A McDonald’s Franchise Hired a Registered Sex Offender. Then He Raped His 14-Year-Old Employee.

[Cicada 5]

In October 2020, L.H. started working at a Pittsburgh-area McDonald’s at just 14 years old. Because she was under 18, she needed a work permit signed by her parents and school in order to work during the school year. Things went fine for the first few weeks, until January when the manager on her shift changed. Walter Garner, then 41, started sexually harassing her and two other minor employees and made sexually explicit comments, including innuendos about a spilled milkshake and saying that he wanted her “to be his Happy Meal” (a detail first reported by Mother Jones.) Garner’s verbal harassment escalated to brushing against L.H., touching her hair, and asking to see her after work. The location’s hiring manager spoke to L.H. and the two other girls over the phone about Garner’s harassment, but nothing happened—Garner even continued to work the same shift as L.H.

The harassment escalated to rape in February 2021. Garner followed L.H. into the McDonald’s bathroom during her shift, grabbed her, pulled off her uniform and forced himself on her. According to the lawsuit L.H. and her parents filed against McDonald’s in September, she went into shock, wanted to forget the whole thing happened, and kept working for Garner. He later pleaded guilty and was convicted of indecent assault on a child.

While investigating an unrelated cash register theft, the location’s owner, hiring manager, and another manager watched security footage of Garner groping L.H. They talked to him about the incident, but didn’t discipline him. Garner continued harassing her and coerced her into sexual acts outside of work. Garner only faced consequences when he showed photos of himself and L.H. to another minor employee he was targeting, and that girl told her school, which called the police immediately. Garner was arrested in April and charged with a felony and three misdemeanors.




Only then did the McDonald’s franchise fire him.


Later, L.H. learned that since 2004, Garner has been registered as a lifetime sex offender under Megan’s Law in Pennsylvania for a 2003 conviction of aggravated indecent assault on a 10-year-old girl. After Garner’s arrest and firing, the owner of the location, Michele Rice, and other managers apologized to L.H. and for the first time showed her training videos about the company’s position on sexual harassment and how to report it. Sexual harassment training is not mandated at franchised locations like the one where L.H. worked.


L.H. and her parents sued McDonald’s Corporation and the franchisee, Rice Enterprises LLC, in September, alleging negligence for allegedly failing to perform background checks or training employees on how to identify and report sexual harassment. They’re requesting a jury trial and seeking punitive damages. The complaint details that in 2003, Garner pleaded guilty to sexual assault and served prison time for crime. Last month, Garner pled guilty to statutory sexual assault and was sentenced to four to 10 years in prison and five years’ probation. He’s listed as currently incarcerated on the Megan’s Law website.

McDonald’s has faced intense scrutiny—and dozens of lawsuits—in recent years for allegations of sexual harassment and retaliation against women employees. (During the cycle of bad press, the company notoriously “celebrated” 2018 International Women’s Day by turning its M logo upside-down to a W.) About 95 percent of McDonald’s stores globally are franchises, and these claims have highlighted how its franchise model allows owners and McDonald’s Corporate to point the finger at each other for training standards and work environments. L.H. didn’t realize that she had been working at a franchise, not a location owned and operated by McDonald’s corporate, but the suit targets both entities by alleging that McDonald’s exerts high levels of control over its locations. Mother Jones’ deep dive this week explains how franchise models allow companies to skirt liability for sexual harassment, using L.H.’s case as an example.

A McDonald’s Franchise Hired a Registered Sex Offender. Then He Raped His 14-Year-Old Employee.

The girl and her parents are suing over the company’s alleged failure to perform background checks.

jezebel.com

 

[Gordon_4]

Jesus H. Christ. How is it that in an environment where people under 18 will be working that every employee over 18 is not subject to a working with children and vulnerable person’s check and a basic police check? Like this is basic shit.

I hope that kid gets as many fucking red cents out of these pricks as is allowed.

 

[Kwak]

Jesus H. Christ. How is it that in an environment where people under 18 will be working that every employee over 18 is not subject to a working with children and vulnerable person’s check and a basic police check? Like this is basic shit.

In a civilised country like Australia it would be, but this was in North America, one of the most backwards countries on earth.

 

[Thaluikhain]

"While investigating an unrelated cash register theft, the location’s owner, hiring manager, and another manager watched security footage of Garner groping L.H. They talked to him about the incident, but didn’t discipline him."

Ah-huh.

 

[Gordon_4]

In a civilised country like Australia it would be, but this was in North America, one of the most backwards countries on earth.

I won't claim its a silver bullet or one hundred percent effective, but I cannot fathom anyone working a place that involves children without these being conducted.

 

[MrCalavera]

Jesus H. Christ. How is it that in an environment where people under 18 will be working that every employee over 18 is not subject to a working with children and vulnerable person’s check and a basic police check? Like this is basic shit.

I hope that kid gets as many fucking red cents out of these pricks as is allowed.

Might be an effect of lowering the working age to hastily replace fast food workforce that left due to covid and stagnant wages. Instead of, you know, doing the correct thing that might cost slightly more money.

Either way, the management should be held criminally liable if that's an option.

 

[Hades]

"While investigating an unrelated cash register theft, the location’s owner, hiring manager, and another manager watched security footage of Garner groping L.H. They talked to him about the incident, but didn’t discipline him."

Ah-huh.

I don't get that. Not just because of the moral implication about them watching a minor being groped and not doing anything, but also from the practical implication that their asses are on the line too. Now that the employee raped someone and their bosses knowing what his intentions were it reflects extremely poorly on them that they didn't intervene. They are now responsible which is both argument for them to get fired and for them getting sued.

Both from a moral framework and one for their own private convenience they should have acted yet bizarrely chose not to.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I don't get that. Not just because of the moral implication about them watching a minor being groped and not doing anything, but also from the practical implication that their asses are on the line too. Now that the employee raped someone and their bosses knowing what his intentions were it reflects extremely poorly on them that they didn't intervene. They are now responsible which is both argument for them to get fired and for them getting sued.

Both from a moral framework and one for their own private convenience they should have acted yet bizarrely chose not to.

True, but it's not at all surprising. Very often the issue is totally ignored, because it's a hassle to deal with. Now, in this case it backfired, but one imagines that in many cases it doesn't escalate beyond a certain point or the victim doesn't report it, and from the point of view of management, ignoring the problem makes it go away.

 

[Fallen Soldier]

Damn man! Someone at McDonalds didn’t do a proper background check on this guy. This shouldn’t have happened at all if someone did their job right and made sure what kind of person they were hiring.

 

[CriticalGaming]

Damn man! Someone at McDonalds didn’t do a proper background check on this guy. This shouldn’t have happened at all if someone did their job right and made sure what kind of person they were hiring.

They don't really background check people for minimum wage work. Background check are usually limited to people in health, or government services. I don't think I know a single company that does background checks on basic labor workers.

 

[Fallen Soldier]

They don't really background check people for minimum wage work. Background check are usually limited to people in health, or government services. I don't think I know a single company that does background checks on basic labor workers.

I did plenty of background checks for the minimum wage jobs i did during my teen years. I always assume it’s for most types of work out there.

 

[Gergar12]

It's days like this where I am glad I am not female.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

Jesus H. Christ. How is it that in an environment where people under 18 will be working that every employee over 18 is not subject to a working with children and vulnerable person’s check and a basic police check? Like this is basic shit.

I can answer this with some authority, as I previously had a job that involved doing background checks.

Now I don't know McDonald's background check policy, but it's pretty common for companies only run criminal background checks going back 7 years, especially for lower level positions. Since his previous conviction was in 2004 it may not have come up on a standard pre-employment background check.

If a company is willing to do some additional digging they could use the National Sex Offender Public Website (https://www.nsopw.gov/) to check a prospective employee by name, but if you check for Walter Garner using the search function on the first page his sex offender record actually doesn't come up. I was able to find his record using additional search criteria, but if you were to just use a name search it doesn't pull him up, and you wouldn't know to use additional search criteria unless you may have had reason to suspect that he was a sex offender.

It's entirely possible that McDonald's (or whatever vendor does their background checks for them) did actually do a background check on Walter Garner and ended up clearing him because they did not find the record, or the record was not reported to McDonalds per the scope of the investigation.

I'm not saying that McDonalds isn't at fault here, but there are significant legal limitations on what information an employer may get back during a background check, and background checks for employment aren't nearly as comprehensive a background check that an police or intelligence agency may put together, and background check laws are only getting more strict for employers and consumer reporting agencies.

 

[Gordon_4]

I can answer this with some authority, as I previously had a job that involved doing background checks.

Now I don't know McDonald's background check policy, but it's pretty common for companies only run criminal background checks going back 7 years, especially for lower level positions. Since his previous conviction was in 2004 it may not have come up on a standard pre-employment background check.

If a company is willing to do some additional digging they could use the National Sex Offender Public Website (https://www.nsopw.gov/) to check a prospective employee by name, but if you check for Walter Garner using the search function on the first page his sex offender record actually doesn't come up. I was able to find his record using additional search criteria, but if you were to just use a name search it doesn't pull him up, and you wouldn't know to use additional search criteria unless you may have had reason to suspect that he was a sex offender.

It's entirely possible that McDonald's (or whatever vendor does their background checks for them) did actually do a background check on Walter Garner and ended up clearing him because they did not find the record, or the record was not reported to McDonalds per the scope of the investigation.

I'm not saying that McDonalds isn't at fault here, but there are significant legal limitations on what information an employer may get back during a background check, and background checks for employment aren't nearly as comprehensive a background check that an police or intelligence agency may put together, and background check laws are only getting more strict for employers and consumer reporting agencies.

Fair enough. It sounds awful but maybe this is just one giant fuck up. Although that does beg the question when given evidence of him groping an employee - underage or otherwise - there was not more digging or direct discipline.

 

[bluegate]

The guy should have met with an unfortunate deep fried accident or grill accident. Or ideally, a rope hanging accident after his first conviction in 2004.

 

[Trunkage]

I can answer this with some authority, as I previously had a job that involved doing background checks.

Now I don't know McDonald's background check policy, but it's pretty common for companies only run criminal background checks going back 7 years, especially for lower level positions. Since his previous conviction was in 2004 it may not have come up on a standard pre-employment background check.

If a company is willing to do some additional digging they could use the National Sex Offender Public Website (https://www.nsopw.gov/) to check a prospective employee by name, but if you check for Walter Garner using the search function on the first page his sex offender record actually doesn't come up. I was able to find his record using additional search criteria, but if you were to just use a name search it doesn't pull him up, and you wouldn't know to use additional search criteria unless you may have had reason to suspect that he was a sex offender.

It's entirely possible that McDonald's (or whatever vendor does their background checks for them) did actually do a background check on Walter Garner and ended up clearing him because they did not find the record, or the record was not reported to McDonalds per the scope of the investigation.

I'm not saying that McDonalds isn't at fault here, but there are significant legal limitations on what information an employer may get back during a background check, and background checks for employment aren't nearly as comprehensive a background check that an police or intelligence agency may put together, and background check laws are only getting more strict for employers and consumer reporting agencies.

What happens if he WAS flagged in the system. Is he automatically banned from getting work at McDonald's? Or limited to certain areas?

 

[BrawlMan]

That a shameful and disgusting. Those in charge knew better. I hope they all get sued big time. The girl deserves something to pay for her therapy and trauma.

 

[Avnger]

What happens if he WAS flagged in the system. Is he automatically banned from getting work at McDonald's? Or limited to certain areas?

At a bare minimum, he shouldn't be put in positions of authority over minors. I could also easily see the argument for requiring a 3rd (non-minor) employee to be present at any time he was working shifts at the same time as a minor, though this one is obviously a lot harder to do.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

What happens if he WAS flagged in the system. Is he automatically banned from getting work at McDonald's? Or limited to certain areas?

That I can't answer as I don't know anything about McDonald's internal hiring policies.

It's possible they would automatically disqualify him from employment if they determined that his sex offender record is sufficiently "work related" as he would be overseeing underage employees. It's also possible that they would look at a conviction from 2004 (and assuming that he has had no other convictions since then) they could decide that a 17 year old conviction is not reason enough to disqualify him from employment and that it would be a low risk to hire him.

Generally speaking in a lot of states if you're disqualifying someone from employment based on the results of a background check you are supposed to be able to show that the criminal record is in some way relevant to the work that they would be doing in order to cover your ass from a discrimination lawsuit.

Either way McDonalds completely fucked up the moment the location's owner and manager found out he was groping employees and didn't immediately hire him.

 

[Agema]

They don't really background check people for minimum wage work. Background check are usually limited to people in health, or government services. I don't think I know a single company that does background checks on basic labor workers.

Any employee with a position of responsibility over minors should be subject to a check - whether the minors are employees, students, etc.

Nevertheless, for the company to observe a video of the manager groping staff and not hand him a huge disciplinary sanction (honestly, just fucking fire him) is staggering negligence.