UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

Case No.: 1:20-cv-05132

Hon. Judge Steven C. Seeger

Jury Trial Demanded 

AMENDED COMPLAINT

CHRISTINE CRAWFORD, DELORES 

CRAWFORD, JUNETH N. DANIEL, YVES 

DOMINIQUE, VAN JAKES, RALPH KING, KEITH 

MANNING, KENNETH MANNING, DAWN 

MUSSENDEN, LAETITIA JOHNSON, CARRIE 

SALONE, FLOYD SIMS, LARRY BROWN, JOHN 

MASON, RONNIE THORNTON, LISA GUNTER,

F/K/A LISA MCKENZIE, MITCHELL MCGUIRE, 

LOIS MCGUIRE, HAYES FERRELL, YVONNE 

KNOX, ARTHUR SCOTT, ERROL SERVICE, 

MELVIN JONES, GEORGE GIPSON, MICHAEL 

SIMON, VICTOR BRUCE, DAVID WHITE, 

BARBARA WHITE, JOHN TILLMAN, ALLEN 

STAFFORD, KERISTIN HOLLOWAY, GLORIA 

HOLLOWAY, GEORGE JONES, JANE JONES, 

WISE FINLEY, LEWIS ANDERSON, SCOTT 

MILLER, DWIGHT MILLER, FAYE HOBLEY,

PAUL HOSKINS, MICHELE HOSKINS, AL HARRIS, 

KRISTEN HARRIS, NORMAN H. WILLIAMS, 

WILLIAM (PETE) WASHINGTON, BENNY CLARK, 

ELEANOR CLARK, HAROLD LEWIS, JEREMY

LEWIS, PHILIP DOUGLAS, LAWRENCE HOLLAND, 

WILLIAM RASUL, LEROY WALKER, JR., JEFFERY 

ROGERS, JOSEPH MBANEFO, ANNIS 

ALSTON-STALEY, HARRY STALEY, GORDON 

THORNTON, DWAYNE RICHARD JOHNSON,

SERGE TANCREDE, KAREN TANCREDE, ERROL 

THYBULLE, JEREMIAH SIMMONS, DARRYL 

UMPHRIES, JACQUELINE GEORGE, ANTHONY

GEORGE, WESLEY HALL, GLENDA CLAYPOOL, 

AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE 

SHERMAN CLAYPOOL, KENNETH NELSON, 

BERNARD SAFFOLD, LANCE WILLIAMS, 

JACQUELINE WYNN, ROBERT (BOB) BONNER, 

GARY ROAN, JOYCE MANCE-ROAN, DOUGLAS 

HOLLIS, AND GLENNA HOLLIS, 

Plaintiffs,

v.

McDONALD’S USA, LLC, a Delaware 

limited liability company, and 

McDONALD’S CORPORATION, a 

Delaware corporation,

Defendants.

Case: 1:20-cv-05132 Document #: 30 Filed: 11/16/20 Page 1 of 67 PageID #:864
ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................................1

JURISDICTION AND VENUE............................................................................................................8

THE PARTIES .........................................................................................................................................9

A. Plaintiffs..............................................................................................................................9

B. Defendants........................................................................................................................21

COMMON FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS........................................................................................22

A. The McDonald’s Franchise Model: Unequal Bargaining Power, The Franchise 

Agreement, and Misleading Franchise Disclosure Documents ...................................22

(i) The Franchise Agreement..........................................................................23

(ii) The Cost to Operate a McDonald’s Franchise..........................................28

(iii) A Financial Suicide Mission: The Cost to Operate a Black McDonald’s 

Franchise ...................................................................................................29

B. McDonald’s History of Discrimination Against Black Franchisees............................29

(i) Boycott in Cleveland 1969.........................................................................30

(ii) Trouble Under the Golden Arches: Black Franchisee Sues McDonald’s 

for Racial Steering .....................................................................................31

(iii) McDonald’s Admits Racial Steering and Need for Parity.........................33

(iv) Change in McDonald’s Leadership in 2015: Reverse Course for Black 

Franchisees ...............................................................................................36

(v) McDonald’s Leadership is Once Again on Notice of Ongoing Disparate 

Treatment of Black Franchisees; Continues Making False Promises.......37

Case: 1:20-cv-05132 Document #: 30 Filed: 11/16/20 Page 2 of 67 PageID #:865
iii

C. “Big Mac Attack” on Black Owner/Operators: 

McDonald’s Intentional and Covert Racial Discrimination........................................38

(i) Take it or Leave it: 

Steering to High-Cost and Low-Volume Locations..................................38

(ii) McDonald’s Requires Plaintiffs to Make Significant Initial Investments

in Substandard Locations: Unreasonable Rebuilds and Renovations....41

(iii) McDonald’s Arbitrarily Denies Plaintiffs Opportunities for Growth......44

(iv) McDonald’s False Promise of “Rent Relief” and Misleading Financial 

Assistance .................................................................................................46

(v) Targeted and Unreasonable Inspections and Grading ............................47

(vi) No Choice But to Sell: McDonald’s Forced Exit Scheme.......................48

CAUSES OF ACTION..........................................................................................................................50

Count I – Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 ...........................................................................50

Count II – Breach of Contract............................................................................................54

Count III – Fraudulent Omission .......................................................................................59

PRAYER FOR RELIEF ......................................................................................................................61

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL ..........................................................................................................62

Case: 1:20-cv-05132 Document #: 30 Filed: 11/16/20 Page 3 of 67 PageID #:866
AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs, Christine Crawford, Delores Crawford, Juneth N. Daniel, Yves Dominique, Van 

Jakes, Ralph King, Keith Manning, Kenneth Manning, Dawn Mussenden, Laetitia Johnson, Carrie 

Salone, Floyd Sims, Larry Brown, John Mason, Ronnie Thornton, Lisa Gunter, f/k/a Lisa McKenzie, 

Mitchell McGuire, Lois McGuire, Hayes Ferrell, Yvonne Knox, Arthur Scott, Errol Service, Melvin 

Jones, George Gipson, Michael Simon, Victor Bruce, David White, Barbara White, John Tillman, 

Allen Stafford, Keristin Holloway, Gloria Holloway, George Jones, Jane Jones, Wise Finley, Lewis 

Anderson, Scott Miller, Dwight Miller, Faye Hobley, Paul Hoskins, Michele Hoskins, Al Harris, 

Kristen Harris, Norman H. Williams, William (Pete) Washington, Benny Clark, Eleanor Clark, 

Harold Lewis, Jeremy Lewis, Philip Douglas, Lawrence Holland, William Rasul, LeRoy Walker, Jr., 

Jeffery Rogers, Joseph Mbanefo, Annis Alston-Staley, Harry Staley, Gordon Thornton, Dwayne 

Richard Johnson, Serge Tancrede, Karen Tancrede, Errol Thybulle, Jeremiah Simmons, Darryl 

Umphries, Jacqueline George, Anthony George, Wesley Hall, Glenda Claypool, as Personal 

Representative of the Estate of Sherman Claypool, Kenneth Nelson, Bernard Saffold, Lance 

Williams, Jacqueline Wynn, Robert (Bob) Bonner, Gary Roan, Joyce Mance-Roan, Douglas Hollis, 

and Glenna Hollis (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), hereby bring this action against Defendants, 

McDonald’s USA LLC (“McDonald’s USA”), a Delaware limited liability company, and 

McDonald’s Corporation, a Delaware corporation (“McDonald’s Corporation,” together with 

McDonald’s USA, “McDonald’s” or “Defendants”), and allege as follows: 

INTRODUCTION

1. Plaintiffs are Black, former McDonald’s franchisees, who bought into McDonald’s 

public commitment to the Black communities it serves only to be misled and denied equal opportunity 

to economic success by McDonald’s systematic and covert racial discrimination. 

Case: 1:20-cv-05132 Document #: 30 Filed: 11/16/20 Page 4 of 67 PageID #:867
2

2. Plaintiffs entered the McDonald’s franchise system with the expectation that it would 

open the door to opportunities to develop thriving businesses to pass on to their children. 

3. Plaintiffs were more than McDonald’s franchisees; they were employers and pillars in 

their communities. In many cases, they became parental figures providing the safety and security 

often lacking in the depressed, crime-ridden neighborhoods that McDonald’s steered them to. 

4. For more than 50 years, McDonald’s has branded itself as a socially conscious 

company, committed to strengthening Black entrepreneurship, and embracing racial opportunity as a 

critical component of its corporate culture. 

5. On June 16, 2020, McDonald’s Chief Executive Officer, Christopher Kempczinski, 

appeared on CNBC’s “Mad Money with Jim Cramer” and stated that, “McDonald’s has created more 

millionaires within the Black community than probably any other corporation on the planet.” 

6. In response to the murder of George Floyd and the Black Lives Matter movement, 

McDonald’s proclaimed, “We do not tolerate inequity, injustice, or racism.” McDonald’s 

advertisements read, “They were all one of us. We see them in our customers. We see them in our 

crew members. We see them in our franchisees. And this is why the entire McDonald’s family 

grieves. It’s why we stand for them and any other victims of systematic oppression and violence.”

7. As recently as McDonald Corporation’s Verified Complaint against its former CEO, 

Stephen J. Easterbrook, McDonald’s continues to falsely represent a corporate commitment to 

equality: “Today, [McDonald’s] continues its efforts to cultivate a safe, nondiscriminatory, and 

respectful workplace, including most recently through a renewed values statement that makes clear 

McDonald’s commitment to operating its business with integrity and creating equal opportunities.” 

McDonald’s Corporation v. Easterbrook, Case Id. 2020-0658, Verified Compl. [D.E. 1], at ⁋ 34 (Del. 

Ch. Aug. 10, 2020) (emphasis added). 

Case: 1:20-cv-05132 Document #: 30 Filed: 11/16/20 Page 5 of 67 PageID #:868
3

8. These statements are patently false and highlight the dichotomy between McDonald’s 

corporate ethos as a recruiter and developer of Black entrepreneurs and its record on race: 

McDonald’s has a decades-long history of racial discrimination against its own Black franchisees. 

9. McDonald’s proclaims a commitment to racial equality, profits from its Black 

customers, yet places Black franchisees in locations that are destined to fail, with low-volume sales 

and high operating costs, leading to consistent profit shortfalls or losses, impeding Black franchisees’ 

efforts to grow as they acquire other stores, necessary for success under McDonald’s own franchise 

model, to force Black franchisees out, repeating this pattern of misconduct over and over again.

10. McDonald’s racial discrimination has resulted in an increasing cash flow gap between 

McDonald’s Black franchisees as compared to White ones. This cash flow gap more than tripled

from 2010 to 2019, per National Black McDonald’s Operators Association (“NBMOA”) data. 

11. Plaintiffs’ average annual sales of $2 million was more than $700,000 under

McDonald’s national average of $2.7 million between 2011 and 2016, and $2.9 million in 2019.

12. As a result, the historic high of approximately 400 Black McDonald’s franchisees in 

1998 has been more than cut in half. Today, there are less than 200 Black franchisees. See Figure 

1 below, based on NBMOA and McDonald’s data.

13. At the same time, from 1998 to date, the total number of McDonald’s franchised 

restaurants more than doubled. See Figure 2 below, based on data from McDonald’s Corporation. 

14. These differences are statistically significant and are the result of Defendants’ racial 

bias and barriers within the McDonald’s franchise system, effectuated by Defendants through 

systematic and covert racial discrimination targeted against Black franchisees.

Case: 1:20-cv-05132 Document #: 30 Filed: 11/16/20 Page 6 of 67 PageID #:869
4

Figure 1: Number of Black McDonald’s Franchisees

Figure 2: Number of McDonald’s Franchised Restaurants

Case: 1:20-cv-05132 Document #: 30 Filed: 11/16/20 Page 7 of 67 PageID #:870
5

15. McDonald’s definition of success is a one-way street: as long as McDonald’s is paid 

its rent, service fees, related vendor expenses, and renovation loans with McDonald’s approved 

banks, the franchisee is a “success” by McDonald’s standards, regardless of the fact that the 

individual franchisee has not earned a single dollar of profit for him or herself. 

16. On the other hand, an individual franchisee’s definition of success is entirely different: 

on average, a successful McDonald’s franchisee makes $400,000 to $500,000 of profit per year, 

whereas Black McDonald’s franchisees were put in locations that had no chance of generating profits 

for Black franchisees that even come close to that level of success.

17. Knowing that Black franchisees historically had very limited access to the 

McDonald’s system and would take what they could get, McDonald’s systematically kept Black 

franchisees in underperforming locations with low revenues and high expenses where White 

franchisees refused to own and operate restaurants. By steering and restricting Black franchisees 

growth beyond predominantly Black neighborhoods because of their race, McDonald’s increased its 

own success at the expense of Black franchisees who had little to no success individually.

18. Black franchisees go in and out of locations with consistent profit shortfalls, on land 

and buildings owned by McDonald’s, operated by Black franchisees to better target Black consumers, 

with improvements paid for by Black franchisees, maximizing McDonald’s profits, while White 

franchisees are offered newer, safer, and more profitable locations. 

19. But for their race, Black franchisees, and more specifically, the Plaintiffs, would have 

been given the opportunity to successfully operate newer, safer, and more profitable restaurants like 

White McDonald’s franchisees. 

Case: 1:20-cv-05132 Document #: 30 Filed: 11/16/20 Page 8 of 67 PageID #:871
6

20. McDonald’s knowingly discriminated against Plaintiffs, Black franchisees, a 

protected class under federal law (42 U.S.C. §1981), who were parties to franchise agreements with 

McDonald’s, by, including, but not limited to: 

a. Steering Plaintiffs to, and restricting growth beyond, substandard locations

with low-volume sales and higher operating costs, such as higher security costs

due to crime, higher insurance rates, and higher employee turnover, because 

of their race;

b. Excluding Plaintiffs from the purchase of restaurants in the open market 

throughout their franchise terms because of their race;

c. Providing Plaintiffs with misleading financial information to induce them to 

purchase McDonald’s least desirable franchises and fraudulently concealing 

information to restrict Plaintiffs’ growth into more profitable locations;

d. Requiring Plaintiffs to invest in rebuilds and/or renovations within short time 

frames not required of White franchisees in locations McDonald’s knew would 

fail to generate an adequate return on Plaintiffs’ individual investments; 

e. Excluding Plaintiffs from the same growth opportunities to higher-volume, 

lower-cost stores offered to White franchisees; 

f. Failing to provide any legitimate business reasons for repeated denials of 

franchise opportunities to Plaintiffs over many years;

g. Denying Plaintiffs meaningful support to allow them to overcome financial 

hardships, while White franchisees were routinely provided such assistance, 

including, but not limited to, permanent rent relief and impact funding; 

h. Depriving Plaintiffs of the same legacy opportunities offered to White 

franchisees through McDonald’s Next Generation (“Next Gen”) program;

i. Retaliation against Plaintiffs for rejecting offers to continue operations in 

crime-ridden neighborhoods with low-volume sales, including through 

targeted, increased, and unreasonable inspections; 

j. Unreasonable and unequal inspections and grading of Plaintiffs’ restaurants to 

generate bad business reviews as pretext to force Plaintiffs out of the 

McDonald’s system because of their race; and/or

Case: 1:20-cv-05132 Document #: 30 Filed: 11/16/20 Page 9 of 67 PageID #:872
7

k. Placing Plaintiffs in untenable positions of economic duress, denying them 

eligibility for growth and renewal of their agreements, and arbitrarily denying 

final approval of their buyers, so that Plaintiffs had no choice but to exit on 

McDonald’s terms, at a loss.

21. Through these series of repeated and interrelated events, McDonald’s intentionally 

and covertly deprived Plaintiffs of the same rights enjoyed by White franchisees to the creation, 

performance, enjoyment, and all benefits of their contractual relationships with Defendants.

22. McDonald’s fraudulently claimed to have remedied their discriminatory practices in 

the 1990s, through a campaign of misinformation, non-binding parity deals, and empty promises. 

23. As of 1998, and thereafter, Plaintiffs were led to believe that McDonald’s history of 

discrimination was in the past. Plaintiffs all operated under the assumption of parity and fair dealing 

by McDonald’s. Through McDonald’s control of information as the franchisor, and public 

commitment to racial equality, Plaintiffs were unaware, and could not know or have learned through 

due diligence, that McDonald’s would deprive them of franchise opportunities offered to White 

franchisees. 

24. After 1998, during the period of “parity,” when Plaintiffs encountered operational 

difficulties, they were systematically isolated and led to believe that they were “bad operators” and 

individually responsible for the excessive operational expenses, insufficient sales volume, lost profits, 

lost business opportunities, and damage to their professional reputations.

25. McDonald’s discriminatory and fraudulent practices were not apparent to Plaintiffs 

when committed, and only became apparent when viewed in light of the later acts establishing a 

pattern of systematic and covert racial discrimination targeted against Black franchisees, which 

became public through the January 7, 2020, filing of a racial discrimination lawsuit by Black 

McDonald’s senior executives, Victoria Guster-Hines and Domineca Neal. Guster-Hines v. 

McDonald’s USA LLC, No. 20-00117, Compl. [D.E. 1] (N.D. Ill. Jan. 1, 2020). 

Case: 1:20-cv-05132 Document #: 30 Filed: 11/16/20 Page 10 of 67 PageID #:873
8

26. Through the Guster-Hines and Neal Complaint, Plaintiffs discovered inside corporate 

information for the first time that revealed that their franchise terminations by McDonald’s were 

part of a renewed practice of covert and systemic discrimination against Black franchisees post-parity 

at the executive level.

27. Plaintiffs learned that they were not in fact “bad operators,” who mismanaged their 

restaurants, as McDonald’s led them to believe, but rather that McDonald’s own executives 

recognized that the company deliberately divested opportunities from Black franchisees, 

implemented business plans with a discriminatory impact on Black franchisees, made exceptions for 

White Next Generation candidates it did not make for Black candidates, graded Black Consumer 

Market stores “differently, in a negative way,” and overall abandoned its commitment to racial 

equality on a company-wide basis: “McDonald’s continuing pattern and practice of intentional race 

discrimination [] should outrage everyone, especially those who grew up going to McDonald’s and 

believing the ‘Golden Arches’ were swell.” (Compl., at ¶¶ 1, 65, 75).

28. After the public filing, Plaintiffs began to exchange information and engage in 

discussions with other former McDonald’s franchisees after years of intentional isolation by 

McDonald’s only to realize that they each suffered the same series of ongoing denials of franchise 

opportunities by McDonald’s, post-parity, despite operating in different domestic locations and 

backgrounds, because they have one thing in common: they are Black. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

29. This is an action based on McDonald’s denial of Plaintiffs’ right to equality in their 

contracts in violation of Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, as amended by the Civil Rights 

Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Count I), breach of contract (Count II), and fraudulent inducement 

and omission (Count III).

Case: 1:20-cv-05132 Document #: 30 Filed: 11/16/20 Page 11 of 67 PageID #:874
9

30. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ 42 U.S.C. § 1981 claims

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332, 1343(a)(3), and 42 U.S.C. § 1988. 

31. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state-law claims pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1367 because they are so related to Plaintiffs’ federal question claims that they form part 

of the same case or controversy. 

32. Plaintiffs’ claims are properly joined under the permissive joinder provisions of Rule 

20, Fed. R. Civ. P., as their claims arise out of the same series of transactions or occurrences and raise 

common questions of law or fact. 

33. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because McDonald’s 

Corporation is headquartered in this District and McDonald’s USA maintains its principal place of 

business in Chicago, Illinois. 

34. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because Defendants 

reside in this District, where its principal place of business is located, and a substantial part of the 

events giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in Chicago, Illinois, which is within this District. 

THE PARTIES

A. Plaintiffs

35. Plaintiffs are members of a federally-protected class who owned and operated 

McDonald’s restaurant(s). 

36. Plaintiff Christine Crawford and her mother, Delores Crawford, are South Carolina 

residents and former McDonald’s Atlanta Region franchise owner/operators. Delores Crawford 

became a McDonald’s franchisee in 1988, while her daughter, Cristine Crawford, became one in 

2005. The Crawfords were forced out in 2018. As a result of McDonald’s continuing misconduct 

alleged herein, the Crawfords owned and lost seven (7) stores. They are Black.

Case: 1:20-cv-05132 Document #: 30 Filed: 11/16/20 Page 12 of 67 PageID #:875
10

37. Plaintiff Juneth N. Daniel is a Florida resident and a former Alabama Region 

McDonald’s franchise owner/operator who became a franchisee in 2008 and was forced out in 2018. 

As a result of McDonald’s continuing misconduct alleged herein, Daniel owned and lost four (4)

stores. She is Black.

38. Plaintiff Yves Dominique is a Georgia resident and a former Atlanta Region

McDonald’s franchise owner/operator who became a franchisee in 2008 and was forced out in 2017. 

As a result of McDonald’s continuing misconduct alleged herein, Dominique owned and lost six (6)

stores. He is Black.

39. Plaintiff Van Jakes is a Georgia resident and a former Atlanta Region McDonald’s 

franchise owner/operator who became a franchisee in 1992 and was forced out in 2016 As a result of 

McDonald’s continuing misconduct alleged herein, Jakes owned and lost five (5) stores. He is Black.

40. Plaintiff Ralph King is a Missouri resident and a former Missouri Region McDonald’s 

franchise owner/operator who became a franchisee in 1983 and was forced out in 2019. As a result 

of McDonald’s continuing misconduct alleged herein, King owned and lost thirteen (13) stores. He 

is Black.

41. Plaintiff Keith Manning is a North Carolina resident and a former North Carolina 

Region McDonald’s franchise owner/operator who became a franchisee in 1992 and was forced out

in 2017. As a result of McDonald’s continuing misconduct alleged herein, Keith Manning owned

and lost ten (10) stores. He is Black.

42. Plaintiff Kenneth Manning is a Georgia resident and a former Alabama and Atlanta 

Region McDonald’s franchise owner/operator who became a franchisee in 2001 and was forced out

in 2017. As a result of McDonald’s continuing misconduct alleged herein, Kenneth Manning owned 

and lost seventeen (17) stores. He is Black.

Case: 1:20-cv-05132 Document #: 30 Filed: 11/16/20 Page 13 of 67 PageID #:876
11

43. Plaintiff Dawn Mussenden is a Georgia resident and a former New York and Atlanta 

Region McDonald’s franchise owner/operator who became a franchisee in 1990 and was forced out 

in 2017. As a result of McDonald’s continuing misconduct alleged herein, Mussenden owned and 

lost five (5) stores. She is Black.

44. Plaintiff Laetitia Johnson is a Georgia resident and former Atlanta Region 

McDonald’s franchise owner/operator who became a franchisee in 1995 and was forced out in 2018. 

As a result of McDonald’s continuing misconduct alleged herein, Johnson owned and lost four (4)

stores. She is Black.

45. Plaintiff Carrie Salone is a Georgia resident and a former Atlanta Region McDonald’s 

franchise owner/operator who became a franchisee in 2003 and was forced out in 2016. Between 

2010 and 2016, Salone owned and lost two (2) stores. She is Black.

46. Plaintiff Floyd Sims is a Georgia resident and a former Atlanta Region McDonald’s 

franchise owner/operator who became a franchisee in 2000 and was forced out in 2018. As a result 

of McDonald’s continuing misconduct alleged herein, Sims owned and lost seven (7) stores. He is 

Black.

47. Plaintiff Larry Brown is an Iowa resident and a former Iowa Region McDonald’s

franchise owner/operator who became a franchisee in 2000 and was forced out in 2017. As a result 

of McDonald’s continuing misconduct alleged herein, Brown owned and lost ten (10) stores. He is 

Black.

48. Plaintiff John Mason is a North Carolina resident and a Virginia and North Carolina 

Region McDonald’s franchise owner/operator who became a franchisee in 2004 and was forced out

in 2018. As a result of McDonald’s continuing misconduct alleged herein, Mason owned and lost

four (4) stores. He is Black.

Case: 1:20-cv-05132 Document #: 30 Filed: 11/16/20 Page 14 of 67 PageID #:877
12

49. Plaintiff Ronnie Thornton is a North Carolina resident and a former Raleigh/Durham 

Region McDonald’s franchise owner/operator who became a franchisee in 1998 and was forced out

in 2017. As a result of McDonald’s continuing misconduct alleged herein, Thornton owned and lost 

five (5) stores. He is Black.

50. Plaintiff Lisa Gunter, f/k/a Lisa McKenzie, is a North Carolina resident and a former

Raleigh/Durham Region McDonald’s franchise owner/operator who became a franchisee in 2007 and 

was forced to out in 2018. As a result of McDonald’s continuing misconduct alleged herein, Gunter 

owned and lost two (2) stores. She is Black.

51. Plaintiff Mitchell McGuire and his wife, Lois McGuire, are New Jersey residents and 

former New York Metro Region McDonald’s franchise owner/operators who became franchisees in 

2000 and were forced out in 2016. As a result of McDonald’s continuing misconduct alleged herein, 

the McGuires owned and lost one (1) store. They are Black.

52. Plaintiff Hayes Ferrell is a Georgia resident and a former Atlanta Region McDonald’s 

franchise owner/operator who became a franchisee in 1989 and was forced out in 2016. As a result 

of McDonald’s continuing misconduct alleged herein, Ferrell owned and lost one (1) store. He is 

Black.

53. Plaintiff Yvonne Knox is a Michigan resident and a former Detroit Region 

McDonald’s franchise owner/operator who became a franchisee in 1981 and was forced out in 2016. 

As a result of McDonald’s continuing misconduct alleged herein, Knox owned and lost one (1) store. 

She is Black.

54. Plaintiff Arthur Scott is a Michigan resident and a former Detroit Region McDonald’s 

franchise owner/operator who became a franchisee in 1994 and was forced out in 2017. As a result 

Case: 1:20-cv-05132 Document #: 30 Filed: 11/16/20 Page 15 of 67 PageID #:878
13

of McDonald’s continuing misconduct alleged herein, Scott owned and lost eight (8) stores. He is 

Black.

55. Plaintiff Errol Service is a Michigan resident and a former Detroit Region McDonald’s 

franchise owner/operator who became a franchisee in 1994 and was forced out in 2020. As a result 

of McDonald’s continuing misconduct alleged herein, Service owned and lost seventeen (17) stores. 

He is Black.

56. Plaintiff Melvin Jones is a Florida resident and a former Detroit Region McDonald’s 

franchise owner/operator who became a franchisee in 1999 and was forced out in 2018. As a result 

of McDonald’s continuing misconduct alleged herein, Jones owned and lost three (3) stores. He is 

Black.

57. Plaintiff George Gipson is a Missouri resident and a former St. Louis Region 

McDonald’s franchise owner/operator who became a franchisee in 1994 and was forced out in 2017. 

As a result of McDonald’s continuing misconduct alleged herein, Gipson owned and lost three (3)

stores. He is Black.

58. Plaintiff Michael Simon is a New Jersey resident and a former Raleigh Region 

McDonald’s franchise owner/operator who became a franchisee in 2013 and was forced out in 2017. 

As a result of McDonald’s continuing misconduct alleged herein, Simon owned and lost three (3) 

stores. He is Black.

59. Plaintiff Victor Bruce is an Indiana resident and a former Indianapolis Region 

McDonald’s franchise owner/operator who became a franchisee in 1994 and was forced out in 2016. 

As a result of McDonald’s continuing misconduct alleged herein, Bruce owned and lost three (3)

stores. He is Black.

Case: 1:20-cv-05132 Document #: 30 Filed: 11/16/20 Page 16 of 67 PageID #:879
14

60. Plaintiff David White and his wife, Barbara White, are Indiana residents and former 

Indianapolis Region McDonald’s franchise owner/operators who became franchisees in 1999 and 

were forced out in 2018. As a result of McDonald’s continuing misconduct alleged herein, the Whites

owned and lost five (5) stores. They are Black.

61. Plaintiff John Tillman is a Texas resident and a former Houston Region McDonald’s 

franchise owner/operator who became a franchisee in 1990 and was forced out in 2019. As a result 

of McDonald’s continuing misconduct alleged herein, Tillman owned and lost fourteen (14) stores. 

He is Black.

62. Plaintiff Allen Stafford is a Georgia resident and a former Atlanta Region McDonald’s 

franchise owner/operator who became a franchisee in 1992 and was forced out in 2017. As a result 

of McDonald’s continuing misconduct alleged herein, Stafford owned and lost five (5) stores. He is 

Black.

63. Plaintiff Keristin Holloway and his wife, Gloria Holloway, are Texas residents and 

former Houston Region McDonald’s franchise owner/operators who became franchisees in 1997 and 

were forced out in 2017. As a result of McDonald’s continuing misconduct alleged herein, the 

Holloways owned and lost two (2) stores. They are Black.

64. Plaintiff George Jones and his wife, Jane Jones, are Tennessee residents and former 

Nashville Region McDonald’s franchise owner/operators who became franchisees in 1981 and were 

forced out in 2019. As a result of McDonald’s continuing misconduct alleged herein, the Jones owned 

and lost four (4) stores. They are Black.

65. Plaintiff Wise Finley is a Michigan resident and a former Detroit Region McDonald’s 

franchise owner/operator who became a franchisee in 1987 and was forced out in 2016. As a result 

Case: 1:20-cv-05132 Document #: 30 Filed: 11/16/20 Page 17 of 67 PageID #:880
15

of McDonald’s continuing misconduct alleged herein, Finley owned and lost three (3) stores. He is 

Black.

66. Plaintiff Lewis Anderson is a Florida resident and a former Great Southern Region 

McDonald’s franchise owner/operator who became a franchisee in 2002 and was forced out in 2016. 

As a result of McDonald’s continuing misconduct alleged herein, Anderson owned and lost four (4) 

stores. He is Black. 

67. Plaintiff Dwight Miller and his son, Scott Miller, are Florida and Illinois residents, 

respectively, and former Chicago Region McDonald’s franchise owner/operators. Dwight Miller 

became a franchisee in 1997, while Scott Miller became one in 2011, and they jointly operated their 

McDonald’s franchises on or after 2014. The Millers were forced out in 2019. As a result of 

McDonald’s continuing misconduct alleged herein, the Millers owned and lost twelve (12) stores. 

They are Black.

68. Plaintiff Faye Hobley is a Nebraska resident and a former region Minneapolis Region 

McDonald’s franchise owner/operator who became a franchisee in 1982 and was forced out in 2018. 

As a result of McDonald’s continuing misconduct alleged herein, Hobley owned and lost three (3) 

stores. She is Black.

69. Plaintiff Paul Hoskins and his wife, Michele Hoskins, are Texas residents and former 

Houston Region McDonald’s franchise owner/operators who became franchisees in 2004 and were

forced out in 2018. As a result of McDonald’s continuing misconduct alleged herein, the Hoskins 

owned and lost five (5) stores. They are Black.

70. Plaintiff Al Harris and his daughter, Kristen Harris, are Virginia residents and former 

Richmond Region McDonald’s owner/operators. Al Harris became a franchisee in 1997, while 

Kristen became a franchisee in 2012. The Harrises were forced out in 2019. As a result of 

Case: 1:20-cv-05132 Document #: 30 Filed: 11/16/20 Page 18 of 67 PageID #:881
16

McDonald’s continuing misconduct alleged herein, Al Harris owned and lost seven (7) stores and

Kristen Harris owned and lost one (1) store. They are Black.

71. Plaintiff Norman H. Williams is a Virginia resident and a former Richmond Region 

McDonald’s owner/operator who became a franchisee in 1994 and was forced out in 2018. As a 

result of McDonald’s continuing misconduct alleged herein, Williams owned and lost one (1) store. 

He is Black. 

72. Plaintiff William (Pete) Washington is a Virginia resident and a former Richmond 

Region McDonald’s owner/operator who became a franchisee in 1998 and was forced out in 2016. 

As a result of McDonald’s continuing misconduct alleged herein, Washington owned and lost two

(2) stores. He is Black.

73. Plaintiff Benny Clark and his wife, Eleanor Clark, are South Carolina residents and 

former Columbia Region McDonald’s owner/operators who became franchisees in 1999 and were 

forced out in 2019. As a result of McDonald’s continuing misconduct alleged herein, the Clarks

owned and lost four (4) stores. They are Black. 

74. Plaintiff Harold Lewis and his son, Jeremy Lewis, are Nevada residents and former 

Las Vegas Region McDonald’s franchise owner/operators. Harold Lewis became a franchisee in 

1987, while Jeremy Lewis became a franchisee in 2010. The Lewises were forced out in 2015. As 

a result of McDonald’s continuing misconduct alleged herein, Harold Lewis owned and lost nine (9) 

stores and Jeremy Lewis owned and lost one (1) store. They are Black.

75. Plaintiff Philip Douglas is an Illinois resident and a former Chicago Region 

McDonald’s franchise owner/operator who became a franchisee in 1997 and was forced out in 2014. 

As a result of McDonald’s continuing misconduct alleged herein, Douglas owned and lost three (3) 

stores. He is Black.

Case: 1:20-cv-05132 Document #: 30 Filed: 11/16/20 Page 19 of 67 PageID #:882
17

76. Plaintiff Lawrence Holland is a Georgia resident and a former Atlanta Region 

McDonald’s franchise owner/operator who became a franchisee in 2003 and was forced out in 2013. 

As a result of McDonald’s continuing misconduct alleged herein, Holland owned and lost two (2) 

stores. He is Black.

77. Plaintiff William Rasul is a Georgia resident and a former Atlanta Region McDonald’s 

franchise owner/operator who became a franchisee in 1999 and was forced out in 2010. As a result 

of McDonald’s continuing misconduct alleged herein, Rasul owned and lost three (3) stores. He is 

Black.

78. Plaintiff LeRoy Walker, Jr. is a Mississippi resident and a former Mississippi Region 

McDonald’s franchise owner/operator who became a franchisee in 1984 and was forced out in 2015. 

As a result of McDonald’s continuing misconduct alleged herein, Walker owned and lost one (1) 

store due to McDonald’s misconduct. He is Black.

79. Plaintiff Jeffery Rogers is a Florida resident and a former Jacksonville Region 

McDonald’s franchise owner/operator who became a franchisee in 2005 and was forced out in 2011. 

As a result of McDonald’s continuing misconduct alleged herein, Rogers owned and lost one (1) 

store. He is Black.

80. Plaintiff Joseph Mbanefo is a New York resident and a former New York Region 

McDonald’s franchise owner/operator who became a franchisee 1996 and was forced out in 2012. 

As a result of McDonald’s continuing misconduct alleged herein, Mbanefo owned and lost four (4) 

stores. He is Black.

81. Plaintiff Annis Alston-Staley and her husband, Harry Staley, are South Carolina

residents and former New Jersey Region McDonald’s franchise owner/operators who became 

Case: 1:20-cv-05132 Document #: 30 Filed: 11/16/20 Page 20 of 67 PageID #:883
18

franchisees in 1995 and were forced out in 2015. As a result of McDonald’s continuing misconduct 

alleged herein, the Staleys owned and lost six (6) stores. They are Black.

82. Plaintiff Gordon Thornton is a North Carolina resident and a former Raleigh/Durham 

Region McDonald’s franchise owner/operator who became a franchisee in 1993 and was forced out

in 2012. As a result of McDonald’s continuing misconduct alleged herein, Thornton owned and lost 

four (4) stores. He is Black.

83. Plaintiff Dwayne Richard Johnson is a Pennsylvania resident and a former 

Philadelphia Region McDonald’s franchise owner/operator who became a franchisee in 1993 and 

was forced out in 2012. As a result of McDonald’s continuing misconduct alleged herein, Johnson 

owned and lost one (1) store. He is Black.

84. Plaintiff Serge Tancrede and his wife, Karen Tancrede, are Texas residents and former 

Philadelphia Region McDonald’s franchise owner/operators who became franchisees in 2004 and 

were forced out in 2011. As a result of McDonald’s continuing misconduct alleged herein, the 

Tancredes owned and lost one (1) store. They are Black.

85. Plaintiff Errol Thybulle is a New York resident and a former New York Region 

McDonald’s franchise owner/operator who became a franchisee in 1990 and was forced out in 2011. 

As a result of McDonald’s continuing misconduct alleged herein, Thybulle owned and lost two (2) 

stores. He is Black.

86. Plaintiff Jeremiah Simmons is a New York resident and a former New York Region 

McDonald’s franchise owner/operator who became a franchisee in 1998 and was forced out in 2010. 

As a result of McDonald’s continuing misconduct alleged herein, Simmons owned and lost one (1) 

store. He is Black.

Case: 1:20-cv-05132 Document #: 30 Filed: 11/16/20 Page 21 of 67 PageID #:884
19

87. Plaintiff Darryl Umphries is an Oklahoma resident and a former Oklahoma City 

Region McDonald’s franchise owner/operator who became a franchisee in 2004 and was forced out

in 2014. As a result of McDonald’s continuing misconduct alleged herein, Umphries owned and lost 

two (2) stores. He is Black.

88. Plaintiff Jacqueline George and her husband, Anthony George, are Florida residents

and former Columbus, Ohio Region McDonald’s franchise owner/operators who became franchisees

in 1990 and were forced out in 2012. As a result of McDonald’s continuing misconduct alleged 

herein, the Georges owned and lost three (3) stores. They are Black.

89. Plaintiff Wesley Hall is a Florida resident and a former Alabama Region McDonald’s 

franchise owner/operator who became a franchisee in 2005 and was forced out in 2010. As a result 

of McDonald’s continuing misconduct alleged herein, Hall owned and lost two (2) stores. He is 

Black.

90. Plaintiff Glenda Claypool, a Texas resident, brings this action, on behalf of, and 

pending appointment as Personal Representative of the Estate of her late husband, Sherman Claypool, 

a former Milwaukee Region McDonald’s franchise owner/operator who became a franchisee in 1971 

and was forced out in 2014. As a result of McDonald’s continuing misconduct alleged herein, 

Claypool owned and lost five (5) stores. He was Black.

91. Plaintiff Kenneth Nelson is a Missouri resident and a former St. Louis Region 

McDonald’s franchise owner/operator who became a franchisee in 1992 and was forced out in 2012. 

As a result of McDonald’s continuing misconduct alleged herein, Nelson owned and lost five (5) 

stores. He is Black.

92. Plaintiff Bernard Saffold is a Wisconsin resident and a former Milwaukee Region 

McDonald’s franchise owner/operator who became a franchisee in 1999 and was forced out in 2010. 

Case: 1:20-cv-05132 Document #: 30 Filed: 11/16/20 Page 22 of 67 PageID #:885
20

As a result of McDonald’s continuing misconduct alleged herein, Saffold owned and lost one (1) 

store. He is Black.

93. Plaintiff Lance Williams is an Alabama resident and a former Atlanta Region 

McDonald’s franchise owner/operator who became a franchisee in 2001 and was forced out in 2013. 

As a result of McDonald’s continuing misconduct alleged herein, Williams owned and lost two (2) 

stores. He is Black.

94. Plaintiff Jacqueline Wynn is a Georgia resident and a former Alabama and Atlanta

Region McDonald’s owner/operator who became a franchisee in 1994 and was forced out in 2011. 

As a result of McDonald’s continuing misconduct alleged herein, Wynn owned and lost one (1) store. 

She is Black. 

95. Plaintiff Robert (Bob) Bonner is an Illinois resident and a former St. Louis Region 

McDonald’s owner/operator who because a franchisee in 1990 and was forced out in 2013. As a 

result of McDonald’s continuing misconduct alleged herein, Bonner owned and lost four (4) stores. 

He is Black.

96. Plaintiff Gary Roan and his wife, Joyce Mance-Roan, are Ohio residents and former 

Dayton Region McDonald’s owner/operators who became franchisees in 1990 and were forced out 

in 2014. As a result of McDonald’s continuing misconduct alleged herein, the Roans owned and lost 

four (4) stores. They are Black.

97. Plaintiff Douglas Hollis and his wife, Glenna Hollis, are Florida residents and former 

Orlando Region McDonald’s owner/operators who became franchisees in 1998 and were forced out 

in 2013. As a result of McDonald’s continuing misconduct alleged herein, the Hollises owned and 

lost five (5) stores. They are Black.

Case: 1:20-cv-05132 Document #: 30 Filed: 11/16/20 Page 23 of 67 PageID #:886
21

98. As a result of Defendants’ racial discrimination, breach of contract, and fraud alleged 

herein, each of the individual Plaintiffs named above have been subjected to the same pattern and 

practice of discrimination and suffered substantial damages in the forms described below and 

amounts that will be proven at trial. 

99. At all times material, McDonald’s led Plaintiffs to believe that they wanted all 

franchisees to succeed, were committed to racial equality, and, as such, any losses they suffered were 

because they were “bad operators” and/or “mismanaged” their organizations. 

100. As a result of Defendants’ affirmative misrepresentations and omissions, systematic 

isolation of Plaintiffs throughout their franchise terms, and control of vital information bearing on

Plaintiffs’ claims, Plaintiffs were unaware, and could not have reasonably known or have learned 

through the exercise of due diligence, the true nature and extent of McDonald’s systematic and covert 

racial discrimination. 

101. By agreement with Defendants, who were previously provided by Plaintiffs earlier 

this year with a draft complaint, as of June 8, 2020 all viable statutes of limitation applicable to 

Plaintiffs’ claims were tolled.

B. Defendants

102. Defendant McDonald’s USA is a Delaware limited liability corporation with its 

principal place of business located at 110 North Carpenter Street, Chicago, Illinois. McDonald’s 

USA is a wholly-owned subsidiary of McDonald’s Corporation and the franchisor of the McDonald’s 

franchise system, which develops, operates, franchises, and services a system of fast-food restaurants 

in the United States. 

103. Defendant McDonald’s Corporation is a publicly traded Delaware corporation with its 

principal place of business located at One McDonald’s Plaza, Oak Brook, Illinois. McDonald’s 

Case: 1:20-cv-05132 Document #: 30 Filed: 11/16/20 Page 24 of 67 PageID #:887
22

Corporation is the sole member of McDonald’s USA, and is the worldwide franchisor of the 

McDonald’s franchise system. 

COMMON FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

104. McDonald’s offered Plaintiffs what, at first, appeared to be a once-in-a-lifetime 

opportunity to invest in and become a part of America’s best-known international corporation. 

105. Yet, by covertly restricting and steering Plaintiffs to older and underperforming store 

locations because of their race, misleading financial representations and omissions, exclusion from 

growth opportunities, unequal and unreasonable renovation and rebuild requirements, and application 

of harsher and unreasonable grading and inspection standards, McDonald’s intentionally impeded 

Plaintiffs’ ability to succeed and grow within the franchise they dedicated their lives to. 

A. The McDonald’s Franchise Model: Unequal Bargaining Power, The Franchise 

Agreement, and Misleading Franchise Disclosure Documents

106. McDonald’s is a heavily franchised business model. As of May 1, 2020, 

approximately 95% of all U.S. restaurants are franchised to independent franchisees and about 5% 

are franchised to company-owned McDonald’s (“McOpCo”) restaurants. 

107. By franchising nearly 100% of its restaurants, McDonald’s has grown to become one 

of the largest commercial real estate owners in the world: McDonald’s owns and controls 

approximately 55% of the land and 80% of the buildings for restaurants in its consolidated markets. 

On the other hand, Plaintiffs, as former franchisees, never owned any land or buildings in 

consolidated markets. 

108. In 2019, revenues for McDonald’s Corporation totaled $21.1 billion, returning 

approximately $8.6 billion to shareholders through a combination of shares repurchased and 

dividends paid at year-end 2019. McDonald’s revenues consist of rents, royalties, and initial 

franchise fees. Franchisees’ sales are not recorded as revenues of McDonald’s Corporation. 

Case: 1:20-cv-05132 Document #: 30 Filed: 11/16/20 Page 25 of 67 PageID #:888
23

109. Under this business model, McDonald’s obtains new capital as well as enormous 

profits from its franchisees, with little to no investment of its own. By using franchisees to acquire 

land and to build restaurants, McDonald’s creates captive tenants out of its franchisees.

110. As captive tenants, Plaintiffs were charged unreasonably high rent and service fees 

over long lease terms.

(i) The Franchise Agreement 

111. The decision to offer any franchise opportunity is within McDonald’s sole discretion

from the point of initial entry into the McDonald’s franchise system and throughout the franchise 

relationship.

112. According to “Your Path to Becoming a McDonald’s Franchisee,” prospective 

franchisees can only enter the Franchisee Training Program if they meet the following requirements:

a. Ability to invest a minimum of $500,000 in non-borrowed personal funds;

b. Divestiture of all existing business interests; 

c. Commitment to an extensive training program that can range from 12-18

months, with a minimum of 20 hours per week; and 

d. Relocation based on availability of restaurants.

See McDonald’s “Your Path to becoming a McDonald’s franchisee,” at p. 23, 

https://www.mcdonalds.com/content/dam/usa/nfl/documents/franchising/Your_Path_to_Becoming_

a_McDonalds_Franchisee.pdf. 

113. McDonald’s will not work with applicants “who desire a specific restaurant location 

or limited geographic area.” See McDonald’s Franchising FAQ, https://www.mcdonalds.com/us/enus/about-us/franchising/franchising-faq.html. 

114. McDonald’s requires every franchisee to sign its standard Franchise Agreement in 

order to operate one or more, new or existing, McDonald’s restaurants located on real estate owned 

Case: 1:20-cv-05132 Document #: 30 Filed: 11/16/20 Page 26 of 67 PageID #:889
24

or leased by McDonald’s, and leased to the franchisee through an Operator’s Lease, incorporated as 

Exhibit A to the Franchise Agreement (the “Lease”), for a twenty (20) year term. Franchisees have

absolutely no right or option to renew after the initial 20-year Lease term. Instead, in McDonald’s 

sole discretion, McDonald’s offers franchisees of its choice the opportunity to rewrite their Lease 

three (3) years prior to expiration of the 20-year term. This puts enormous pressure on franchisees, 

which McDonald’s used as leverage to extract unreasonable conditions from Plaintiffs throughout 

their franchise terms. True and correct copies of McDonald’s USA’s standard Franchise Agreement 

(Traditional), A-1, and an exemplar of Plaintiff Dominique’s Franchise Agreement, A-2, are attached 

as Composite Exhibit “A” (together with the Lease and Franchise Disclosure Document, 

collectively referred to as the “Franchise Agreement”).

1

115. Under the Franchise Agreement, McDonald’s owns or leases the franchised premises, 

so that the franchisee is always the tenant. Franchisees are granted the right to operate a restaurant 

using the McDonald’s system through a license and, in most cases, the use of a restaurant facility, 

through the Lease, which is coterminous with the Franchise Agreement. Failure to renew therefore 

includes eviction and loss of the franchisee’s business.

116. Franchisees pay initial fees upon the opening of a new restaurant or grant of a new 

franchise, as well as continuing rent and royalties to McDonald’s based upon a percent of sales with 

minimum rent payments. This structure enables McDonald’s to generate significant and predictable 

levels of cash flow.

117. Franchisees are responsible for all related occupancy costs, which include property 

taxes, maintenance, structural repairs, and acquiring and maintaining insurance coverage upon taking 

1 McDonald’s has possession of Plaintiffs’ individual Franchise Agreements. According to McDonald’s 

Annual Report, McDonald’s Corporation is the franchisor of any Franchise Agreement entered into (and not 

later amended or superseded) prior to approximately 2005, and McDonald’s USA is the franchisor of any 

Franchise Agreement entered into since approximately 2005.

Case: 1:20-cv-05132 Document #: 30 Filed: 11/16/20 Page 27 of 67 PageID #:890
25

possession of the restaurant, which name McDonald’s as an additional insured. (Franchise 

Agreement, Ex. A, at ¶¶ 12 & 17, and Lease, at Sections 2.06, 2.08, 4.02, 4.03, and 6.05).

118. McDonald’s also requires franchisees to rebuild, renovate, and/or make major 

remodels at franchisees’ sole cost and expense. (Lease, at Section 2.06). McDonald’s owns the real 

estate with all improvements paid for by the franchisees. 

119. Through the Franchise Agreement, McDonald’s agrees in relevant part:

General Services of McDonald’s. McDonald’s shall advise and consult 

with Franchisee periodically in connection with the operation of the 

Restaurant and also, upon Franchisee’s request, at other reasonable 

times. . .McDonald’s shall also make available to Franchisee all 

additional services, facilities, rights, and privileges relating to the 

operation of the Restaurant which McDonald’s makes generally 

available, from time to time, to all its franchisees operating 

McDonald’s restaurants.

(Franchise Agreement, Ex. A, at ¶ 3) (emphasis added). 

120. Pursuant to Section 12, titled “Compliance with Entire System,” McDonald’s and 

Plaintiffs further agreed to a reasonableness standard with respect to inspections and renovations as 

follows: 

McDonald’s shall have the right to inspect the Restaurant at all 

reasonable times to ensure that Franchisee’s operation thereof is in 

compliance with the standards and policies of the McDonald’s System. 

Franchisee shall comply with the entire McDonald’s System, 

including, but not limited to, the following: (c) Keep the Restaurant 

constructed and equipped in accordance with the building blueprints

and equipment layout plans that are standard in the McDonald’s 

System or as such blueprints and plans may be reasonably changed 

from time to time by McDonald’s.

(Id., at ¶ 12) (emphasis added).

121. Through McDonald’s Franchise Disclosure Document (“FDD”), incorporated by 

reference into the Franchise Agreement and an exemplar copy of which is attached as Exhibit “B” 

Case: 1:20-cv-05132 Document #: 30 Filed: 11/16/20 Page 28 of 67 PageID #:891
26

hereto,2 McDonald’s provides “prospective franchisees”3 with “Financial Performance 

Representations,” that include pro forma statements with the national average sales of domestic 

traditional McDonald’s restaurants opened at least one (1) year prior. For example, the most recent

2020 FDD attached hereto provides, in pertinent part, as follows: 

All Domestic Traditional Restaurants 

Of the approximately 12,032 domestic traditional McDonald’s 

restaurants opened at least 1 year as of December 31, 2019, 

approximately 79% had annual sales volumes in excess of $2,300,000; 

approximately 70% had annual sales volumes in excess of $2,500,000; 

and approximately 60% had annual sales volumes in excess of

$2,700,000. The average annual sales volume of domestic traditional 

McDonald’s restaurants open at least 1 year as of December 31, 2019, 

was $3,009,000 during 2019. The highest and lowest annual sales 

volume in 2019 for these domestic traditional McDonald’s restaurants 

was $12,654,000 and $654,000, respectively. The median annual sales 

volume of domestic traditional McDonald’s restaurants open at least 1 

year as of December 31, 2019, was $2,910,000 during 2019.

Traditional Franchised Restaurants

Of the approximately 11,435 domestic traditional franchised 

McDonald’s restaurants opened at least 1 year as of December 31, 

2019, approximately 78% had annual sales volumes in excess of 

$2,300,000; approximately 68% had annual sales volumes in excess of 

$2,500,000; and approximately 58% had annual sales volumes in 

excess of $2,700,000. The average annual sales volume of domestic 

traditional franchised McDonald’s restaurants open at least 1 year as of 

December 31, 2019, was $2,970,000 during 2019. The highest and 

lowest annual sales volume in 2019 for these domestic traditional 

McDonald’s restaurants was $12,654,000 and $654,000, respectively. 

The median annual sales volume of domestic traditional franchised 

2 By way of example, attached is the most recent version of McDonald’s FDD, issued May 1, 2020. 

McDonald’s issues its FDD annually and provides all prospective franchisees with the FDD prior to joining 

the McDonald’s franchise system. McDonald’s has possession of the individual disclosure documents it 

provided to Plaintiffs. 

3 A “prospective franchisee” is defined by the Franchise Rule as “any person (including any agent, 

representative, or employee) who approaches or is approached by a franchise seller to discuss the possible 

establishment of a franchise relationship.” 16 C.F.R. Part 436. McDonald’s therefore provides financial 

disclosure not only upon entry, but also throughout the franchise term for any additional purchases of a 

franchise and/or in connection with a sale of a franchise. 

Case: 1:20-cv-05132 Document #: 30 Filed: 11/16/20 Page 29 of 67 PageID #:892
27

McDonald’s restaurants open at least 1 year as of December 31, 2019, 

was $2,867,000 during 2019.

Traditional Company Owned Restaurants 

Of the approximately 597 domestic traditional McOpCo restaurants 

opened at least 1 year as of December 31, 2019, approximately 99% 

had annual sales volumes in excess of $2,300,000; approximately 98% 

had annual sales volumes in excess of $2,500,000; and approximately 

95% had annual sales volumes in excess of $2,700,000. The average 

annual sales volume of domestic traditional McOpCo restaurants open 

at least 1 year as of December 31, 2019, was $3,758,000 during 2019. 

The highest and lowest annual sales volume in 2019 for these domestic

traditional McOpCo restaurants was $8,182,000 and $2,047,000, 

respectively. The median annual sales volume of domestic traditional 

McOpCo restaurants open at least 1 year as of December 31, 2019, was 

$3,629,000 during 2019.

(FDD, Ex. B, at Item 19) (emphasis added). 

122. At all times material hereto, Plaintiffs’ average annual sales were more than $700,000 

under McDonald’s disclosed national averages of $2.7 million between 2011 and 2016, and $2.9 

million in 2019. 

123. McDonald’s dictates uniformity of the operational structure and revenue expectations 

of all its franchisees’ stores, even though they are cognizant that Black-owned and operated 

McDonald’s franchises generate significantly lower revenue and assume higher operational costs than 

the national average due to the low-income and high-cost locations it steers its Black franchisees to. 

124. McDonald’s knew or should have known that these differential revenue and operating 

costs of Black-operated franchises as compared to White-operated franchises are not random or due 

to poor management. These differences are statistically significant and are the result of the historical 

racial bias and barriers built into the McDonald’s franchise system. 

125. Acquisition of a McDonald’s franchise under these conditions was nothing short of a 

“financial suicide mission.”

Case: 1:20-cv-05132 Document #: 30 Filed: 11/16/20 Page 30 of 67 PageID #:893
28

(ii) The Cost to Operate a McDonald’s Franchise

126. To purchase a McDonald’s franchise, McDonald’s requires an initial down payment 

of 40% of the total cost for a new restaurant, or 25% of the total cost for an existing restaurant. 

McDonald’s website, Buying a Franchise, available at https://www.mcdonalds.com/us/en-us/aboutus/franchising/acquiring-franchising.html. Generally, McDonald’s requires a minimum of $500,000 

of non-borrowed personal resources. See n. 4. The balance of the purchase price may be financed 

for no more than seven (7) years. Id.

127. Pursuant to McDonald’s 2020 FDD, McDonald’s estimates a franchisee’s Estimated 

Initial Investment to be between $1,314,500 to $2,306,500, which do not include ongoing percentage 

rate or service fees. 

128. Franchisees pay McDonald’s the following ongoing fees:

a. Service fee: A monthly fee based upon the restaurant’s sales performance (as 

of this filing date, a Service Fee of 4.0% of Gross Sales); and 

b. Rent: A monthly base rent and pass thru rent, if applicable, plus percentage 

rent in amounts calculated as a percentage of monthly Gross Sales, and that 

may include rent escalations, including, but not limited to, fixed-rent 

escalations, escalations based on an inflation index, and fair-value 

adjustments, with terms ranging from annually to every five (5) years. 

(Franchise Agreement, Ex. A, at ¶¶ 8–9; FDD, Ex. B, at Items 5–7, and Ex. A, at pp. 11–12).

129. Gross Sales include all revenues from sales, excluding sales or use tax, and are 

calculated based on the preceding month, and are defined in Paragraph 7 of the Franchise Agreement, 

in pertinent part, as “all revenues from sales of the Franchisee based upon all business conducted 

upon or from the Restaurant, ...” Gross Sales are used to determine McDonald’s service fee and

monthly rents, which are a percentage thereof. 

130. Gross sales at McDonald’s restaurants are almost exclusively based on location. 

Case: 1:20-cv-05132 Document #: 30 Filed: 11/16/20 Page 31 of 67 PageID #:894
29

(iii) A Financial Suicide Mission: The Cost to Operate a Black McDonald’s 

Franchise

131. Unequal bargaining power characterizes the relationship between franchisees and 

McDonald’s and this bargaining disparity is even more palpable for Black applicants and operators

like Plaintiffs. 

132. This unequal bargaining position made it easy for McDonald’s to award Black 

franchisees entering the system the oldest stores, in need of the most reinvestment, in tough and 

depressed areas, that had been routinely rejected by White franchisees, many of which McDonald’s 

wanted to close, but needed someone to operate until McDonald’s could sell its real estate.

133. McDonald’s offered Plaintiffs locations with higher operating costs, such as security, 

insurance, and employee training and turnover, and which required substantial renovations and 

rebuilds, as compared to White-owned franchises. 

134. McDonald’s discriminatory practices led to low cash flow and decreased equity for 

Black owner/operators, forcing Black owner/operators, including Plaintiffs, into significant debt and, 

in many cases, bankruptcy.

135. According to documents from the NBMOA, this cash flow gap between Black and 

White McDonald’s franchisees more than tripled between 2010 and 2019. 

136. For McDonald’s, it was a win-win strategy to collect high rent and fees for substandard 

stores, built upon a history of discrimination it successfully executed for decades.

B. McDonald’s History of Discrimination Against Black Franchisees

137. The McDonald’s franchise system was established in 1955, but Black franchisees 

were denied entry until 1968, following the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. 

138. In the wake of civil unrest and heighted racial tension in the United States, 

McDonald’s implemented “zebra” partnerships between silent, White investors and Black operators 

Case: 1:20-cv-05132 Document #: 30 Filed: 11/16/20 Page 32 of 67 PageID #:895
30

in order to expand its real estate footprint into predominantly Black areas where White franchisees 

could not safely operate. 

139. On December 21, 1968, Herman Petty opened his first restaurant in the inner-city of 

Chicago, becoming the first Black Owner/Operator of a McDonald’s franchise. 

(i) Boycott in Cleveland 1969

140. A boycott of McDonald’s in 1969 made headlines in Ohio and led to the first Black 

franchisees in the McDonald’s system opening stores in depressed areas of Cleveland. 

141. In a January 25, 1970, article regarding the first Black owned and operated 

McDonald’s franchise, the New York Times reported: “Spokesman for Negro groups, who banded 

together to form Operation Black Unity have been demanding black ownership of four existing 

McDonald’s units ... All are in predominantly Negro areas.” Cleveland Negro Wins a Franchise,

N.Y. Times, Jan. 25, 1970, available at https://www.nytimes.com/1970/01/25/archives/clevelandnegro-wins-a-franchise-9month-controversy-over-restaurant.html (emphasis added). 

142. In 1972, the National Black McDonald’s Operators Association, also known as the 

NBMOA, was founded to help promote growth in the industry by Black owner/operators.

143. During hearings held on April 7 and 8, 1976, before the United States Senate 

Committee on Commerce regarding the Fairness in Franchising Act, Donald R. Conley, President of 

the McDonald’s Operator’s Association, testified that McDonald’s primary tool used to force 

franchisees to sell prior to expiration of their agreements is their power over renewal of franchise 

agreements, entirely within McDonald’s control and discretion, allowing them to discriminate against 

franchisees. See U.S. Senate, Hearing of the Committee on Commerce, S. 2335 (1996), at pp. 381–

397. 

Case: 1:20-cv-05132 Document #: 30 Filed: 11/16/20 Page 33 of 67 PageID #:896
31

144. Mr. Conley testified that McDonald’s inhibits franchisees’ expansion, while 

encroaching on their territories, with new McDonald’s restaurants that cut sales volume, thereby 

depressing the resale value of the franchise at franchisee’s loss and McDonald’s gain. Id. He 

explained that because McDonald’s franchise agreement has a restrictive covenant that prevents the 

franchisee from owning any business other than his own McDonald’s operation, the franchisee is 

locked into the McDonald’s store as his only business such that cutting the sales volume or 

profitability of that one business by siphoning off sales to additional units is a process employed by 

McDonald’s to devalue the business interest and drive the franchisee out of business. Id.

145. In the same hearing, Vice President of McDonald’s Corporation is cited in an excerpt 

from the company’s in-house publication, “Insight,” as stating that pursuant to McDonald’s renewal 

policy, being a good operator, having high sales volume, and/or being favorably regarding by 

customers does not entitle a franchisee to renewal. Id. at 382. According to McDonald’s, renewal 

can be denied for other completely subjective evaluations “at the whim of management.” Id. at 387.

146. Unfortunately, McDonald’s reinstituted these same discriminatory business practices 

that existed in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, after the monumental announcement of “parity” in the 

1990s.

(ii) Trouble Under the Golden Arches: Black Franchisee Sues McDonald’s 

for Racial Steering

147. By the 1980s, Black franchisees were operating in the McDonald’s franchise system, 

but McDonald’s did not treat Black franchisees as equals to White franchisees. 

148. In 1983, Charles Griffis, a Black McDonald’s owner/operator in the Los Angeles 

market, filed a race discrimination countersuit against McDonald’s, alleging, among other things, that

McDonald’s systematically excluded Black franchisees from buying stores in White neighborhoods. 

149. In a March 12, 1984, New York Times article, Griffis detailed his experience:

Case: 1:20-cv-05132 Document #: 30 Filed: 11/16/20 Page 34 of 67 PageID #:897
32

My stores are in hellholes, he said. They get robbed once or twice a 

month, and I pay $20,000 a month in security services they don’t pay 

in good neighborhoods. We had a murder in one and we still get the 

windows smashed and the bathrooms vandalized. I’ve upgraded my 

stores a lot and I don’t see why I shouldn’t have a shot at a store in 

a good neighborhood.

Tamar Lewin, McDonald’s is Battling with Black Franchisee, N.Y. Times, March 12, 1984, 

available at https://www.nytimes.com/1984/03/12/business/mcdonald-s-is-battling-with-blackfranchisee.html; see also excerpt of the article below (emphasis added).

150. In response to McDonald’s racial practices, and Griffis’ situation, the New York 

chapter of the NBMOA also wrote to McDonald’s New York Regional Vice President at the time to 

advise that, “black McDonald’s owner-operators are primarily confined to ghetto areas and not 

allowed to expand as fast as their white counterparts.” Id. (emphasis added).

MCDONALD'S IS BATTLING WITH BLACK FRANCHISEE

“Charles Griffis came to California in 

1977 when he heard he might be able to 

buy a McDonald’s franchise in Santa 

Barbara... It turns out, though, that the 

store was in Los Angeles on Santa Barbara 

Street, right in the middle of the ghetto... 

It was an old store in real bad shape.”

“. . .[Rev. Jesse] Jackson wrote McDonald’s on behalf of his Operation PUSH to complain that blacks 

felt they were ‘being subjected to a double standard’ in that they were confined to inner-city areas 

with high maintenance and security costs, and were usually offered only recycled stores, which 

are generally more expensive and less profitable than new ones. . . 

Case: 1:20-cv-05132 Document #: 30 Filed: 11/16/20 Page 35 of 67 PageID #:898
33

151. As of the publication of the March 1984 article, there were 137 Black McDonald’s 

operators nationwide, with 267 restaurants, totaling approximately two (2) stores per Black operator, 

as compared to the average of five (5) stores per McDonald’s White operator. Id.

152. Today, McDonald’s has dwindled down to a similarly low number of Black 

franchisees, following false promises of parity and a reverse course back to discrimination. 

(iii) McDonald’s Admits Racial Steering and Need for Parity

153. In the late 1990s, McDonald’s leadership admitted that McDonald’s excluded Black 

franchisees from franchise opportunities afforded to White franchisees.

154. Specifically, through Executive Vice President, Thomas S. Dentice, McDonald’s

admitted, “[T]he company has placed many Black Franchisees in restaurants that have not 

allowed them to achieve the same level of economic success as their peers.” A true and correct 

copy of the April 18, 1996, Dentice Letter to NBMOA Chairman, Reggie Webb, is attached as 

Exhibit “C” hereto, with excerpts quoted below (emphasis added). 

I am also highly frustrated that Black 

Franchisees have been part of the 

McDonald’s system for almost thirty 

years and as a group have not 

achieved the same level of success as 

other franchisees that have the same 

tenure. . . . [F]or business reasons 

we thought were valid at the time, 

the company has placed many 

Black Franchisees in restaurants 

that have not allowed them to 

achieve the same level of economic 

success as their peers. 

I am personally tired of this lack of 

progress by my company. I am tired 

of being the person that has to listen 

to your calls for help and not seeing 

progress. I am tired of making 

excuse[s] for myself and others and I 

am tired of working my tail off to 

achieve our mutual goals and being 

considered the enemy. 

Case: 1:20-cv-05132 Document #: 30 Filed: 11/16/20 Page 36 of 67 PageID #:899
34

155. Yet, parity was never truly achieved. McDonald’s spent the next decade instituting 

aspirational and temporary measures and promising Black franchisees, including Plaintiffs, that it 

was working to achieve parity between Black and White McDonald’s franchisees. 

156. Plaintiffs relied on these representations and had no reason to believe McDonald’s 

was discriminating against them.

This process will be viewed for what it is; achieving parity for 

our Black Franchisees, not reaching a comfortable financial or 

franchising solution for the company. 

***

We may disagree at times on the what’s and how’s as we move 

forward, but I know that we do not and will not disagree on what 

we want to accomplish-----Parity.

 

Case: 1:20-cv-05132 Document #: 30 Filed: 11/16/20 Page 37 of 67 PageID #:900
35

157. On November 14, 2002, NBMOA leadership addressed McDonald’s past 

discriminatory practices in a letter from NBMOA Chairman and CEO, Larry C. Tripplett, to NBMOA 

Membership, which described its negotiations with McDonald’s Leadership “to ensure that Parity is 

met and maintained.” See Nov. 14, 2002 Tripplett Letter, Exhibit “D” hereto, with excerpts below.

158. In 2006, after a decade of fighting for parity, Don Thompson became the first Black

President of the Western Division of McDonald’s and went on to serve as the first Black President 

and CEO of McDonald’s from 2012 to 2015. 

First, let me remind you of what you 

already know. We are “Free 

People.” We have the right to 

expect not to be discriminated 

against by anyone. Discrimination 

is illegal in this Country. We make 

significant contributions to the 

McDonald’s System every day. In 

some cases, these contributions are 

made under very difficult dangerous 

environmental circumstances. We 

do so proudly and professionally as 

we all desire the American Dream 

of successful Business Ownership. 

We deserve and will demand 

nothing less than equal treatment. 

We must continue to stand United 

and Strong. We have nothing to 

fear. 

As you are aware, the NBMOA 

Executive Committee is in earnest 

negotiations with the Leadership of 

McDonald’s Corporation to ensure 

that Parity is met and maintained. 

We believe that each and every 

African American Franchisee 

should receive real assurances that 

when Parity is met, the 

discriminatory practices of the past 

will not reoccur. 

Case: 1:20-cv-05132 Document #: 30 Filed: 11/16/20 Page 38 of 67 PageID #:901
36

(iv) Change in McDonald’s Leadership in 2015: Reverse Course for Black 

Franchisees

159. In 2015, Easterbrook replaced Thompson as McDonald’s President and CEO, and 

hand-picked Chris Kempczinski, McDonald’s current CEO and then President of McDonald’s USA. 

160. Under Easterbrook and Kempczinski’s leadership, McDonald’s instituted 

discriminatory policies including, but not limited to, rejecting advertising budget modifications to 

target Black consumers, denying Black franchisees opportunities for growth, confining Black

franchisees to inner-city or urban areas with higher costs, denying Black franchisees’ requests for 

rent relief, and implementing initiatives such as the Bigger Bolder Vision 2020 (“BBV2020”) 

modernization plan that negatively and disproportionately impacted Black franchisees, including 

Plaintiffs, in order to force them out the McDonald’s franchise system. 

161. These discriminatory practices and policies led to the cash flow gap between Black

franchisees in comparison to White franchisees tripling from 2010 to 2019, and a mass exodus of

more than half of McDonald’s Black franchisees from the McDonald’s franchise system, which is 

disproportionate to the loss of White franchisees during the same time, according to NBMOA data. 

162. Because McDonald’s controls all data and messaging to its franchisees, including 

from the NBMOA, Plaintiffs continued to believe at all times material, including without limitation 

during their franchise terms, that they were operating under the parity agreement and that McDonald’s 

corporate practices were supportive of racial diversity and equal opportunities. 

163. It was not until the January 7, 2020, Guster-Hines and Neal Complaint against 

McDonald’s for intentional racial discrimination that Plaintiffs learned of McDonald’s renewed 

pattern and practice of covert and systemic discrimination against Black franchisees post-parity at the 

corporate level. Guster-Hines v. McDonald’s USA LLC, No. 20-00117, Compl. [D.E. 1] (N.D. Ill. 

Jan. 1, 2020).

Case: 1:20-cv-05132 Document #: 30 Filed: 11/16/20 Page 39 of 67 PageID #:902
37

164. The same pervasive racial discrimination, disparate treatment, and substantial wealth 

gap for Black franchisees continues today under the leadership of Christopher Kempczinski. 

(v) McDonald’s Leadership is Once Again on Notice of Ongoing Disparate 

Treatment of Black Franchisees; Continues Making False Promises

165. On March 12, 2019, Tripplett, as Chairman and CEO of the NBMOA, notified

McDonald’s USA Division Presidents, Charlie Strong and Mario Barbosa, of McDonald’s 

discriminatory actions, in a letter which raised “serious concerns regarding the status of African 

American Owners within McDonald’s Corporation.” A copy of the March 12, 2019 Tripplett Letter

to McDonald’s is attached as Exhibit “E” hereto. Specifically, Tripplett advised McDonald’s 

leadership that “the trajectory of the treatment of African American Owners is moving 

backwards. Through no fault of our own we lag behind the general market in all measures. This is 

reflected in the loss of sales to African American consumers. We believe that the loss of sales is 

closely correlated to how African Americans are treated within the Company.” Id., at p. 1

(emphasis added).

166. Tripplett called for “urgent progress now,” given, “[t]he current state of affairs for 

African American Owners [which] can only be described as hostile.” Id., at p. 3. The letter ended 

with a strong call for action: “[W]e need change now.” Id. (emphasis added). 

167. On November 4, 2019, following Easterbrook’s firing, Tripplett provided an 

“Informational Update” to NBMOA Members, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit “F” hereto. 

Tripplett advised NBMOA members that McDonald’s current CEO, Kempczinski, and Joe Erlinger, 

President of McDonald’s USA, called him directly to assure him as follows: “[Kempczinski] 

expressed his plans to continue to work on our cash flow gaps as he and Steve Easterbrook agreed to 

do at our convention in Houston,” and “[Erlinger] expressed his desire to work with the NBMOA in 

Case: 1:20-cv-05132 Document #: 30 Filed: 11/16/20 Page 40 of 67 PageID #:903
38

achieving our initiatives.” Id., at p. 1. “We are cautiously optimistic,” Tripplett advised NBMOA 

members. Id. 

168. Despite McDonald’s empty promises and assurances to the NBMOA, intended to 

induce Black franchisees like Plaintiffs to operate its substandard stores, McDonald’s knowingly 

continued institutional, systemic, and covert racial discrimination against its Black franchisees.

C. “Big Mac Attack” on Black Owner/Operators: 

McDonald’s Intentional and Covert Racial Discrimination

(i) Take it or Leave it: Steering to High-Cost and Low-Volume Locations

169. When Plaintiffs sought entrance into the McDonalds’s franchise system, and 

throughout their franchise terms, McDonald’s systematically steered Plaintiffs to stores in Black 

neighborhoods and restricted their growth to more profitable locations given to White franchisees. 

These neighborhoods were the tough areas, often filled with high-crime, patrons with little to no 

means to purchase significant meal tickets, leading to low-volume cash sales and high operating costs 

in the form of higher insurance rates, security costs, and employee turnover. 

170. McDonald’s offered White franchisees packages with no restraints, on better terms, 

and in better locations than Plaintiffs.

171. McDonald’s induced Plaintiffs into purchasing these substandard restaurants by, 

among other things, rushing Plaintiffs, and requiring same-day inspections. McDonald’s told 

Plaintiffs that it could take months, if not years, to be offered another restaurant if they turned down 

a site. McDonald’s made Plaintiffs believe that these substandard locations were their only way in. 

172. For example, during Plaintiff Dominique’s Operator Approval meeting, McDonald’s 

representatives told him they had a restaurant that they felt would be a “good fit” based on his 

background in law enforcement. McDonald’s told Mr. Dominique that they needed an answer 

“ASAP” and asked him to fly down to Atlanta, Georgia that same day to inspect the location. 

Case: 1:20-cv-05132 Document #: 30 Filed: 11/16/20 Page 41 of 67 PageID #:904
39

173. At the time, the restaurant was owned by another Black franchisee, Plaintiff Van Jakes. 

The restaurant was a non-traditional (no drive-through) site in Downtown Atlanta in a high-crime 

area and with a significant homeless population. As Mr. Dominique later learned, McDonald’s then

Vice-President and General Manager, Debbie Stroud, forced Mr. Jakes out of this restaurant and was 

now pushing it on to Mr. Dominique as part of McDonald’s fraudulent scheme and pattern of 

discrimination, continuing the same perpetual cycle of giving bad restaurants in bad neighborhoods 

to Black franchisees. 

174. Based on McDonald’s misrepresentations and omissions regarding the availability of 

stores, their locations, and future growth opportunities, Plaintiffs believed that if they did not take the 

store(s) McDonald’s offered them, their chances of entering McDonald’s franchise system would be 

extremely limited. Plaintiffs relied on McDonald’s representations because they believed that they 

had equal access to locations within the McDonald’s franchise as Whites.

175. Unbeknownst to Plaintiffs, McDonald’s offered Black franchisees historically 

underperforming restaurants that White franchisees did not want to purchase and continued to deny 

them access to profitable locations throughout their franchise terms. Conversely, and upon 

information and belief, White franchisees were routinely given preferred locations and were able to 

buy and sell restaurants without restriction, allowing them to prosper.

176. Through this process, McDonald’s covertly excluded Plaintiffs from the opportunity 

to purchase restaurants in the open market and deprived Plaintiffs of the ability to achieve the same 

level of economic success as White franchisees. 

177. What is more, Plaintiffs had to risk their own safety in these high-crime areas, often 

contending with drug dealers selling controlled substances inside and outside the restaurant, vagrants 

hassling customers, multiple incidents of fights, and even a murder in the parking lot of the 

Case: 1:20-cv-05132 Document #: 30 Filed: 11/16/20 Page 42 of 67 PageID #:905
40

Crawfords’ restaurant. Plaintiffs were solely responsible for paying for required additional security 

costs, including armed guards. 

178. Plaintiffs often had to carry licensed firearms for their personal security. These 

dangerous environments made it difficult for Plaintiffs to attract and retain experienced managers and 

employees.

179. Knowing that Black franchisees historically had very limited access to the 

McDonald’s system, McDonald’s intentionally misled Plaintiffs by, among other things: (i) 

providing Plaintiffs with financial representations that McDonald’s knew did not—and could not—

accurately reflect the net revenues of the locations it steered Plaintiffs to; (ii) assurances that these 

restaurants would be profitable if Plaintiffs made significant initial investments in rebuilds and/or 

renovations, encouraging debt as part of a fraudulent scheme to force Plaintiffs into debt, bankruptcy, 

and/or economic duress, and more easily cycle them out of the system; and (iii) assurances that any 

losses would be offset by growth opportunities to better locations, which was the key to any 

successful McDonald’s franchise model. 

180. Even after Plaintiffs entered the system through these substandard locations, 

McDonald’s continued to deny Plaintiffs the opportunity to own and operate franchises in more 

profitable locations, unless these more profitable locations were packaged with low-volume, highcost locations. 

181. For example, when McDonald’s offered Plaintiff Mason entry into the McDonald’s 

system through restaurants within Walmart stores in the Raleigh/Durham Region, where White 

franchisees did not want to purchase because they were historically underperforming, McDonald’s 

assured Mr. Mason that he would have opportunities for growth if he increased sales. Yet, even after 

Mr. Mason increased sales in his initial Walmart locations, with the expectation that he would be 

Case: 1:20-cv-05132 Document #: 30 Filed: 11/16/20 Page 43 of 67 PageID #:906
41

given an opportunity to purchase a traditional store, McDonald’s continued to offer Mr. Mason 

additional Walmart locations and refused to approve him for any traditional stores, falsely telling him 

that none were available, while instead approving them for sale to White franchisees.

182. Unbeknownst to Mr. Mason, Marty Ranft, a former QSC VP of the McDonald’s 

Raleigh/Durham Region, was known by McDonald’s to have made derogatory and racist comments 

about Black McDonald’s employees and franchisees. According to senior executives, Guster-Hines 

and Neal, as revealed through their January 2020 public filing, Mr. Ranft told McDonald’s senior 

executive, Vicki Guster-Hines, and another Black executive, that “90%” of what the black franchisees 

had to say about their experiences at McDonald’s was a “goddamn lie,” and, “You are a [N-word] 

like all the rest – you just believe you are better cause you are a smart one.” Guster-Hines v. 

McDonald’s USA LLC, No. 20-00117, Compl. [D.E. 1,], at ¶ 59 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 7, 2020). 

183. For no reason other than Mr. Mason’s race, and in the same way it did to all Plaintiffs 

named herein, McDonald’s intentionally concealed this information and limited Mr. Mason’s ability 

to grow and expand his franchise organization throughout his franchise term. 

(ii) McDonald’s Requires Plaintiffs to Make Significant Initial Investments in 

Substandard Locations: Unreasonable Rebuilds and Renovations

184. Despite placing Plaintiffs in locations McDonald’s knew would not generate an 

adequate return on Plaintiffs’ individual reinvestment due to low-volume sales and high expenses, 

McDonald’s required Plaintiffs to pay for improvements to McDonald’s real estate in the form of 

excessive and unnecessary rebuilds and/or renovations within a short time, offering initial short-term 

lower rent, but then rapidly escalating for the remaining franchise term, setting Plaintiffs up for 

financial failure. 

Case: 1:20-cv-05132 Document #: 30 Filed: 11/16/20 Page 44 of 67 PageID #:907
42

185. McDonald’s knew or should have known that the rebuilds and/or renovations it 

required would not provide increased sales to Plaintiffs’ locations sufficient to offset Plaintiffs’ 

upfront losses. 

186. Plaintiffs paid for the costs associated with any rebuilds, renovations, and major 

remodels, often seeking outside financing, and driving them into debt. 

187. In certain instances where McDonald’s contributed to the rebuild and/or renovation 

costs, McDonald’s charged Plaintiffs escalating rent it knew Plaintiffs could not afford. 

188. In comparison, McDonald’s offered White owner/operators newer restaurants that did 

not require significant reinvestment and/or locations with higher volume-sales that McDonald’s knew 

would generate an adequate return on investment and would offset renovation and/or rebuild costs. 

McDonald’s also placed White owner/operators on a voluntary reinvestment program without the 

same time restrictions placed on Black franchisees. As representative examples of specific instances 

of such unequal treatment with respect to reinvestment requirements, 

a. Plaintiff Van Jakes: McDonald’s required Plaintiff Jakes to reinvest in his 

Panola Road, Georgia, McDonald’s restaurant three (3) times over the course 

of his franchise term when, by contrast, McDonald’s did not require a White 

owner/operator, Patrick Dennis, in the same Region to make any reinvestments 

to his restaurant located just a few miles down the road in Peachtree City, 

Georgia. These changes included modernizations that McDonald’s told Mr. 

Jakes were nationally mandated, such as changing a green roof to red. 

b. Plaintiff Yvonne Knox: Plaintiff Knox struggled with one low-volume

McDonald’s restaurant for nearly four decades located in a depressed, crimeridden area of Detroit, Michigan. In 2013, a McDonald’s Field Consultant told 

Case: 1:20-cv-05132 Document #: 30 Filed: 11/16/20 Page 45 of 67 PageID #:908
43

Ms. Knox that she had to reimage her store a second time. Ms. Knox complied, 

relying on McDonald’s assurances that the reinvestment would increase sales,

so that she could finally sell her store and buy a profitable McDonald’s 

franchise. After the reimaging, McDonald’s told Ms. Knox that she could not 

buy outside of her Region, even though White operators routinely owned and 

operated outside of their initial Regions. Through this process, and throughout 

her franchise term, McDonald’s restricted Ms. Knox’s ability to grow beyond 

the predominantly Black neighborhood it offered her initially, benefiting from 

the improvements she paid for, and perpetuating the same cycle at the end of 

her term by telling her that she could only sell to another Black owner/operator. 

c. Plaintiff Larry Brown: After Plaintiff Brown sought to purchase ten (10) 

McDonald’s restaurants that McDonald’s Vice President, Walt Maney, had

reserved for McDonald’s Corporation executives, Sue Immick and Dave 

Roberts, who were leaving the company and wanted to become McDonald’s 

owner/operators, Plaintiff Brown faced retaliation in the form of unreasonable 

renovation requirements. McDonald’s initially told Mr. Brown that three (3) 

restaurants required rebuilds, but later required him to bring all ten (10)

restaurants in compliance with National Restaurant Brand Standards within six 

(6) months, even though these restaurants had been in the same condition for 

over five (5) years under different ownership.

189. When McDonald’s forced Plaintiffs out and offered stores to White owner/operators, 

McDonald’s did not require White owner/operators to immediately reinvest and/or remodel by a 

Case: 1:20-cv-05132 Document #: 30 Filed: 11/16/20 Page 46 of 67 PageID #:909
44

certain date. Moreover, certain restaurants Plaintiffs sold to White owner/operators years ago are in 

the same condition Plaintiffs left them. 

190. On the other hand, in certain cases where McDonald’s offered Plaintiffs’ stores to

Black owner/operators, McDonald’s required immediate reinvestment and/or remodels, continuing 

the same perpetual cycle of giving bad restaurants in bad neighborhoods to Black owner/operators

and setting them up for financial failure to then force them out and start the cycle again. 

191. Even McDonald’s-owned McOpCo stores were kept in disrepair for years until 

McDonald’s turned around and immediately required Plaintiffs to reinvest in significant rebuilds 

and/or renovations as a condition of purchase. 

192. McDonald’s rebuild and renovation requirements forced Plaintiffs to sink their own 

funds into locations McDonald’s knew would not provide any return on investment, benefitting only 

McDonald’s as the owner of the real estate, while driving Plaintiffs into significant debt.

(iii) McDonald’s Arbitrarily Denies Plaintiffs Opportunities for Growth

193. The economics of owning McDonald’s franchises is to own more than one location so

that overhead costs can be absorbed by the multiple locations and yield a profit to the franchise 

owners. 

194. McDonald’s knew that to grow a profitable franchise organization in its franchise 

system, Plaintiffs needed restaurants with higher sales volume and cash flow to offset the lowvolume, high-cost stores it offered them. 

195. Yet, McDonald’s refused reasonable proposals from Plaintiffs to expand within the 

McDonald’s system by opening McDonald’s restaurants at sites Plaintiffs were ready, willing, and 

qualified to operate, offering these profitable locations to White franchisees instead.

Case: 1:20-cv-05132 Document #: 30 Filed: 11/16/20 Page 47 of 67 PageID #:910
45

196. For no reason other than Plaintiffs’ race, McDonald’s systematically rejected 

Plaintiffs’ sites and/or failed to provide Plaintiffs with any meaningful assistance to locate better 

restaurants in better neighborhoods. 

197. Plaintiffs would wait years before McDonald’s made an offer for another store, only 

to find out they were offering another “hood” restaurant, meaning it was a low-volume store in an 

economically distressed community with a high crime rate. These substandard restaurants were 

consistently offered to Black owner/operators over White owner-operators. 

198. In certain instances where Plaintiffs were given the opportunity to purchase a 

profitable store, it was at a significantly higher premium, with oppressive conditions attached, such 

as an agreement to purchase other substandard locations as part of a “packaged deal.”

199. Despite McDonald’s representations and continued assurances to Plaintiffs that it 

would assist in growth opportunities, McDonald’s continued to intentionally deprive Plaintiffs of any 

meaningful assistance to find other viable expansion locations over the course of their franchise 

relationship. 

200. Indeed, McDonald’s did the opposite and went as far as to saturate the market and 

encroach upon Plaintiffs’ locations by opening McDonald’s stores just miles apart. 

201. While McDonald’s offered impact funds to offset new store competition to White 

operators up front before the new, competing restaurant became operational, Plaintiffs were made to 

“wait and see,” until the actual impact could be assessed. 

202. This forced Plaintiffs to continue to operate at a loss, sometimes for more than a year, 

while they waited for the full impact of the competing stores to be realized and assessed.

Case: 1:20-cv-05132 Document #: 30 Filed: 11/16/20 Page 48 of 67 PageID #:911
46

(iv) McDonald’s False Promise of “Rent Relief” and Misleading Financial 

Assistance

203. Despite Plaintiffs’ significant investments and hard work over decades in the 

McDonald’s franchise system, when Plaintiffs requested financial assistance to reduce the rent, 

McDonald’s either denied their requests or rent was temporarily reduced and then escalated causing 

further financial harm. 

204. McDonald’s knew when it escalated Plaintiffs’ rents that Plaintiffs would not be able 

to pay their rent over the long term, yet McDonald’s refused to provide Plaintiffs with permanent rent 

relief, even though McDonald’s offered this relief to White franchisees. 

205. Through the FDD, McDonald’s provided Plaintiffs with a table of total acquisition 

and development costs, along with Fixed Percentage Rent rates, explaining how McDonald’s sets and 

controls these costs and rent rates as follows:

The percentages used in computing monthly payments based on Gross 

Sales are determined by McDonald’s management in consideration 

of the rights being granted by the Franchise Agreement, the drawing 

power of the McDonald’s restaurant, the value of the McDonald’s 

System as a whole and McDonald’s interests in obtaining a profit in 

light of competitive conditions. All payments made by you to 

McDonald’s constitute a single financial arrangement between you and 

McDonald’s which, taken as a whole and without regard to any 

designation or description, reflect the value of the rights being made

available to you by McDonald’s and the services being rendered by 

McDonald’s during the franchise term. The percentages may vary 

among franchises depending upon when the franchise was sold as well

as other factors. In unusual circumstances that involve special costs, 

the fees paid by you may be higher than those outlined in this Item 6.

(See FDD, Ex. B, at Item 6) (emphasis added). 

206. After placing Plaintiffs in restaurants with no “drawing power,” guided by 

McDonald’s own “interests in obtaining a profit,” McDonald’s denied Plaintiffs any legitimate 

Case: 1:20-cv-05132 Document #: 30 Filed: 11/16/20 Page 49 of 67 PageID #:912
47

financial assistance, including, but not limited to, repeated requests for permanent rent reductions, 

financial restructuring, and paying for security not required by White owned and operated restaurants. 

207. McDonald’s kept Plaintiffs on the hook throughout his franchise terms through false 

promises and minimal relief efforts, as they drove Plaintiffs further and further into debt, isolating 

them at every step of the process to then make it easier to force each Plaintiff out once they are no 

longer profitable to McDonald’s.

(v) Targeted and Unreasonable Inspections and Grading

208. Once Plaintiffs were in dire financial situations and/or refused to continue operations 

in crime-ridden neighborhoods with low-volume sales, McDonald’s began targeted, rigorous, and 

unreasonable inspections and harsh grading that White franchisees were not subjected to, generating

negative business reviews of Plaintiffs’ restaurants. 

209. The number of inspections grew exponentially, with close to ten (10) inspections in a 

single quarter in certain instances, and the inspections began to take place late at night or at odd hours. 

210. Whereas Plaintiffs generally had positive business reviews prior to experiencing 

financial hardship and/or rejecting McDonald’s offer to continue to operate in substandard locations, 

that immediately shifted as McDonald’s began grading Plaintiffs more harshly in business reviews in 

a manner that disproportionately impacted Black franchisees as compared to White franchisees.

211. McDonald’s knew and leveraged the fact that Plaintiffs’ eligibility for growth and 

renewal, or “rewrite,” of their franchise term depended on business reviews and passing inspections.

212. By instituting harsher grading standards and through unreasonable inspections, 

McDonald’s negatively impacted Plaintiffs’ performance ratings as pretext for McDonald’s denial of

growth and/or rewrite opportunities. 

Case: 1:20-cv-05132 Document #: 30 Filed: 11/16/20 Page 50 of 67 PageID #:913
48

(vi) No Choice But to Sell: McDonald’s Forced Exit Scheme 

213. Under the oppressive terms of McDonald’s rewrite process, McDonald’s has absolute 

and sole discretion with respect to whether a franchisee may or may not be offered a new term 

franchise, or “rewrite.” See McDonald’s U.S. Rewrite (New Term) Policy, Exhibit L to the FDD, 

which is subject to change “in McDonald’s sole discretion.”

214. Pursuant to McDonald’s Rewrite Policy, three (3) years prior to the franchise term 

expiring, the rewrite process begins. (FDD, Ex. B, at Exhibit L). McDonald’s controls the rewrite 

process: Only McDonald’s Rewrite Committee has the authority to offer or decline to offer a new 

term franchise, the Rewrite Committee’s recommendations are submitted by the Vice President of 

the Field Office of the Rewrite Committee, compromised of members of McDonald’s U.S. 

management. Id. The decision of the Rewrite Committee is final. Id.

215. When McDonald’s concludes that it will not offer a new term franchise, McDonald’s 

will extend an “alternative offer, which will give the Owner/Operator the opportunity to sell the 

restaurant business to a qualified buyer prior to the expiration of the current franchise. Subject to 

the terms stated in the alternative offer, which include a release, McDonald’s will commit to offer a 

new term franchise to the qualified buyer.” Id. (emphasis added). 

216. Plaintiffs with interested buyers were blocked by McDonald’s, who had final approval

in “qualifying” buyers. McDonald’s rejected Plaintiffs’ potential buyers without any legitimate 

business justification. For example, 

a. Plaintiff Christine Crawford: When Plaintiff Christine Crawford presented 

McDonald’s with a list of operators interested in purchasing her restaurants, then

General Manager of the Atlanta Region, Greg Watson, told Ms. Crawford that she 

could only offer them to operators who were, “a part of the class picture of the 

Case: 1:20-cv-05132 Document #: 30 Filed: 11/16/20 Page 51 of 67 PageID #:914
49

region’s future.” Similarly, in an email from McDonald’s Atlanta Region Vice 

President, Valarie Williams, McDonald’s told Ms. Crawford, “The QSC VP will 

provide names of potential buyers that are supported by the region for you to 

negotiate the sale of your restaurants.” 

b. Plaintiff Jeremiah Simmons: After McDonald’s USA Senior Vice President 

and Chief Restaurant Officer, Mason Smoot, told Plaintiff Simmons to invest in 

a McCafé despite his low-volume sales or leave the system, Mr. Simmons began 

looking for potential buyers. Mr. Simmons had an offer from another 

McDonald’s owner/operator and agreed on a selling price. The buyer withdrew 

the offer, however, shortly after speaking to Mr. Smoot. McDonald’s 

subsequently approved another McDonald’s owner/operator’s offer to the 

purchase Mr. Simmons’ franchise for $400,000 less than his original offer. 

217. Because McDonald’s controlled the exit process, there was no way for Plaintiffs to 

gauge what their restaurants could have sold for in an open market. 

218. McDonald’s systematically dealt with Plaintiffs on an individual basis to cover up 

their discriminatory practices and fraudulent scheme from Black franchisees. 

219. McDonald’s led Plaintiffs to believe at all times material hereto that they had no choice 

but to sell and that their financial losses were caused by Plaintiffs’ individual deficiencies as a “bad 

operators” or operational deficiencies within Plaintiffs’ network of stores. 

220. With the looming threat of further financial penalties, and no process for disputing 

qualification denials of buyers in the rewrite process McDonald’s controlled, Plaintiffs could not 

afford to wait for another “qualified buyer,” and were forced to sell their stores at a loss. 

Case: 1:20-cv-05132 Document #: 30 Filed: 11/16/20 Page 52 of 67 PageID #:915
50

221. As a result of McDonald’s discriminatory practices, unfair retaliation, breach of 

contract, and fraud alleged herein, Plaintiffs have suffered substantial damages in amounts that will 

be proven at trial, including, but not limited to, lost profits, lost value of the franchise(s), lost capital 

contributions, lost investments, lost revenue, lost business opportunities, attorneys’ fees, costs, and

any and all unnecessary out-of-pocket expenses.

CAUSES OF ACTION

COUNT I

VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. § 1981

(As to Plaintiffs, Christine Crawford, Delores Crawford, Juneth N. Daniel, Yves Dominique, 

Van Jakes, Ralph King, Keith Manning, Kenneth Manning, Dawn Mussenden, Laetitia 

Johnson, Carrie Salone, Floyd Sims, Larry Brown, John Mason, Ronnie Thornton, Lisa 

Gunter, f/k/a Lisa McKenzie, Mitchell McGuire, Lois McGuire, Hayes Ferrell, Yvonne Knox, 

Arthur Scott, Errol Service, Melvin Jones, George Gipson, Michael Simon, Victor Bruce, 

David White, Barbara White, John Tillman, Allen Stafford, Keristin Holloway, Gloria 

Holloway, George Jones, Jane Jones, Wise Finley, Lewis Anderson, Scott Miller, Dwight 

Miller, Faye Hobley, Paul Hoskins, Michele Hoskins, Al Harris, Kristen Harris, Norman H. 

Williams, William (Pete) Washington, Benny Clark, and Eleanor Clark, Against Defendants)

222. Plaintiffs, Christine Crawford, Delores Crawford, Juneth N. Daniel, Yves Dominique, 

Van Jakes, Ralph King, Keith Manning, Kenneth Manning, Dawn Mussenden, Laetitia Johnson, 

Carrie Salone, Floyd Sims, Larry Brown, John Mason, Ronnie Thornton, Lisa Gunter, f/k/a Lisa 

McKenzie, Mitchell McGuire, Lois McGuire, Hayes Ferrell, Yvonne Knox, Arthur Scott, Errol 

Service, Melvin Jones, George Gipson, Michael Simon, Victor Bruce, David White, Barbara White, 

John Tillman, Allen Stafford, Keristin Holloway, Gloria Holloway, George Jones, Jane Jones, Wise 

Finley, Lewis Anderson, Scott Miller, Dwight Miller, Faye Hobley, Paul Hoskins, Michele Hoskins, 

Al Harris, Kristen Harris, Norman H. Williams, William (Pete) Washington, Benny Clark, and 

Eleanor Clark (collectively, the “1981 Plaintiffs”), adopt, reallege, and incorporate the allegations of 

paragraphs 1 through 221 of this Amended Complaint as though fully set forth herein.

Case: 1:20-cv-05132 Document #: 30 Filed: 11/16/20 Page 53 of 67 PageID #:916
51

223. The 1981 Plaintiffs are members of a protected class due to their race as Black citizens 

who have the same right to make and enforce contracts as White citizens pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 

1981.

224. The Franchise Agreements between the 1981 Plaintiffs and McDonald’s are 

“contracts” within the meaning of Section 1981, as amended, providing that Black citizens have the 

same right to “the making, performance, modification, and termination of contracts, and the 

enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of the [franchise] relationship” as White 

citizens. 42 U.S.C. § 1981(b).

225. McDonald’s violated 42 U.S.C. § 1981 by denying the 1981 Plaintiffs the same 

franchise opportunities made available to White franchisees.

226. McDonald’s treated the 1981 Plaintiffs differently from other similarly-situated 

franchisees in their region and nationwide because they are Black, by, including, but not limited to: 

a. Restricting the 1981 Plaintiffs to older, recycled restaurants, in poorperforming and dangerous locations with high operating costs and low-volume 

sales; 

b. Requiring the 1981 Plaintiffs to invest in rebuilds and/or renovations within 

short timeframes not required of White franchisees;

c. Excluding 1981 Plaintiffsfrom the same growth opportunities offered to White 

franchisees; 

d. Failing to provide any legitimate business reasons for repeated denials of 

franchise opportunities to 1981 Plaintiffs over many years;

e. Denying 1981 Plaintiffs meaningful support to allow them to overcome 

financial hardships, while White franchisees were routinely provided such 

assistance, including, but not limited to, permanent rent relief and impact 

funding; 

f. Depriving 1981 Plaintiffs of the same legacy opportunities offered to White 

franchisees through McDonald’s Next Gen program;

Case: 1:20-cv-05132 Document #: 30 Filed: 11/16/20 Page 54 of 67 PageID #:917
52

g. Retaliation against the 1981 Plaintiffs for rejecting offers to continue 

operations in crime-ridden neighborhoods with low-volume sales, including 

through targeted, increased, and unreasonable inspections; 

h. Disparate treatment with respect to inspections and grading of the 1981 

Plaintiffs’ restaurants as part of a scheme to generate bad business reviews to 

force Plaintiffs out of the McDonald’s system because of their race; and/or

i. Placing the 1981 Plaintiffs in untenable positions of economic duress, denying 

them eligibility for growth and renewal of their agreements, and arbitrarily 

denying final approval of their buyers, so that the 1981 Plaintiffs had no choice 

but to sell their entire franchise organization at a loss or walk away from the 

business after decades investing in and cultivating their businesses.

227. By the conduct described above, Defendants intentionally and willfully deprived 1981 

Plaintiffs of the same rights enjoyed by White citizens to be free from racial discrimination in the 

right to enter into contracts and the right to enjoy all of the privileges and benefits of established 

contractual relationships in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981.

228. As a direct and proximate result of McDonald’s conduct, 1981 Plaintiffs collectively 

lost close to three-hundred (300) stores with compensatory damages averaging between four million 

dollars ($4,000,000.00) and five million dollars ($5,000,000.00) per store.

229. McDonald’s engaged in willful, wanton, malicious, and or/reckless conduct that 

injured 1981 Plaintiffs in disregard of their protected rights, thereby entitling them to punitive 

damages. 

230. McDonald’s willful, wanton, malicious, and/or reckless conduct includes, but is not 

limited to, its racially discriminatory practices and fraudulent conduct that resulted in substantial and 

irreparable damages sustained by the1981 Plaintiffs. 

231. Defendants fraudulently concealed their discriminatory practices through the conduct 

described above, including systematic isolation of the 1981 Plaintiffs and controlling the information 

Case: 1:20-cv-05132 Document #: 30 Filed: 11/16/20 Page 55 of 67 PageID #:918
53

they received, designed to prevent the 1981 Plaintiffs discovery of McDonald’s ongoing 

discriminatory practices post-parity.

232. At all times material, Defendants had actual knowledge of the wrongfulness of their 

conduct and the high probability that injury and/or damage to the1981 Plaintiffs would result, and 

despite that knowledge, willfully, wantonly, and recklessly pursued their course of conduct. 

233. Defendants actively and knowingly participated in such conduct, and/or their officers, 

directors, or managers knowingly condoned, ratified or consented to such conduct. 

234. Defendants’ conduct is so gross and flagrant as to show a reckless disregard or a 

conscious wanton, reckless indifference to consequences or a grossly careless disregard for the life, 

safety, and/or rights of 1981 Plaintiffs. 

235. McDonald’s has demonstrated an outrageous conscious disregard for 1981 Plaintiffs’ 

rights with implied malice, warranting the imposition of punitive damages.

236. But for 1981 Plaintiffs’ race and McDonald’s discriminatory denial of equal franchise 

opportunities, and as a direct and proximate result of McDonald’s practice of ongoing discrimination 

during each 1981 Plaintiffs’ franchise term, the 1981 Plaintiffs suffered and continue to suffer 

damages in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional limit, including, without limitation: special or 

consequential damages in the form of lost profits and opportunities; damages for the intangible injury 

that results from the denial of civil rights under the law; emotional and physical suffering and distress, 

humiliation, damage to professional reputations and future business prospects; punitive damages in 

an amount sufficient to deter Defendants’ similar wrongful conduct in the future; and an award of 

attorneys’ fees, expert fees, and costs.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, Christine Crawford, Delores Crawford, Juneth N. Daniel, Yves 

Dominique, Van Jakes, Ralph King, Keith Manning, Kenneth Manning, Dawn Mussenden, Laetitia 

Case: 1:20-cv-05132 Document #: 30 Filed: 11/16/20 Page 56 of 67 PageID #:919
54

Johnson, Carrie Salone, Floyd Sims, Larry Brown, John Mason, Ronnie Thornton, Lisa Gunter, f/k/a 

Lisa McKenzie, Mitchell McGuire, Lois McGuire, Hayes Ferrell, Yvonne Knox, Arthur Scott, Errol 

Service, Melvin Jones, George Gipson, Michael Simon, Victor Bruce, David White, Barbara White, 

John Tillman, Allen Stafford, Keristin Holloway, Gloria Holloway, George Jones, Jane Jones, Wise 

Finley, Lewis Anderson, Scott Miller, Dwight Miller, Faye Hobley, Paul Hoskins, Michele Hoskins, 

Al Harris, Kristen Harris, Norman H. Williams, William (Pete) Washington, Benny Clark, and 

Eleanor Clark, respectfully request that the Court enter judgment against Defendants awarding 1981 

Plaintiffs (a) actual damages, (b) special or consequential damages in the forms described above, (c) 

fees and costs of this action, and (d) such other and further relief as the Court deems proper.

COUNT II

BREACH OF CONTRACT

(As to Plaintiffs, Christine Crawford, Delores Crawford, Juneth N. Daniel, Van Jakes, Ralph 

King, Keith Manning, Kenneth Manning, Dawn Mussenden, Carrie Salone, Floyd Sims, John 

Mason, Ronnie Thornton, Lisa Gunter, f/k/a Lisa McKenzie, Mitchell McGuire, Lois 

McGuire, Hayes Ferrell, Yvonne Knox, Arthur Scott, Errol Service, Melvin Jones, George 

Gipson, Michael Simon, Victor Bruce, David White, Barbara White, John Tillman, Allen 

Stafford, Keristin Holloway, Gloria Holloway, George Jones, Jane Jones, Wise Finley, Lewis 

Anderson, Scott Miller, Dwight Miller, Faye Hobley, Paul Hoskins, Michele Hoskins, Al 

Harris, Kristen Harris, Norman H. Williams, William (Pete) Washington, Benny Clark, 

Eleanor Clark, Harold Lewis, Jeremy Lewis, Philip Douglas, Lawrence Holland, William 

Rasul, LeRoy Walker, Jr., Jeffery Rogers, Joseph Mbanefo, Annis Alston-Staley, Harry 

Staley, Gordon Thornton, Dwayne Richard Johnson, Serge Tancrede, Karen Tancrede, Errol 

Thybulle, Jeremiah Simmons, Darryl Umphries, Jacqueline George, Anthony George, Wesley 

Hall, Glenda Claypool, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Sherman Claypool, 

Kenneth Nelson, Bernard Saffold, Lance Williams, Jacqueline Wynn, Robert (Bob) Bonner, 

Gary Roan, Joyce Mance-Roan, Douglas Hollis, and Glenna Hollis, Against Defendants)

237. Plaintiffs, Christine Crawford, Delores Crawford, Juneth N. Daniel, Van Jakes, Ralph 

King, Keith Manning, Kenneth Manning, Dawn Mussenden, Carrie Salone, Floyd Sims, John Mason, 

Ronnie Thornton, Lisa Gunter, f/k/a Lisa McKenzie, Mitchell McGuire, Lois McGuire, Hayes 

Ferrell, Yvonne Knox, Arthur Scott, Errol Service, Melvin Jones, George Gipson, Michael Simon, 

Victor Bruce, David White, Barbara White, John Tillman, Allen Stafford, Keristin Holloway, Gloria 

Case: 1:20-cv-05132 Document #: 30 Filed: 11/16/20 Page 57 of 67 PageID #:920
55

Holloway, George Jones, Jane Jones, Wise Finley, Lewis Anderson, Scott Miller, Dwight Miller, 

Faye Hobley, Paul Hoskins, Michele Hoskins, Al Harris, Kristen Harris, Norman H. Williams, 

William (Pete) Washington, Benny Clark, Eleanor Clark, Harold Lewis, Jeremy Lewis, Philip 

Douglas, Lawrence Holland, William Rasul, LeRoy Walker, Jr., Jeffery Rogers, Joseph Mbanefo, 

Annis Alston-Staley, Harry Staley, Gordon Thornton, Dwayne Richard Johnson, Serge Tancrede, 

Karen Tancrede, Errol Thybulle, Jeremiah Simmons, Darryl Umphries, Jacqueline George, Anthony 

George, Wesley Hall, Glenda Claypool, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Sherman 

Claypool, Kenneth Nelson, Bernard Saffold, Lance Williams, Jacqueline Wynn, Robert (Bob) 

Bonner, Gary Roan, Joyce Mance-Roan, Douglas Hollis, and Glenna Hollis (collectively, the “Breach 

of Contract Plaintiffs”), adopt, reallege and incorporate the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 221

of this Amended Complaint as though fully set forth herein.

238. The Breach of Contract Plaintiffs entered into Franchise Agreements to own and 

operate McDonald’s domestic franchised restaurants, on the entry dates, and in the locations specified

above.

239. The Breach of Contract Plaintiffs substantially performed all material terms of the 

Franchise Agreements by, among other things, operating their restaurants in compliance with the 

standards prescribed by the McDonald’s System, making timely payments of undisputed amounts 

due to McDonald’s and suppliers, unless excused, complying with non-compete provisions, and 

allowing McDonald’s to inspect their restaurants at reasonable times. 

240. Pursuant to Section 3 of the Franchise Agreement, “General Services of McDonald’s,” 

McDonald’s agreed to, “make available to Franchisee all additional services, facilities, rights, and 

privileges relating to the operation of the Restaurant which McDonald’s makes generally available, 

Case: 1:20-cv-05132 Document #: 30 Filed: 11/16/20 Page 58 of 67 PageID #:921
56

from time to time, to all its franchisees operating McDonald’s restaurants.” (Franchise Agreement, 

Ex. A, at ¶ 3) (emphasis added). 

241. McDonald’s breached Section 3 of the Franchise Agreement by, inter alia:

a. Excluding the Breach of Contract Plaintiffs from the right to grow their 

organizations to profitable locations offered to other franchisees; 

b. Excluding the Breach of Contract Plaintiffs from participation in the Next Gen 

legacy program offered to other franchisees;

c. Disproportionately imposing rebuild and/or renovation requirements on the 

Breach of Contract Plaintiffs that were not imposed on other franchisees; 

and/or

d. Failing to approve the Breach of Contract Plaintiffs’ reasonable requests for 

financial assistance and/or restructuring plans that were offered to other 

franchisees, including, but not limited to, permanent rent adjustments and 

impact funding. 

242. McDonald’s further agreed to a reasonableness standard with respect inspections and 

renovation/rebuild requirements pursuant to Section 12, “Compliance with Entire System:” 

McDonald’s shall have the right to inspect the Restaurant at all 

reasonable times to ensure that Franchisee’s operation thereof is in 

compliance with the standards and policies of the McDonald’s System. 

Franchisee shall comply with the entire McDonald’s System, 

including, but not limited to, the following: (c) Keep the Restaurant 

constructed and equipped in accordance with the building blueprints

and equipment layout plans that are standard in the McDonald’s 

System or as such blueprints and plans may be reasonably changed 

from time to time by McDonald’s.

(Id., at ¶ 12) (emphasis added). Article 7 of the Operator’s Lease, incorporated as Exhibit A into the 

Franchise Agreement, similarly requires any inspections to be “during reasonable business hours.” 

(Operator’s Lease, at § 7.01) (emphasis added). 

243. McDonald’s breached Section 12 of the Franchise Agreement by inter alia:

a. Imposing high-cost rebuilds and/or renovations of the Breach of Contract 

Plaintiffs’ restaurants in locations that McDonald’s knew would not provide 

Case: 1:20-cv-05132 Document #: 30 Filed: 11/16/20 Page 59 of 67 PageID #:922
57

an adequate return on investment and in short time frames not required of other 

franchisees; and/or

b. Increased, harassing, and targeted inspections of the Breach of Contract 

Plaintiffs’ restaurants, including outside of regular business hours. 

244. McDonald’s also owed a duty of good faith and fair dealing to the Breach of Contract 

Plaintiffs in its performance under the Franchise Agreement. 

245. In its performance of the Franchise Agreement, McDonald’s violated its duty of good 

faith and fair dealing by, inter alia:

a. Engaging in unreasonable and targeted inspections of Breach of Contract 

Plaintiffs’ restaurants as pretext for denying them growth and rewrite;

b. Applying harsher grading standards to the Breach of Contract Plaintiffs’ 

restaurants in order to generate bad business reviews; 

c. Denying Plaintiffs meaningful financial assistance, including, rent relief and 

impact money for building new stores within their trade area;

d. Imposing excessive costs and investments and modifications, including those 

required under the BBV2020 plan, and then arbitrarily reneging on the 

“unprecedented investment” promised by McDonald’s through its partnering 

program;

e. Placing the Breach of Contract Plaintiffs in positions of economic duress and 

asking Plaintiffs to sign one-sided release agreements at every step of the 

franchise relationship; and/or

f. Forcing the Breach of Contract Plaintiffs to sell their franchises at a loss after 

failing to approve reasonable requests for financial assistance and/or 

restructuring plans, that could have resolved any outstanding obligations and 

debt on one store in the organization and allowed the Breach of Contract 

Plaintiffs to remain in the system. 

246. As a direct and proximate result of McDonald’s conduct, Breach of Contract Plaintiffs

collectively lost close to three-hundred (300) stores with compensatory damages averaging between 

four million dollars ($4,000,000.00) and five million dollars ($5,000,000.00) per store.

Case: 1:20-cv-05132 Document #: 30 Filed: 11/16/20 Page 60 of 67 PageID #:923
58

247. As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result of McDonald’s breach of contract and 

bad faith, the Breach of Contract Plaintiffs have incurred substantial damages in amounts that will be 

proven at trial, including, without limitation, reasonable compensation for the time and effort 

expended in planning and preparing their franchise business, lost profits, and out-of-pocket expenses 

they incurred in pursuing the franchise business, in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional limit,

and any applicable prejudgment and post-judgment interest. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, Christine Crawford, Delores Crawford, Juneth N. Daniel, Van 

Jakes, Ralph King, Keith Manning, Kenneth Manning, Dawn Mussenden, Carrie Salone, Floyd Sims, 

John Mason, Ronnie Thornton, Lisa Gunter, f/k/a Lisa McKenzie, Mitchell McGuire, Lois McGuire, 

Hayes Ferrell, Yvonne Knox, Arthur Scott, Errol Service, Melvin Jones, George Gipson, Michael 

Simon, Victor Bruce, David White, Barbara White, John Tillman, Allen Stafford, Keristin Holloway, 

Gloria Holloway, George Jones, Jane Jones, Wise Finley, Lewis Anderson, Scott Miller, Dwight 

Miller, Faye Hobley, Paul Hoskins, Michele Hoskins, Al Harris, Kristen Harris, Norman H. Williams, 

William (Pete) Washington, Benny Clark, Eleanor Clark, Harold Lewis, Jeremy Lewis, Philip 

Douglas, Lawrence Holland, William Rasul, LeRoy Walker, Jr., Jeffery Rogers, Joseph Mbanefo, 

Annis Alston-Staley, Harry Staley, Gordon Thornton, Dwayne Richard Johnson, Serge Tancrede, 

Karen Tancrede, Errol Thybulle, Jeremiah Simmons, Darryl Umphries, Jacqueline George, Anthony 

George, Wesley Hall, Glenda Claypool, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Sherman 

Claypool, Kenneth Nelson, Bernard Saffold, Lance Williams, Jacqueline Wynn, Robert (Bob) 

Bonner, Gary Roan, Joyce Mance-Roan, Douglas Hollis, and Glenna Hollis, respectfully request that 

the Court enter judgment against Defendants, awarding Breach of Contract Plaintiffs (a) actual 

damages, (b) special or consequential damages in the forms described above, and (c) such other and 

further relief as the Court deems proper.

Case: 1:20-cv-05132 Document #: 30 Filed: 11/16/20 Page 61 of 67 PageID #:924
59

COUNT III

FRAUDULENT OMISSION

(As to Plaintiffs, Christine Crawford, Delores Crawford, Juneth N. Daniel, Yves Dominique, 

Van Jakes, Ralph King, Keith Manning, Kenneth Manning, Dawn Mussenden, Laetitia 

Johnson, Carrie Salone, Floyd Sims, Larry Brown, John Mason, Ronnie Thornton, Lisa 

Gunter, f/k/a Lisa McKenzie, Mitchell McGuire, Lois McGuire, Hayes Ferrell, Yvonne Knox, 

Arthur Scott, Errol Service, Melvin Jones, George Gipson, Michael Simon, Victor Bruce, 

David White, Barbara White, John Tillman, Allen Stafford, Keristin Holloway, Gloria 

Holloway, George Jones, Jane Jones, Wise Finley, Lewis Anderson, Scott Miller, Dwight 

Miller, Faye Hobley, Paul Hoskins, Michele Hoskins, Al Harris, Kristen Harris, Norman H. 

Williams, William (Pete) Washington, Benny Clark, Eleanor Clark, Harold Lewis, Jeremy 

Lewis, LeRoy Walker, Jr., Annis Alston-Staley, and Harry Staley, Against Defendants)

248. Plaintiffs, Christine Crawford, Delores Crawford, Juneth N. Daniel, Yves Dominique, 

Van Jakes, Ralph King, Keith Manning, Kenneth Manning, Dawn Mussenden, Laetitia Johnson, 

Carrie Salone, Floyd Sims, Larry Brown, John Mason, Ronnie Thornton, Lisa Gunter, f/k/a Lisa 

McKenzie, Mitchell McGuire, Lois McGuire, Hayes Ferrell, Yvonne Knox, Arthur Scott, Errol 

Service, Melvin Jones, George Gipson, Michael Simon, Victor Bruce, David White, Barbara White, 

John Tillman, Allen Stafford, Keristin Holloway, Gloria Holloway, George Jones, Jane Jones, Wise 

Finley, Lewis Anderson, Scott Miller, Dwight Miller, Faye Hobley, Paul Hoskins, Michele Hoskins, 

Al Harris, Kristen Harris, Norman H. Williams, William (Pete) Washington, Benny Clark, Eleanor 

Clark, Harold Lewis, Jeremy Lewis, LeRoy Walker, Jr., Annis Alston-Staley, and Harry Staley

(collectively, the “Fraud Plaintiffs”), adopt, reallege and incorporate the allegations of paragraphs 1 

through 221 of this Amended Complaint as though fully set forth herein.

249. As fully set forth above, Defendants failed to disclose material information to the 

Fraudulent Omission Plaintiffs throughout their franchise terms, including, but not limited to: 

a. Failing to disclose that the substandard locations it offered to the Fraud 

Plaintiffs were not the only available sites and that other profitable locations

were being offered to White franchisees; 

Case: 1:20-cv-05132 Document #: 30 Filed: 11/16/20 Page 62 of 67 PageID #:925
60

b. Failing to disclose that the financial performance of the Fraud Plaintiffs’ 

restaurant locations would be in line with the national average of domestic 

traditional McDonald’s restaurants opened at least one (1) year prior;

c. Failing to disclose that McDonald’s would require Plaintiffs to rebuild and/or 

remodel their restaurants, with little or no impact on sales, on short timelines, 

and without permanent rent relief;

d. Failing to disclose that McDonald’s would offer growth opportunities to 

higher-volume, lower cost locations to White franchisees over Black 

franchisees; 

e. Failing to disclose the information that McDonald’s used to determine the 

Fraud Plaintiffs’ renewal upon expiration of their franchise terms;

f. Failing to disclose that McDonald’s would begin harassing inspections of the 

Fraud Plaintiffs’ restaurants if the Fraud Plaintiffs experience financial 

difficulty; 

g. Failing to disclose that the Fraud Plaintiffs’ restaurants would be subject to 

harsher grading than similarly situated franchisees to generate bad business 

reviews when the Fraud Plaintiffs experience financial difficulty; and/or

h. Failing to disclose that McDonald’s had no intention of qualifying the Fraud 

Plaintiffs’ ready and willing buyers at the point of exit. 

250. McDonald’s intended that these material omissions would induce the Fraud Plaintiffs 

to accept substandard locations, invest in significant renovations and/or rebuilds, accept unequal 

terms as part of temporary financial assistance, continue to accept substandard stores as a condition 

to own and operate profitable stores, accept McDonald’s rewrite denial and sell their stores. 

251. McDonald’s fraudulently concealed this systemic practice and controlled all of the 

information provided to franchisees such that the Fraud Plaintiffs did not know, have reason to know, 

nor could have discovered, through the exercise of reasonable diligence, the foregoing omissions.

252. The Fraud Plaintiffs reasonably and justifiably relied upon McDonald’s as the 

franchisor and made financial decisions to their detriment.

Case: 1:20-cv-05132 Document #: 30 Filed: 11/16/20 Page 63 of 67 PageID #:926
61

253. As a direct and proximate result of McDonald’s conduct, Plaintiffs collectively lost 

close to three-hundred (300) stores with compensatory damages averaging between four million 

dollars ($4,000,000.00) and five million dollars ($5,000,000.00) per store.

254. As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result of McDonald’s fraudulent 

misrepresentations and concealment, Plaintiffs have incurred substantial damages in amounts that 

will be proven at trial, including without limitation, lost profits and other damages in excess of the 

jurisdictional limit.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs , Christine Crawford, Delores Crawford, Juneth N. Daniel, Yves 

Dominique, Van Jakes, Ralph King, Keith Manning, Kenneth Manning, Dawn Mussenden, Laetitia 

Johnson, Carrie Salone, Floyd Sims, Larry Brown, John Mason, Ronnie Thornton, Lisa Gunter, f/k/a 

Lisa McKenzie, Mitchell McGuire, Lois McGuire, Hayes Ferrell, Yvonne Knox, Arthur Scott, Errol 

Service, Melvin Jones, George Gipson, Michael Simon, Victor Bruce, David White, Barbara White, 

John Tillman, Allen Stafford, Keristin Holloway, Gloria Holloway, George Jones, Jane Jones, Wise 

Finley, Lewis Anderson, Scott Miller, Dwight Miller, Faye Hobley, Paul Hoskins, Michele Hoskins, 

Al Harris, Kristen Harris, Norman H. Williams, William (Pete) Washington, Benny Clark, Eleanor 

Clark, Harold Lewis, Jeremy Lewis, LeRoy Walker, Jr., Annis Alston-Staley, and Harry Staley, 

respectfully request that the Court enter judgment against Defendants awarding Plaintiffs (a) actual 

damages, (b) special or consequential damages in the forms described above, and (c) such other and 

further relief as the Court deems proper.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendants and request the following 

relief from the Court:

a. Declaration that the acts and practices complained of herein are violations of 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1981;

Case: 1:20-cv-05132 Document #: 30 Filed: 11/16/20 Page 64 of 67 PageID #:927
62

b. Direct Defendants to make Plaintiffs whole for all earnings and benefits they would 

have received but for Defendants’ discriminatory treatment;

c. General, compensatory, and consequential damages in amounts to be proven at trial, 

including, without limitation: 

(1) damages in in excess of the jurisdictional limit;

(2) lost business opportunities because of McDonald’s unjustifiable refusal to 

offer such opportunities to Plaintiffs; 

(3) excessive and unreasonable costs and expenses due to substandard franchise 

location; 

(4) insufficient sales volume due to substandard franchise location;

(5) loss of profits because of excessive expenses and insufficient sales volume due 

to substandard franchise location; 

(6) loss of franchise value because of inability to extinguish debt and meet 

operating expenses due to substandard franchise location;

(7) loss of franchises due to discriminatory conduct; and 

(8) additional damages for emotional and physical suffering and distress, 

humiliation, damage to professional reputations, and to future busines 

prospects. 

d. an award of punitive damages in an amount sufficient to deter Defendant’s similar 

wrongful conduct in the future; 

e. an order for an award of attorney’s fees, expert fees, and costs, as provided by law;

f. an award of pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as provided by law; and

g. an order for all such other relief the Court deems just and proper.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury of all issues so triable as a matter of right.

Case: 1:20-cv-05132 Document #: 30 Filed: 11/16/20 Page 65 of 67 PageID #:928
63 

DATED this 16th day of November, 2020. Respectfully submitted,

THE FERRARO LAW FIRM, P.A.

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

/s/ James L. Ferraro

James L. Ferraro, Esq.

Florida Bar No.: 381659 

jlf@ferrarolaw.com

Mamie C. Joeveer, Esq.

Florida Bar No.: 79045 

mcj@ferrarolaw.com 

Janpaul Portal, Esq. 

Florida Bar No.: 0567264 

jpp@ferrarolaw.com 

Natalia Salas, Esq. 

Florida Bar No.: 44895 

nms@ferrarolaw.com

Brickell World Plaza 

600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor 

Miami, Florida 33131 

Telephone: (305) 375-0111 

Facsimile: (305) 379-6222 

and

William R. Fahey, Esq. 

Illinois Bar No.: 3127912 

bfahey@cooneyconway.com 

Cooney & Conway, PC 

120 N. LaSalle Street, 30th Floor 

Chicago, IL 60602 

Telephone: (312) 236-6166 

Designated as Local Counsel 

Pursuant to Local Rule 83.15 

Case: 1:20-cv-05132 Document #: 30 Filed: 11/16/20 Page 66 of 67 PageID #:929
64 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on November 16, 2020, I electronically filed the foregoing document 

with the Clerk for the United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois. The electronic case 

filing system (CM/ECF) will send a Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) to the attorneys of record 

who have consented in writing to accept this Notice as service of this document by electronic 

means. 

By: /s/ James L. Ferraro

 James L. Ferraro, Esq.

Case: 1:20-cv-05132 Document #: 30 Filed: 11/16/20 Page 67 of 67 PageID #:930