Close Menu
Legal MagLegal Mag
  • Home
  • Legal News
  • Intellectual Property
  • Litigation
  • Regulation
  • Technology
  • More
    • Firms
    • Law Practice
    • Trending
    • Press Release
What's On

Apple warns ruling in App Store case may cost ‘substantial sums annually’

May 8, 2025

Microsoft scores win in FTC challenge to company’s Activision Blizzard acquisition

May 7, 2025

Spotify updating app for US users in wake of Apple case ruling

May 2, 2025

Camping World CEO Marcus Lemonis closes North Carolina store amid flag dispute

April 26, 2025

Court wins lead to wins for US oil and gas energy infrastructure

April 23, 2025
Facebook X (Twitter) Instagram
Facebook X (Twitter) Instagram
Legal MagLegal Mag
Newsletter
  • Home
  • Legal News
  • Intellectual Property
  • Litigation
  • Regulation
  • Technology
  • More
    • Firms
    • Law Practice
    • Trending
    • Press Release
Legal MagLegal Mag
Home » State High Court: McDonald’s Franchise Not Vicariously Liable for Employee’s Racist Comments to Customer
Litigation

State High Court: McDonald’s Franchise Not Vicariously Liable for Employee’s Racist Comments to Customer

News RoomBy News RoomApril 20, 20241 Min Read
Facebook Twitter Pinterest LinkedIn Tumblr Email
Share
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Pinterest WhatsApp Email

The Maine Supreme Judicial Court unanimously agreed Thursday that the management company of a Portland McDonald’s franchise is not vicariously liable under the state’s Human Rights Act after one of its employees displayed discriminatory behavior toward a customer.

Tiffany Vargas and Erika Acevedo challenged a Cumberland County Superior Court trial judgment in favor of the McDonald’s franchisee, Riverbend Management, which was found not liable for the conduct of its employee, Andrew Mosely, who angrily cursed at and referred to Vargas and her passenger with an offensive racial slur in August 2020. Vargas interacted with Mosely at the drive-thru window before he went outside to deliver another customer’s order. When he was walking back to the restaurant, the second interaction between Vargas and Mosley occurred, ensuing the slew of foul language, according to the court’s opinion.

Share. Facebook Twitter Pinterest LinkedIn Tumblr Email
Previous ArticleTrump Defense Seeks to Limit Evidence of Civil Fraud, Bad Faith Litigation at Criminal Trial
Next Article Ohio Appellate Court: Embryos Aren’t Marital Property Subject to Division in Divorce

Related Posts

Miami Judge Threatened: Perpetrator Gets 20 Years in Prison

August 23, 2024

Lawsuit Says NYS Assembly Refuses To Certify Ex-Legislative Director’s $100K Harassment Judgment

August 23, 2024

Judge Grants Sanctions Request Against IT Consulting Company Following ‘Egregious’ Document Production Behavior

August 23, 2024
Latest Articles

Microsoft scores win in FTC challenge to company’s Activision Blizzard acquisition

May 7, 20250 Views

Spotify updating app for US users in wake of Apple case ruling

May 2, 20256 Views

Camping World CEO Marcus Lemonis closes North Carolina store amid flag dispute

April 26, 20252 Views

Court wins lead to wins for US oil and gas energy infrastructure

April 23, 20253 Views
Stay In Touch
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Pinterest
  • Instagram
  • YouTube
  • Vimeo
Don't Miss

The 2024 Am Law 100: Ranked by Gross Revenue

By News RoomApril 16, 2024

For the full 2024 Am Law 100 report, click here. For more ways to analyze the…

Defending Claims Where Extreme Weather Is to Blame: Our Changing Climate’s Impact on Civil Litigation

July 18, 2024

The 2024 A-List: Top 20 Firms

August 6, 2024
© 2025 Legal Mag. All Rights Reserved.
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of use
  • Advertise
  • Contact

Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.