McDonald's Corporation
43 distinct federal cases coded as employment matters from public court records (1997–2025)
12 trusted published court opinions across 10 distinct cases · 3 docket-only cases without a recorded end date
What public court records show
In public federal court records, McDonald's Corporation is named as a party in 43 federal cases coded as employment matters between 1997 and 2025.
Of the 11 trusted published opinions analyzed, the most common outcomes were: 6 ended in a ruling for the employer, 2 ended in a ruling for the worker, 2 had a mixed result, and 1 was dismissed.
1 further opinion is listed below but left out of these outcome figures, because the employer brought the case or was not a party to it.
Plaintiffs won 2 of 11 adjudicated opinions (18%).
Across 12 trusted published opinions analyzed, recorded claim types include Wrongful Termination, Discrimination, and Harassment.
The analyzed published opinions with a recorded state span 8 states, most often in NM.
These figures summarize publicly available U.S. federal court records only. Most workplace disputes are resolved privately and never appear in litigation. A case outcome reflects many factors and is not a finding that any employer violated the law.
Written decisions across 10 distinct cases.
2 of 11 adjudicated opinions ended in a plaintiff win.
Does not imply wrongdoing — many cases are dismissed or resolved without findings of liability.
Jurisdictions represented in the analyzed opinions.
About this employer
McDonald's Corporation appears in 12 trusted published federal employment opinions. Recent written decisions on record:
Peaster v. McDonald's Corporation (2023) — Mixed Result. A McDonald's employee filed a lawsuit claiming discrimination, retaliation, and a hostile work environment. The employee also claimed the company intentionally caused emotional distress. McDonald's asked the court to dismiss all claims before trial. Read the ruling.
Ries v. McDonald's USA, LLC (2021) — Defendant Win. Four former McDonald's employees filed a lawsuit claiming they experienced sexual harassment at their workplace. They sued McDonald's USA, the corporation, arguing the company was responsible for the harassment that occurred at a franchised location. Read the ruling.
Aleman v. McDonald's Corporation (2021) — Dismissed. An employee filed a lawsuit against McDonald's Corporation claiming harassment, discrimination, and retaliation that made working conditions so intolerable they had to quit. The employee also claimed intentional emotional distress and constructive discharge (being forced to resign). Read the ruling.
Across 12 trusted published opinions analyzed, recorded claim types include Wrongful Termination (7 of 12), Discrimination (6 of 12), Harassment (3 of 12). Browse the linked claim hubs for other published opinions involving these claim types. Wrongful Termination, Discrimination and Harassment.
Published opinions span New Mexico (2), Michigan (2), Illinois (2), California (1). New Mexico is an EEOC deferral state, which extends the federal Title VII / ADA / ADEA filing deadline from 180 to 300 days. Browse state-specific employment rulings for jurisdictional patterns. New Mexico rulings, Michigan rulings, Illinois rulings and California rulings.
Opinion Outcomes
1 listed opinion is not counted here: the employer brought the case, or was not a party to an appeal against an agency, so the recorded outcome is not a result for or against a worker.
Opinion Stages
11 analyzed opinions have a classified procedural stage.
Of the 4 summary-judgment opinions, 3 ended the case in McDonald's Corporation’s favor and 1 let the worker’s claims continue.
What do these stages mean?
- Appeal
- A higher court reviewing an earlier decision. Many published opinions come from this stage, after a lot has already happened in the case.
- Summary judgment
- A ruling where the judge decides the case — or part of it — without a trial, because one side argues the key facts are not in dispute. For workers, getting past this step is often the biggest hurdle.
- Motion to dismiss
- An early request — usually by the employer — to throw the case out before any evidence is gathered.
Published federal-court opinions only — most workplace disputes are resolved privately. This is not anyone’s odds, and not a finding that any employer violated the law.
Facing something similar? Check your rights →
Claim Types
What these numbers mean
A case is one lawsuit, identified by its court and docket number. The docket is the running court record for that same case — it is not an extra case.
A published opinion or ruling is a written court decision. One case can produce several opinions, so opinion counts and case counts answer different questions. Only trusted, reportable opinions are used in the outcome statistics on this page.
Docket entries are the individual filings inside a case — motions, orders, scheduling notices. We read them to confirm a case is real and to see where it got to, but an entry is never counted as a case or as an outcome. A single case can generate hundreds of entries.
Far fewer opinions than cases is normal. Many employment cases settle privately or close without a published opinion. No opinion here does not mean the worker lost; it means this public record does not show a reportable result.
Everything on this page comes from public federal court records. Where we are not confident a record is accurate, we leave it out rather than guess.
Federal court cases
public court recordsOne row per court and docket; written opinions stay grouped inside their case. List captions may abbreviate names; public records and case details can identify the parties.
Other employers with published opinions
Browse trusted published opinions involving other employers.
Data sourced from public federal court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes extracted using AI analysis. This information is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The presence of an employer on this page does not imply wrongdoing — many cases are dismissed or resolved without findings of liability.