. Nothing in this Decree shall be construed to preclude the EEOC from moving to enforce this Decree in the event that Defendant fails to comply with the promises or representations contained herein. C. Nothing in this Decree shall be construed to limit or reduce Defendant s obligation to comply with Title VII or any other federal law. D. This Decree in no way affects the EEOC s right to bring, process, investigate, or litigate other charges that may be in existence or may later arise against Defendant in accordance with standard EEOC procedures, except for any claims contained in EEOC Charge No. 0-0-001 and the complaint in this Action. E. It is understood and agreed by the parties that the execution of this Consent Decree by the parties, and its entry by the Court, shall not constitute an adjudication or findings on the merits of this Action and shall not be an admission of liability or wrongdoing by Defendant with regard to the claims asserted in EEOC Charge No. 0-0-001 or this Action. IV. JURISDICTION AND FINDINGS A. The Court has jurisdiction over the Parties and the subject matter of Consent Decree --

1 1 1 1 this Action. The complaint in this Action asserts claims that, if proven, would authorize the Court to grant the equitable relief set forth in this Decree. B. The terms and provisions of this Decree are fair, reasonable, and just. C. This Decree conforms to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Title VII and does not derogate the rights or privileges of any person. D. The Court shall retain jurisdiction over this Action during the duration of the Decree for the purpose of entering any order, judgment, or decree that may be necessary to implement the relief provided herein. V. EFFECTIVE DATE AND DURATION A. The provisions and agreements contained herein are effective immediately upon the date which this Decree is entered by the Court (the Effective Date ). B. The obligations of Defendant included in this Decree shall remain in effect for two () years after the Effective Date. In the event that the EEOC proves that Defendant has not complied with the Decree, the duration of this Decree may be extended by court order to effectuate the purposes of the Decree. VI. MODIFICATION AND SEVERABILITY A. This Decree constitutes the complete understanding of the Parties with respect to the matters contained herein. B. By mutual written agreement of the Parties, this Decree may be amended or modified in the interests of justice and fairness in order to effectuate its provisions. C. No waiver, modification, or amendment of any provision of this Decree will be effective unless made in writing and signed by an authorized representative of each of the Parties. D. If one or more of the provisions of this Decree is rendered unlawful or unenforceable, (1) the Parties shall make good faith efforts to agree upon appropriate amendments in order to effectuate the purposes of the Decree, and () Consent Decree --

1 1 1 1 the remaining provisions will remain in full force and effect unless, despite the Parties best efforts, the purposes of this Decree cannot be achieved. VII. COMPLIANCE AND RESOLUTION A. The Parties agree that if the EEOC has reason to believe that Defendant has failed to comply with any provision of this Decree, the EEOC may file a motion before this Court to enforce the Decree. Prior to initiating such action, the EEOC will notify Defendant and its legal counsel of record, in writing, of the nature of the dispute. This notice shall specify the particular provision(s) that the EEOC believes Defendant has breached and the factual basis for the alleged breach. B. The Parties agree to cooperate with each other and to act in good faith to resolve any dispute referenced in the EEOC s notice before the EEOC petitions the Court for resolution of the dispute. C. Absent a showing by either party that the delay will cause irreparable harm, Defendant shall have forty-five days to attempt to resolve or cure the putative breach. If forty-five days pass without resolution, the EEOC may petition this Court for resolution of the dispute, seeking all available relief, including an extension of the term of the Decree for such period of time as Defendant is shown to be in breach of the Decree or any other relief the Court deems appropriate. VIII. RELIEF SPECIFICALLY TO SHAHEED KHAN A. Monetary Relief 1. In settlement of this Action, Defendant shall pay a total of $0,000 (the Settlement Amount ) within ten days of the Effective Date of this Decree by mailing a check by certified mail to an address provided by the EEOC. The entire Settlement Amount shall be made payable to Shaheed Khan.. The EEOC deems that all of the Settlement Amount be designated as non-wage compensation for emotional distress under Title VII and no tax withholding will be made. Defendant shall prepare and distribute a tax Consent Decree --

1 1 1 1 reporting form to Shaheed Khan and shall make appropriate reports to the Internal Revenue Service and other tax authorities, if necessary.. Within three days of the issuance of the check, Defendant shall submit a copy of the check and related correspondence to Anna Y. Park, EEOC Regional Attorney, East Temple Street, th Floor, Los Angeles, California, 00. B. Other Relief Specific to Shaheed Khan 1. Defendant shall purge Shaheed Khan s employee records of an negative warnings, disciplines, or other negative references relating to his request for religious accommodation; to disciplinary action after his request for religious accommodation; and to his quitting and/or being terminated from his position with Defendant.. If prospective employers of Shaheed Khan inquire of Defendant by contacting McDonald s The Work Number at (00) -0 about his employment with Defendant, McDonald s shall limit any response to verify only his employment by Defendant, the period of such employment, and his job title(s). IX. GENERAL INJUNCTIVE RELIEF A. Non-Discrimination Defendant, its officers, agents, management, successors, assigns, and directors are enjoined from discriminating in violation of Title VII based on the sincerely held religious beliefs of an employee at any of the Designated Restaurants (as defined Paragraph IX.D., below). B. Non-Retaliation Defendant shall not retaliate against any current or former employee or applicant at any of the Designated Restaurants (as defined in Paragraph IX.D., below) because he or she opposed any discrimination based on his or her sincerely held religious beliefs or because the employee has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing Consent Decree --

1 1 1 1 concerning discrimination in violation of Title VII based on the sincerely held religious beliefs of an employee. C. Policies and Procedures 1. Defendant shall have an anti-discrimination policy and complaint procedure for the duration of the Decree. Its current anti-discrimination policy and complaint procedure are attached as Exhibit A ( Policy ). If Defendant makes changes to its Policy during the term of the Decree, Defendant will provide a copy of the revised Policy to the EEOC within thirty days of the revision. D. Distribution 1. Within ninety days of the Effective Date, Defendant shall distribute its Policy to all management and non-management employees in restaurants in the same patch of restaurants as the restaurant where Shaheed Khan used to work (the Designated Restaurants ). The Designated Restaurants and their current locations are: 1 Store No. 000 - E. Kings Canyon, Fresno, California.. Store No. 11-10 N. West Avenue, Fresno, California 0.. Store No. 0 - E. Shaw Avenue, Fresno, California.. Store No. 0-11 W. Olive, Fresno, California.. Store No. N. Willow, Clovis, California. Within thirty days of hire, Defendant shall distribute its Policy to any employees newly hired to work at the Designated Restaurants.. Defendant shall ensure that all employees who receive a copy of the Policy sign a form acknowledging having received, read, and understood the policy and complaint procedure. E. Training 1. Within ninety days of the Effective Date, Defendant shall ensure that all non-management employees of the Designated Restaurants attend a training program of at least one hour in duration regarding their rights and Consent Decree --

1 1 1 1 responsibilities under Title VII with an emphasis on its prohibition against religious discrimination and retaliation. The training also should include a review of the employee s right to seek accommodation of his or her religious beliefs and Defendant s policy and procedure for reporting and handling requests for accommodation of the employee s religious beliefs, complaints of harassment, discrimination, and retaliation ( Non-Management Employee Training ). Defendant shall hold a live Non-Management Employee Training. Nonmanagement employees who are not present at the live Non-Management Employee Training shall attend a separate live training or view a recorded version of the live Non-Management Employee Training with a live component where they can ask questions and receive answers from someone who has attended the live training and is knowledgeable of the issues covered in the training.. Within ninety days of the Effective Date, Defendant shall ensure that its human resources managers and consultants and restaurant managers and supervisors with responsibility for the Designated Restaurants attend a training program of at least one hour in duration on Title VII s prohibition against religious discrimination and retaliation, the Policy, the handling of any request for accommodation of an employee s religious beliefs in compliance with Title VII and its prohibition against retaliation ( HR and Manager Training ). Defendant shall hold a live HR and Manager training. For management employees who are not present at the live HR and Manager Training, Defendant shall ensure that they attend a separate live training or view a recorded version of the live HR and Manager training with a component where they personally can ask questions and receive answers from someone who has attended the live training and is knowledgeable of the issues covered in the training. This HR and Manager Training shall include instruction regarding: a. Defendant s responsibility under Title VII to provide reasonable accommodation(s) to employee s sincerely held religious beliefs; Consent Decree --

1 1 1 1 b. Defendant s Policy on the handling of an employee s request for accommodation of his or her sincerely held religious beliefs, on engaging in the interactive process, and on providing reasonable accommodation to its employees because of his or her sincerely held religious beliefs; c. Title VII s prohibition against retaliation against any employee who engages in protected activity under Title VII.. During the term of this Decree, Defendant shall ensure that any newly hired non-management employee in one of the Designated Restaurants shall receive Non-Management Employee Training as described herein individually either live or through video within thirty days of hire.. During the term of this Decree, Defendant shall ensure that any newly hired management employee in one of the Designated Restaurants shall receive the HR and Management Training as described herein individually either live or through video within thirty days of hire.. Defendant shall ensure that all employees in any of the Designated Restaurants who receive Non-Management Employee Training or HR and Manager Training sign a form acknowledging his or her attendance at the training(s). F. Posting of Notice Within ten business days after the Effective Date, and throughout the term of this Decree, Defendant shall post at each of the Designated Restaurants the Notice of the terms of this Decree in a clearly visible location frequented by employees at that facility. G. Record Keeping and Reporting 1. Document Preservation: For the duration of the Decree, Defendant shall retain such records as are necessary to demonstrate its compliance with this Decree, including the following: a. its existing policy or revised anti-discrimination policy Consent Decree --

1 1 1 1 and complaint procedure, if changes are made; b. the forms signed by employees acknowledging their receipt, reading, and understanding of Defendant s anti-discrimination policy and complaint procedure; c. the training materials used in Non-Management Employee Training and HR and Manager Training; d. the attendance sheets or verifications signed by employees concerning attendance at Non-Management Employee Training and HR and Manager Training; and e. documentation in a centralized tracking system of any complaint of discrimination and any requests for accommodation of an employee s sincerely held religious beliefs made to McDonald s HR consulting hotline by an employee employed at any of the Designated Restaurants, including the date, the name of the employee who filed the request for accommodation, the name of the person who handled the request, a summary of Defendant s response to the request, and the resolution of the request. Human Resources Managers and Consultants with responsibility for the Designated Restaurants shall maintain a list of complaints of discrimination made to them based on an employee s sincerely held religious beliefs and any requests for accommodation of an employee s sincerely held religious beliefs made by an employee employed at any of the Designated Restaurants, including the date, the name of the employee who filed the complaint, the name of the person who handled the complaint, a summary of any investigation, and the resolution of the complaint. Changes in Policy and Procedure: If Defendant makes any changes to its anti-discrimination policy and procedure during the term of this Consent Decree, Defendant will provide a copy of the revised policy and procedure to the EEOC within thirty days of the revision.. Initial Reporting: Within ninety days of the Effective Date, Consent Decree --

1 1 1 1 Defendant shall provide to the EEOC a written report of the status of its compliance with the Decree since the Effective Date. The Initial Report shall include the following: a. confirmation that Defendant has distributed its antidiscrimination policy and complaint procedure in accordance with the Decree; b. confirmation that Defendant has provided the training in accordance with the Decree; c. confirmation that Defendant has complied with the record keeping requirements of the Decree; d. confirmation that Defendant has posted the Notice of the terms of the Decree (attached as Exhibit A); e. a copy of the training materials used in Non-Management Employee Training and HR and Manager Training; and f. a log of all complaints of discrimination based on an employee s sincerely held religious belief and requests for accommodation of an employee s sincerely held religious beliefs made to McDonald s HR Consulting hotline or to Human Resources Managers or Consultants with responsibility for the Designated Restaurants by an employee employed at any of the Designated Restaurants, including the date, the name of the employee who filed the complaint, the name of the person who handled the complaint, a summary of any investigation, and the resolution of the complaint.. Annual Reporting: Twelve months after the deadline for Initial Reporting and one month before the termination of the Decree, Defendant shall provide to the EEOC a written report as to Defendant s compliance with the Decree since the last report.. Request by the EEOC: Within thirty days of a request by the EEOC, Defendant shall provide to the EEOC a log of all complaints of discrimination based on an employee s sincerely held religious belief and requests Consent Decree --

1 1 1 1 for religious accommodation of an employee s sincerely held religious beliefs made to McDonald s HR Consulting hotline or to Human Resources Managers or Consultants with responsibility for any of the Designated Restaurants by an employee employed at any of the Designated Restaurants, including the date, the name of the employee who filed the complaint, the name of the person who handled the complaint, a summary of any investigation, and the resolution of the complaint. X. COSTS OF ADMINISTRATION AND IMPLEMENTATION Defendant shall bear all costs associated with the administration and implementation of its obligations under this Decree. XI. ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS Each Party shall bear its own costs of suit and attorneys fees. XII. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS A. During the term of this Consent Decree, Defendant shall provide any potential successor-in-interest with a copy of this Decree within a reasonable time prior to the execution of any agreement for acquisition or assumption of control of any or all of the Designated Restaurants. B. During the term of this Decree, Defendant shall ensure that each of its officers, managers, supervisors and Human Resources staff is aware of any term in this Decree which may be related to his/her job duties. C. All reporting under this Decree shall be directed to: Anna Y. Park, EEOC Regional Attorney, East Temple Street, th Floor, Los Angeles, CA, 00. D. The Parties agree to entry of this Decree and judgment subject to final approval by the Court. Consent Decree --

1 1 1 1 Date: December 1, Date: December 1, IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December, U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION By: /s/ Anna Y. Park Anna Y. Park Attorney for Plaintiff EEOC By: /s/ Brett Rawitz McDonald s Restaurants of California, Inc. ^-- SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE Consent Decree --

ORDER GOOD CAUSE having been shown, the provisions of the foregoing Consent Decree are hereby approved and compliance with all provisions thereof is fair and adequate. IT IS SO ORDERED. 1 1 1 1 Consent Decree --