Thousands of people marched in Chicago on Tuesday and Wednesday, in front of McDonald’s storefronts and the fast food giant’s headquarters, protesting its low hourly wage. Organized by “Fight for 15,” a labor group that advocates for a $15 per hour minimum wage, the protests began on Tuesday, as McDonald’s employees waved banners and signs in the streets.

On Wednesday, a couple hundred people gathered in front of the company’s suburban headquarters during its annual shareholder meeting. According to Reuters, 30 protesters were arrested on Wednesday for blocking a road. Terrance Wise, 42, was at the protest, and told Reuters he was there because he believes the minimum wage should be increased.

“I saw my mother, who worked for 30 years for Hardee’s, struggle on food stamps to raise her family and now I’m doing the same things,” he said, referencing another fast food giant. “Instead of paying their CEO $15 million, they should give him $10 million and pay their workers what’s right.” According to company figures, McDonald’s CEO Steve Easterbrook made $15.3 million last year.

March is about to kickoff. Thousands are ready to shut down streets and march #fightfor15 pic.twitter.com/4TSD27S6u2

— Fight For 15 Chicago (@chifightfor15) May 23, 2017

 “Fight for 15” has referred to McDonald’s as the “Donald Trump of corporations.” A page on its website reads: “Trump AND McDonald’s have a long history of sexual harassment, stealing from or refusing to pay employees, and ripping off taxpayers.”

Since 2015, in the franchises that it owns, McDonald’s pays its employees a wage of $10 per hour. But the majority of its stores are controlled by other owners, who can set the hourly wage as they please. The current federal minimum wage is $7.25 an hour. While many cities and states have raised their minimum wage, and some congressional Democrats have supported a steep increase, the Republican-controlled Congress is unlikely to make a federal change any time soon.

Meanwhile, Trump’s stance on raising the federal minimum wage has flipped more times than a McDouble. He has taken almost every position imaginable: from suggesting the minimum wage should be lowered, to saying it should stay the same. His most recent public comments, however, suggest he would like to see it increased to $10.

Last July, he said: “The minimum wage has to go up. People are — at least $10, but it has to go up. But I think that states — federal — I think that states should really call the shot.”

One-time presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders tweeted his two cents on the minimum wage debate on Thursday:

I know a $15 minimum wage is radical to Republicans.

You know what’s radical? That people working 40 or 50 hours a week live in poverty.

— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) May 25, 2017

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Thousands Protest McDonald’s Wages, Demand $15 Per Hour appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Trump’s Second Travel Ban Gets Thumbs Down from Federal Judge

President Donald Trump’s new version of the travel ban for six majority-Muslim countries was supposed to go into effect today. But last night, a Hawaiian federal judge temporarily blocked it, citing religious discrimination. Then overnight, a second federal judge in Maryland also ruled against the ban.

As expected, Trump got pretty upset–so upset that he was actually two hours late for a rally in Nashville last night, as his staff tried to improve his mood by showing him some comments from supporters. But at the rally, he still lashed out at Judge Derrick K. Watson. Trump shouted, accused Watson of ruling based on political motivations, and said, “this ruling makes us look weak, which by the way we no longer are, believe me.”

Watson’s decision caused the hashtag #BoycottHawaii to trend on Twitter as some Trump supporters expressed their frustration with the ruling. But for others, this wasn’t a bad thing:

Trump’s travel ban is derailing US tourism but the #BoycottHawaii or promise of a TrumpFreeZone is making it one of the hottest destinations

— Norm Clark #resist (@Normsmusic) March 16, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: March 16, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Right now, it truly does feel like there are a lot of crazy lawsuits out there. Krispy Kreme was just sued over allegedly-fake berry flavored donuts. Starbucks has been sued  multiple times for not filling drinks enough. Sofia Vergara is currently being sued by her own frozen embryos. There’s a lot of lawsuits. And if you ask anyone what event started this era of (arguably unnecessary) litigiousness in the United States, most would point to the famous “McDonald’s hot coffee lawsuit.” But do you actually know the truth behind that lawsuit? TruTV’s “Adam Ruins Everything” took on the topic recently, with an eye-opening segment:

Adam Conover, the host of the comedy/myth debunking show, points out that the 1993 lawsuit was actually pretty legitimate. The 79-year-old woman who spilled the McDonald’s coffee on herself was severely burned and ultimately disabled. The coffee was served at 180 degrees, much hotter than it needed to be. And she didn’t even want to sue McDonald’s, but needed money to pay for her medical bills.

So why do we all remember the McDonald’s coffee lawsuit as such a ridiculous part of legal history? According to Conover, that rumor came from corporations who didn’t want to be sued, in a disinformation campaign to discourage “silly” lawsuits.

And it’s important to note that McDonald’s is still facing allegations that its coffee is way too hot. Earlier this year, two plaintiffs sued the fast food company after they spilled coffee hot enough to cause 2nd-degree burns. Starbucks has also been party to similar suits. While it’s less work for chains to brew coffee super hot to ensure it lasts longer and less people complain that it’s cold, it can be dangerous. And as for the woman who sued McDonald’s originally, as Conover pointed out, she should really be viewed as a hero.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Do You Know the Truth About the McDonald’s Coffee Lawsuit? appeared first on Law Street.

Every year we hear stories about parents getting in trouble for leaving their children in places unsupervised, whether it’s at home, in a store, or in a car. In most incidents the parents were nowhere near where they had left their children, but for a recent story coming out of Houston, Texas, that was simply not the case.

Single Mom Laura Browder Arrested After Leaving Kids at Food Court While Interviewing for… http://t.co/ez0DkFUboy pic.twitter.com/NUNj4FYFm4

— Hinterland Gazette (@hinterlandg) July 19, 2015

Laura Browder, single mother of a 6-year-old girl and 2-year-old boy, was arrested and charged with “abandoning” her children who were no more than 30 yards away from her. She went to Houston’s Memorial City Mall for a job interview but because it was last minute, Browder did not have enough time to find a babysitter. She brought her kids in the mall with her and sat them down in the food court near a McDonalds then went to her interview. According to Browder the interview was not for a job in the mall, but the food court was a meeting ground for the company’s employer and herself. Shortly after being offered the job and returning to her children, she was handcuffed. Browder claims the children were always in her line of sight, but the police officer on the scene arrested her. She is unsure of how this arrest will affect the new position.

Browder stated,

This was very unfortunate this happened. I had a interview with a very great company with lots of career growth. I am a college student and mother of two. I would never put my name, background or children in harms way intentionally. I have a promising future ahead of me regardless of what the media tries to portray me as. A judge released my children to me knowing that I was a good mother who just made a not so smart decision. My children weren’t even 30 yards away from me, I fed them and sat there with them until it was time to meet with my interviewer. This too will pass and I am not concerned with outsiders have to say or what they think.

Child Protective Services officials say they are still in the early stages of the investigation, but have stated that they can offer services to help Browder find suitable childcare. It’s hard to understand the argument for charging her. Although she purposely left her kids there, she was unaware that it would be considered abandonment even with them in her sight, and she appeared to have been doing the best she could.

This is bullshit ! I guess it would’ve been better had she left them in the hot car like most scum bag parents smh http://t.co/QHZ4bA9ZQl

— Marnica (@TeammakeMoney) July 19, 2015

Many people have commented via Twitter or other forms of social media that she should not be punished because the children were in her eyesight and not in a car or somewhere that she could not easily get to them. Browder is trying to do the best that she can with her circumstances. She is a single mother and her kids need her in the picture. Accepting the childcare help that child protective services can offer could make things a lot easier for her. But most pressingly, it’s important to make sure laws are applied in common sense ways to best help mothers who are struggling to seek care for their children.

Taelor Bentley

Taelor is a member of the Hampton University Class of 2017 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Taelor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Texas Mother Charged with “Abandoning” Her Kids Who Were 30 Yards Away appeared first on Law Street.

It started a few years ago: the calories and sodium that you are consuming when you sit down to eat a Big Mac or a Whopper stare at you from the side of the package. This phenomena occurred because of something called obesity lawsuits–legal claims by people who consume fast food at least a few times a week that they didn’t realize what they were putting into their bodies. Read on to learn about obesity lawsuits, their popularity, and the legal arguments behind them.

What Are Obesity Lawsuits?

The national conversation about what we eat and what is in it isn’t new, but it has exploded recently, from First Lady Michelle Obama’s initiatives to the school systems and even popular media. The food and drink community has been changing the way they make, market, and package foods, and it has all been either a direct result or a symptom of obesity lawsuits.

Most of the lawsuits that fit into this category come from people who blamed fast food restaurants for causing them to gain weight. They said that they weren’t aware of just how many calories they were consuming and that the companies used false advertising to say that they were healthier than they actually are. These lawsuits, as an overarching theme, also “claim that companies failed to warn consumers of the harmful contents of their food; that food advertising is misleading or deceptive; that food is addictive…or that defendants’ food contributed to consumers’ obesity.”

Obesity lawsuits have been around for decades. At least 26 states have banned any type of lawsuit against a fast food company, both restaurants and manufacturers. The Washington Post goes into more detail about these laws, stating they are:

‘Commonsense consumption’ laws, which prohibit people from suing food purveyors for making them fat, giving them diabetes, or adding to their high blood pressure.

LegalZoom points out that even though there isn’t a federal ban on the cases, there is a distinct bias from the system, which is why the ban proceeded with so much support.

Those who were for the ban on obesity lawsuits spoke out on Fox News:

‘The bill seeks to block lawsuits by people because they ate too much and got fat,’ says Rep. Chris Cannon, R-Utah, one of the bill’s sponsors.

‘We should not encourage lawsuits that blame others for our own choices and could bankrupt an entire industry,’ notes Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas.

In a conversation with The New York Times, the Steven C. Anderson, president of the National Restaurant Association, which represents the 858,000 small and large restaurant businesses around the country, said:

Within the industry, it has gotten everyone’s attention. While we are concerned, we think them to be frivolous.

But are these lawsuits frivolous, or are they surrounded by the stigma against the obese?

Obesity Lawsuits in Court

Negligence

Many of the plaintiffs that go up against fast food restaurants say that the food they receive is not as healthy as the restaurant would have them believe and that the quality of the food is not what was advertised in commercials. One of the most prolific cases against a fast food restaurant, Ashley Pelman et. al. v. McDonald’s Corporation, alleged that McDonald’s food items were dangerous for consumption and that McDonald’s was negligent in warning its customers. When proving this negligence, the plaintiff must prove:

1. The danger was not apparent to the average consumer;
2. The product is unreasonably dangerous for its intended use;
3. The plaintiff’s obesity was caused by the food in question; and
4. The harm would not have occurred had an adequate warning been given.

The judge who presided over this case said that:

If consumers know (or reasonably should know) the potential ill health effects of eating at McDonald’s, they cannot blame McDonald’s if they, nonetheless, choose to satiate their appetite with a surfeit of supersized McDonald’s products.

He dismissed the case.

Proving negligence can be hard, especially in situations of other unhealthy choices on the part of the consumer. This particular case did not do that, but it is held in high regard as one of the foremost cases for how to successfully sue a fast food company for negligence–those who do try to sue make sure that they can prove those four points before continuing onward.

Accountability

But what accountability does the fast food restaurant have? Those who have filed lawsuits against fast food restaurants have often said that the food is “unsafe for consumption,” due to its nutritional content, which is a harder sell in the court systems as there is no legal limit. For example, this is the same argument used against firearm manufacturers as well, but in those cases the arguments have not succeeded.

Plaintiffs also try to prove the manufacturer’s intent to sell the food using advertisements, public statements, and even internal documents. Once again returning to Pelman, they claimed that the promotional materials that said things like “Big N’ Tasty Everyday” encouraged regular consumption. They also quoted one of the nutritionists that McDonald’s featured on its website:

Our wide range of choices on our menu makes it possible for people to eat there three times a day if they wanted to.

Changing Habits and Addiction

The plaintiffs must be able to convince the courts that, if they had been given the appropriate and correct warnings about the food they were consuming, they would have changed their dining habits to something healthier. In other words: if the plaintiff had known that they were consuming something that was bad for them, would they continue to eat there?

There is really no foolproof way to determine that, but the courts must ask questions to make assumptions. Questions might include their current eating habits and if they lost any weight since they ceased visiting the fast food restaurant.

Overall, these cases are very hard to prove because of the amount of guesswork that needs to go in on all sides. A McDonald’s spokesman even said:

I don’t think that any of these lawsuits will prevail unless and until there is proof that fast food companies are intentionally and maliciously putting stuff into their food in an effort to make people ill or to addict them to the product. There is no proof of that–no hint of any proof of that–and I think that missing element makes these sorts of claims very difficult for courts to take seriously.

Results of Obesity Lawsuits

We first saw nutritional labels going onto our fast food containers around 2003 when the government believed that it would help Americans make healthier choices about their meals. This movement was all part of the Menu Education and Labeling Act that was proposed to make those choices easier. While the bill seemed to stall, McDonald’s was actually one of the first companies to start listing calories on its menus, saying it was to help customers make healthy choices.

There have been some modest improvement over the last ten years in some of the offerings available at fast food restaurants. According to Margo G. Wootan, director of nutrition policy for the Center for Science in the Public Interest in Washington DC,

Given the role of fast food in Americans’ diets, restaurants are in a unique position to help improve the diet quality in the U.S. by improving the nutritional quality of menu offerings. Modest improvements in average nutritional quality of menu offerings across eight fast-food restaurant chains were observed, which is consistent with both legislative efforts (e.g., banning trans fat) and the industry’s own statements about creating healthier menu options. However, considering that fast food is ubiquitous in the U.S. diet, there is much room for improvement.

Still, there hasn’t been much improvement in the choices that people are making while they are actually in the restaurant. In fact, fewer than half of the patrons at fast food shops actually notice that their food has calories listed, and it also really didn’t have an impact on what they ordered.

Conclusion

Obesity lawsuits and litigation are a problem that we need to solve, and that might just start with better education on all fronts. The stamping of calories and nutritional content on the sides of cups and the backs of hamburger cartons is a start for the companies. Now it is up to consumers to make the right choices for themselves. The argument will likely continue onward, even as more states push toward a complete ban on the obesity lawsuits.

Resources

Primary

U.S. Congress: MEAL Act

Food and Drug Administration: Summary of Changes in the FDA Food Code 2013

Additional

Bloomberg Business: McDonald’s Obesity Case Can’t Proceed as Group Suit

CBS News: McDonald’s Wins Fat Fight

Fox News: House Votes to Ban ‘Obesity Lawsuits’ Against Fast Food Industry

Center for Science in the Public Interest: Availability of Nutrition Information From Chain Restaurants in the United States

The New York Times: Teenagers’ Suit Says McDonald’s Made Them Obese

Virginia Journal of Social Policy and the Law: Fast-Food Lawsuits and the Cheeseburger Bill: Critiquing Congress’s Response to the Obesity Epidemic

Sun Sentinel: Fending Off the Big Mac Attack

Washington Post: These 26 states Won’t Let You Sue McDonald’s For Making You Fat

ABC News: Obese Man Sues Fast-Food Chains

Bloomberg Law: Where’s the Beef? The Challenges of Obesity Lawsuits

Huffington Post: Calorie Labels at Fast Food Restaurants Don’t Make a Difference

LA Times: Liability, Guns and the Law

Legal Zoom: Can You Sue a Restaurant For Making You Obese?

The New York Times: McDonald’s to Start Posting Calorie Counts

NPR: Nutrition Labels For Fast Foods

Organic Consumers Association: Junk Food/Obesity Lawsuits Alarm U.S. Food Giants

Politico: The Plot to Make Big Food Pay

Time: Can You be Fat and Fit — or Thin and Unhealthy?

Noel Diem

Law Street contributor Noel Diem is an editor and aspiring author based in Reading, Pennsylvania. She is an alum of Albright College where she studied English and Secondary Education. In her spare time she enjoys traveling, theater, fashion, and literature. Contact Noel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Obesity Lawsuits: Who’s to Blame When Fast Food Makes You Fat? appeared first on Law Street.

McDonald’s has never really been known for treating its employees well, per se. That being said, I’m not sure many of us realized quite how bad it is at some of the roughly 15,000 McDonald’s locations nationwide until this week when news broke that workers in 19 different states filed complaints with the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

These complaints allege dangerous working conditions, lack of training, and hazardous equipment, among other faults. A particularly common complaint appears to be that workers are often burned by the equipment they have to handle on the job. Workers cited not having gloves when they are required to handle hot equipment, or that they’ve had to clean hot grills that haven’t been turned off.

A particularly disturbing story was told by one Chicago McDonald’s worker, Brittney Berry. She claims that she slipped and burnt her arm on a grill to the extent that the burn caused nerve damage. What’s even more worrisome is that she reports that her managers responded to the incident by telling her to put mustard on her arms, of all things. She stated:

My managers kept pushing me to work faster. The managers told me to put mustard on it, but I ended up having to get rushed to the hospital in an ambulance. This is exactly why workers at McDonald’s need union rights.

While this sounds shocking and horrible, it’s evidently not that unheard of. Polling group Hart Research Associates conducted a survey last year of nearly 1,500 adult fast food workers about their injuries on the job. Almost 80 percent reported suffering from burns, and Berry’s manager apparently wasn’t too unique, because a third of those who suffered burns reported having a member of management tell them to put some sort of condiment–like mustard, mayo, butter, or ketchup–on it to treat the problem. In addition, the survey found that two-thirds of those workers had been cut by something on the job, 33 percent had been hurt while carrying some sort of heavy item, and 23 percent had fallen on a slippery surface. Overall, nearly 90 percent of the fast food workers surveyed had been hurt in some way. While that survey didn’t just focus on McDonald’s workers, but rather on the industry as a whole, it’s hard to imagine that the conditions at McDonald’s are significant outliers from its peer companies.

These complaints fit into a ongoing campaign for workers’ rights being waged against McDonald’s by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and other groups. Called the “Fight for $15” campaign, it aims to up the minimum wage for McDonald’s workers as well as provide them with safer working conditions.

McDonald’s has of course responded to the allegations levied against it, bringing up the “Fight for $15” campaign in a rather dismissive way:

McDonald’s and its independent franchisees are committed to providing safe working conditions for employees in the 14,000 McDonald’s Brand U.S. restaurants. We will review these allegations. It is important to note that these complaints are part of a larger strategy orchestrated by activists targeting our brand and designed to generate media coverage.

OSHA has confirmed that the allegations are being looked into, so whether they are actually true will be decided by the government. Either way, it creates a pretty grim picture of the working conditions at these branches, and a rather convincing argument for reform.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Do You Want Pain With Your Fries? OSHA Investigating McDonald’s appeared first on Law Street.

Fashion trend website Refinery29 published an article recently with the headline “The Jeremy Scott Effect: How ‘Stealing’ Logos Can Technically Be Legal.” The second I came across it, I obviously began to develop a couple of opinions. Is it really technically legal? Are some logos really just up for grabs? I’m not so sure.

The Fall 2015 collection of Scott’s namesake line, presented in February at New York Fashion Week, is rather lacking in commercial logos. Rather, he saved the really fun stuff for Moschino where he sent Looney Toons-emblazoned sweatshirts down the runway at last week’s Milan show. Scott has also brought his own versions of classic American brands like McDonald’s and Barbie to the line.

In the case of the McDonald’s and Barbie capsule collections, Scott always alters logos to put his own spin on them. So technically he’s not stealing anything. Even Moschino’s version of the Barbie logo is distinctly different from any past or present logos. As a matter of fact, the collection was more of a collaboration as Scott even designed a doll for Mattel.

Refinery29 does go on to explain that designers need to get permission from a company to use its logo, as Opening Ceremony did with Kodak. But if anything, it’s not a matter of “stealing” logos, but rather clothing companies collaborating with other consumer brands. T-shirt company Junk Food, known for using images from brands like Coca-Cola as well as bands and tv shows, was one of the originators of this notion. Wherever they sell their products, there’s always a note crediting a company’s featured image.

While a lot of areas in fashion law are fuzzy, in this case it’s pretty clear; there’s no technical way to steal another company’s logo. It’s all a matter of strict licensing practices and creative collaborations.

Katherine Fabian

Katherine Fabian is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center. She is a freelance writer and yoga teacher who hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers. Contact Katherine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Why There’s Nothing Legal About “Stealing” Logos appeared first on Law Street.

This was a fun week for weird arrests–full of drugs, more drugs, and drunk escorts. Read on to see the top five strangest and weird arrests of the week.

[SlideDeck2 id=29769 ress=1]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Weird Arrests of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

It seems that McDonald’s will change its slogan yet again ever so slightly by making it just a little bit worse. Now, instead of hearing the phrase “I’m lovin’ it” to accompany the iconic Golden Arches, you will hear “Lovin’ Beats Hatin’.” What’s with McDonald’s and bad grammar, anyway? Starting next year, the McDonalds catchphrase will be all about stating the obvious.

Not anymore, I’m not. Courtesy of Gabby Kaminsky via Flickr.

Personally, I am unsure as to what McDonald’s marketing experts wish to accomplish with this change. Are they trying to be progressive? Like, 1970s Beatles-style let’s all love everyone and sit in a hippie drum circle? I mean, don’t most people worldwide kind of know that treating others with love is better than the alternative? It’s something they tell us in preschool in the U.S., anyway.

Well, I guess it’s not such an obvious thing since there is so much war, hate, turmoil, and all that in the world today. Ah, I think I understand now! McDonald’s is trying to create world peace by telling others to LOVE not HATE! Wow, McDonald’s, that is such a noble task you are trying to undertake! The collective imagination behind the new catchphrase will single-handedly bring peace to the Middle East, thus earning its creators the Nobel Peace Prize. Okay, maybe I am exaggerating a bit…

Or perhaps I am misunderstanding the objective. Maybe it’s as simple as trying to drum up some competition among the foods offered at McDonald’s to keep things interesting. Dollar-Menu burgers versus six-piece chicken nuggets. Which are you lovin’ and which are you hatin’? Maybe consumers are lovin’ egg McMuffins and hatin’ Japan’s exclusive squid-ink burger. Personally, I am just sick and tired of the fast food giant omitting the “g” at the end of the words. I draw a blank as to the reasoning behind that one…

According to McDonald’s big wigs themselves, the campaign is designed to “spread happiness in the face of Internet hate.” There wasn’t any more elaboration than that, but they have admitted that the company is in for big changes.

Why? Sales are down for the fast food chain due to its failure to keep up with modern eating habits worldwide. Also, the company claims that introducing too many new items too quickly last year caused a decline in revenue. The mentality of consumers seems to be changing, too; whereas consistency was previously looked at positively, today’s consumer prefers customization with their orders. Thus, the true motive behind the new slogan. Though perhaps the campaign change will not boost sales as intended, only time will tell, the company made a smart move by deciding to unveil the new slogan during the next Super Bowl.

So, McDonald’s, I’m “lovin’” that you’re trying to adapt, but I’m “dislikin’” your proposed new slogan. It leaves me “wantin’” some more creativity. Okay, sorry, I’m done bothering everyone with poor grammar.

Amen, sister!

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post McDonald’s is Changin’ Things Again appeared first on Law Street.

I’m a messy eater — ask anyone who knows me. I can make a mess while eating plain bread. So if there is anyone who knows the importance of a steady supply of napkins, it’s me. And also Webster Lucas. Especially Webster Lucas. Because when he asks for napkins, he isn’t playing around.

Lucas recently filed suit against McDonald’s. McDonald’s has been sued many times, so this may not in itself surprise you; however, the claim in the suit just might. Lucas, having received only one napkin with his Quarter Pounder, asked for some additional ones. Instead of getting so many complimentary napkins that he couldn’t possibly use them all, thus ensuring a solid supply of backup napkins for the road as given by every other Mickey D’s, Lucas was told to make do with what he had. So he is now suing for $1.5 million.

Courtesy of Quickmeme.

(I don’t know any napkin synonyms, so please bear with me while I overuse of the word – it is hard to talk about a napkin scandal without constantly saying ‘napkin.’)

The Story

Lucas went to McDonald’s to eat, not to argue about napkins. I know this because when the napkin debacle occurred, he told his server this very thing. (As I usually go to fast food chains with the intention of getting in a fiery debate over a ketchup packet at the very least, I find Lucas’ plan here very strange.) Lucas pointed out that he should have gone to Jack in the Box, where napkins are apparently given in a non-Grinch manner. Unfortunately for him, Lucas did not go to Jack in the Box and he did argue about napkins, so overall the food trip was less than a success.

Lucas, a self-described clean person, realized two things at the beginning of this doomed hamburger visit: 1.) His table was crumb filled, and 2.) He only had one napkin. He wanted that napkin to wipe down the table, but he didn’t want to be left with just his shirt to clean his hands when he actually got to eat, so he went to the counter and asked for more. Employee Angel Arciga refused the request.

Courtesy of Tumblr.

(Quick aside: Was the napkin dispenser empty? Because how else would this happen? I need this to be explained as it’s driving me crazy.)

Lucas should actually be grateful that his problem was only a lack of cleaning material, by the way. In a London KFC, a boy was served a deep-fried paper towel, and I bet he wishes that place had a “wipe your hands on your shirt” policy in place.

After being turned down, Lucas claimed that Arciga began to have an attitude with him. When Lucas asked him why he was being so hostile, the man began to curse and mumble under his breath.

Despite how thankful he should be at not being served napkin for dinner, Lucas asked to talk to the manager and was aghast to learn that he already was. He got Arciga’s name, after a lot of “playing around” about the spelling, and left to go shoot off an email to Arciga’s higher ups about their customer service, or lack thereof.

The general manager of the store responded with a simple apology, a promise to investigate, and an offer of free food – there was no mention of whether free napkins came with the free burgers though, so I do not blame Lucas for being a little leery.

Courtesy of Wifflegif.

Mr. Lucas then talked to Arciga again, who apparently was asleep during customer service training class, and was again offended by his attitude. Because of his mental anguish and the intentional infliction of mental distress, Lucas was unable to work. This means he needed another source of income and getting $1.5 million from McDonald’s seemed a reasonable alternative, or, at the very least, he assumed that with that much money he could just use some measly twenties when his hands got a little greasy. Either way, the situation led to the suit at hand.

The Motive

Part of Lucas’ claim was that napkin-gate was racially motivated. That was his only rationale as to why his request was refused, and as I personally cannot think of many other good reasons, I have to concede that he might be right. (Though my other thought is that perhaps the store was almost or completely out of said napkins and, as the manager, Arciga was incredibly embarrassed at his lack of proper inventory stocking thus making him unable to divulge the shortage to a customer. But that’s just pure speculation on my part.)

Lucas, an African American, was eating at a place “filled with Mexican Americans,” Arciga being one. In fact, Lucas asked if this was all “because [he was] black,” and claimed that Arciga mumbled something under his breath – the only understandable words being “you people.”

Which brings me to a serious point directed to all businesses dealing with customers: take claims of discrimination seriously. It may seem like just a napkin, but one restaurant’s napkin is another man’s $1.5 million lawsuit. So make sure to give proper training, and when a customer complains about service, actually do something about it instead of making vague assurances.

Will McDonald’s have to fork over a million and a half dollars for its napkin drought? I’d say no – though sometimes a ruling will surprise and possibly offend you. However, I feel safe in saying that even if Lucas doesn’t win his suit or doesn’t get as much money as he wanted, the time, bad press, legal fees, and everything else that goes into a legal proceeding makes these the most expensive napkins in the history of the world. Though if we’re including paper towels…

—

Ashley Shaw (@Smoldering_Ashes) is an Alabama native and current New Jersey resident. A graduate of both Kennesaw State University and Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, she spends her free time reading, writing, boxing, horseback riding, playing trivia, flying helicopters, playing sports, and a whole lot else. So maybe she has too much spare time.

Featured imaged courtesy of [anaxolootl via Flickr]

Ashley Shaw

Ashley Shaw is an Alabama native and current New Jersey resident. A graduate of both Kennesaw State University and Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, she spends her free time reading, writing, boxing, horseback riding, playing trivia, flying helicopters, playing sports, and a whole lot else. So maybe she has too much spare time. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Case of the Million Dollar Napkins appeared first on Law Street.

The latest news from Northwestern Law School seems eerily reminiscent of the TV show “Suits.” Just a few months before graduation, Northwestern University Law School discovered that one of its students, Mauricio Celis, was a Texas felon infamous for posing as a lawyer. Celis was expelled in March from the school’s International Law LLM program as soon as they discovered his criminal history. He is now suing Northwestern over the decision.

Northwestern Law argued that the 42-year-old LLM student misled admissions officials by failing to inform them of his criminal history during the admissions process. Celis’ record includes a felony conviction for falsely presenting himself as a lawyer and a misdemeanor conviction for misidentifying himself as a police officer in an incident involving a woman wandering nude from his hot tub to a local convenience store. According to Northwestern Law, Celis’ criminal history makes him an “undesirable candidate” for their program. School officials say he would not have been admitted had they known of his past.

Celis is arguing, however, that they never asked about his criminal history during the admissions process. He was accepted to the prestigious program in 2012, spent about $76 thousand on tuition and fees, and was never once asked about his criminal history in the process.

While Celis has not commented on the lawsuit, he mantains that he is innocent in the Texas cases, despite the fact that both ended in convictions. He told the Chicago Tribune, “I’ve been trying to put this thing behind me for many, many years already”. According to his Northwestern application, Celis holds dual citizenship in the United States and Mexico. He worked in the legal field in Mexico and then co-founded a personal injury law firm in Texas in 2005.

In 2006, Celis made headlines in Chicago. After six children died in an apartment fire, he read a statement outside their wake. The Chicago Tribune picked up the story, and quoted Celis as the family’s attorney. According to Celis, he has no idea how the Tribune got the impression that he was the family’s attorney. He believes that he was brought in to help because he speaks Spanish, like the victims’ family members.  He has also stated that he has “never allowed anyone to have the impression” that he was licensed to practice law in the United States, and that while he was happy to help, he “let the lawyers do the lawyering.”

In 2007, Celis was indicted in Texas on charges that he illegally presented himself as a lawyer. Based on the court records, the argument was over whether or not Celis could technically be considered a lawyer from Mexico, despite the fact that he never obtained a license to practice law in the United States. Celis argued that the legal education that he received in Mexico qualified him to practice certain types of law there, although he was unable to provide any official documentation of his certification. He also maintained that he never actually practiced law in the United States.

However, the jury wasn’t buying it. They found Celis guilty on 14 counts in 2009, and he was sentenced to 10 years of probation. In response to the jury’s verdict, Celis said, “they looked at me as being some shyster faking my credentials, I am a Mexican lawyer.”

Regardless, Celis was convicted, and the issue at stake here is that Northwestern Law really should have caught it. If they were truly concerned about having convicted felons in their program, then that is something that they should ask about on their application. At the very least, they could have googled him. One quick search and you have access to public criminal records. That way, they wouldn’t have had to kick a student out just months before he was set to graduate. Paul Campos, a University of Colorado law professor and frequent critic of law schools put it best, stating,  “the fact that this guy got into Northwestern … it’s, I think, kind of revelatory of how much checking goes on even at a top program.” If a school doesn’t manage to ask its applicants a question that is found on every McDonalds application, then that’s on them.

Northwestern is arguing that Celis should have known that his criminal history was a problem, and should have voluntarily disclosed the information to admissions. However, I would disagree: if you don’t ask, what would stop someone with a criminal history from applying to your program? If someone with a criminal past wants to do something positive in their life, like get an education, why would they voluntarily disclose information that could stand in their way? It’s the school’s responsibility to ask the right questions of their applicants, not the applicants’ responsibility to anticipate possible issues.

According to court records filed in Chicago, Celis and Northwestern both agreed to a voluntary dismissal of the lawsuit. No details of a settlement were disclosed. While they were able to work something out this time, hopefully this situation will make law schools rethink their application processes so something like this does not happen again.

—

Brittany Alzfan (@BrittanyAlzfan) is a student at the George Washington University majoring in Criminal Justice. She was a member of Law Street’s founding Law School Rankings team during the summer of 2014. Contact Brittany at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Chris Devers via Flickr]

Brittany Alzfan

Brittany Alzfan is a student at the George Washington University majoring in Criminal Justice. She was a member of Law Street’s founding Law School Rankings team during the summer of 2014. Contact Brittany at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Too Much, Too Late: Northwestern Law Expels LLM Student for Former Crimes appeared first on Law Street.