An 8-unit McDonald's franchisee declares bankruptcy (not related to the subject of the other McDonald's thread)

This seems to be an abuse of the Bankruptcy system and nothing more.

A 14 year old employee was raped by a former manager, resulting obviously in a massive civil lawsuit against the franchisee.

I don’t see any legitimate bankruptcy here, what I see is yet ANOTHER abuse of the bankruptcy system to try to dodge a civil lawsuit, i.e. Boy Scouts and Catholic Church, ad naseum.

We need to reform the bankruptcy system to disallow bankruptcy as a tool to dodge civil lawsuits. If this girl wins, she should get as much of her judgement as she can drag out of this franchisee and if they can’t do that, she should be give sole ownership of the franchisee, all 8 stores.

1 Like

Sounds like a good case for civil forfeiture sale to meet the obligation.

Yes. It looks that way.
Apparently the lawsuit award is $1 million and the company should be able to raise that in 90-180 days without bankruptcy.

The question we need to ask wi “What does the company get for filing bankruptcy?”

.The franchisee, which has been in business since 1987, lists between $10 million and $50 million in assets but just $1 million to $10 million in liabilities. The company employs 435 people.

The company does not list a secured creditor. The company also lists McDonald’s as an unsecured creditor over a $1 million indemnification claim, which Rice Enterprises disputes.

Does it really serve justice to punish the owner for the criminal action of an employee? I don’t blame them for filing bankruptcy. There is no way they could have known or prevented this outrageous crime. That is what the criminal courts are for.

One could argue the victim is double dipping the system by going after deep pockets.

The company

has been defending itself in a lawsuit filed in 2021 by a 14-year-old girl who was raped in the bathroom of one of the locations by a manager, Walter Garner, who would plead guilty. Garner was hired despite a 2003 conviction for indecent assault involving a 10-year-old girl.

If they ever refused to hire anyone for any criminal background reason, but then they hired this guy and put him in charge of teenagers . . . it’s actionable.

1 Like



That does change the equation.

Still looks like deep pockets litigation.

Tough to not tap those deep pockets.

Interview No1
Applicant: “At each of my last three jobs I was fired for stealing from the office safe”
Interviewer “Then we won’t hire you. Good-bye.”

Interview No2
Applicant: At each of my last three jobs I was fired for stealing one of my co-worker’s cars."
Interviewer: We don’t care. You’re hired!"

The applicant gets the job, then steals your car.
Do you
A) Tell your boss Hey boss, good decision. I really respect you. You did the right thing"
B) Get mad at your boss and seek legal recourse.


What about this though?

from Directive (DIR) 2013-02 | U.S. Department of Labor

Racial and ethnic disparities are reflected in incarceration rates. According to the Pew Center on the States, one in 106 white men, one in 36 Hispanic men, and one in 15 African American men are incarcerated.5 Additionally, on average, one in 31 adults is under correctional control (i.e., probation, parole, or incarceration), including one in 45 white adults, one in 27 Hispanic adults and one in 11 African American adults.6 Racial and ethnic disparities may also be reflected in other criminal history records. For example, although African Americans constitute approximately 13 percent of the overall population,7 they account for 28 percent of those arrested8 and almost 40 percent of the incarcerated population.9

In light of these racial and ethnic disparities, contractors should be mindful of federal antidiscrimination laws if they choose to rely on job applicants’ criminal history records for purposes of employment decisions. Hiring policies and practices that exclude workers with criminal records may run afoul of such laws, which prohibit intentional discrimination on the basis of race, national origin, or other protected bases, and policies or practices that have a disparate impact on these protected groups and cannot be justified as job related and consistent with business necessity. Policies that exclude people from employment based on the mere existence of a criminal history record and that do not take into account the age and nature of an offense, for example, are likely to unjustifiably restrict the employment opportunities of individuals with conviction histories. Due to racial and ethnic disparities in the criminal justice system, such policies are likely to violate federal antidiscrimination law. Accordingly, contractors should carefully consider their legal obligations before adopting such policies.


Not enough information to evaluate just how egregious the hire was.

If they knew then he should not have been in charge of such young workers and the civil suit has legs.

FWIW 14 is too young to work in a food service environment IMO. 16 used to be the standard.

How many minors are abused in jobs where owners do not have deep pockets and get NOTHING. Most would be the unresearched answer.

1 Like

Potential to get sued for not hiring.

Common thread? Deep pockets…lawyer magnets.

The boss always has something,
Even if his business has to be shuttered and auctioned off.

If you ever screen out one prospective hire based on criminal background,
you are then on the hook for

  • any future decision by you to stop screening future applicants, and for
  • any future decision by you to screen them, see that they put your other employees at risk, and then hiring them anyway.

Looks to me like the federal government is saying if you screen for criminal history at all you may be guilty of racial discrimination.


Lawyers know the blood from a rock saying as much as they love deep pockets.

Bosses do always have something…sometimes its debt.

The plight of the oppressors’ and job creators.

Negligent hiring. Negligent supervision.

Deep pockets shouldn’t hire rapists.


That’s what hearings are for.

Now that is a problem.