Subscribe to my Feed
« Will special interests abuse campaign contributions? | Home | Be a “Go-Giver”! »
Is McDonald’s abusing the legal system?
By Lauren | January 27, 2010
The attorneys at McDonald’s certainly seem to be of the “take no prisoners and damn the torpedoes” school of legal thought. The fast food giant has had Egg McMuffin all over its corporate face on two separate occasions this week. There was the employee in the Netherlands who successfully sued McDonald’s for firing her after she gave her colleague a slice of cheese on what would otherwise have been an unadorned burger. The Dutch court found that the dismissal was too severe a penalty for such a minor infraction, and awarded the employee the salary she would have received for the remaining five months of her contract (and court costs, which probably far exceeded the damage award).
Closer to home, McDonald’s is threatening to take Chicago teenager Lauren McClusky to court to prevent her from trademarking the name of her McFest benefit concert series, which has raised about $30,000 for Special Olympics Chicago to date. McDonald’s is within its legal rights; the company holds the copyright to a small army of McNames, including the prefix “Mc” itself. But that doesn’t mean McDonald’s is smart to take such an inflexible stance when dealing with a crusading young social activist. McClusky (one can only hope McDonald’s won’t try to make her change her name) has become a minor celebrity on the Internet, and WalletPop.com reports that AOL users across the nation are threatening McBoycott.
A lot of big companies go straight to battle stations when dealing with employees and customers on the theory that, if they settle one potential lawsuit, they’ll be inundated with others. That can be good legal strategy, but it’s deadly for customer relations. McDonald’s portrays itself as a warm-hearted, family-friendly company that cares about its customers and the community. And the company does a lot of good in other venues - the Ronald McDonald Houses offer a real service to families in need. Unfortunately, McDonald’s’ Legal Department doesn’t seem to have gotten the message that litigating too aggressively can destroy a company’s reputation in the court of public opinion. Maybe the lawyers at McDonald’s should all take a deep breath, calm down, and go out together for a Happy Meal.
Topics: Business Ethics, Lauren Recommends, Legal Ethics, Risk Management, Social Ethics, business communications, corporate responsibility, customer relations, ethics |
July 13th, 2010 at 3:17 pm
I happen to be an occasional, if not frequent, customer of McDonald’s, and have always enjoyed their products. I also know of their praiseworthy efforts on behalf of various charities, e.g., Ronald McDonald House, etc.
I’m truly happy that that “Mickey Dee’s” (as it’s known by the locals here) has settled its dispute with Lauren McClusky and her efforts to raise funds for the Special Olympics. She’s apparently chosen to rename her project “Nelafest” as opposed to “McFest” and McDonald’s has pledged to support her work. This is a GOOD thing.
However, I’m still a bit confused as to how McDonald’s has been able to literally take possession, legally, of the use of the prefix “Mc” for its own commercial purposes. Being of Irish descent, I have many relatives, friends and associates whose surnames begin with “Mc”, as well as “O’”, “Mac”, “Fitz”, etc. Many of my own Kerry and Cork ancestors bore my own name: Lynch, spelled as “O’Lynch (Irish: “O’Loingshigh”. I can understand how Ronald McDonald’s organization might be vexed by Ms. McClusky’s initial desire to use “McFest” as a title for her upcoming concert/s. I have to admit it does seem as appropriate, if no more so, than “Nelafest”. But that’s her business. I think what she seeks to do is highly comendable, and I’ll support her work myself, as well as I can. I appreciate the settlement between the two sides, but I would strongly urge McDonald’s to reconsiderits campaign to “own” a small but ethnically intense and sensitive piece of language itself, in order to eliminate any real or perceived cometition. Maybe McDonald’s might do well to investigate changing its own corporate name, just for the sake of “loyalty”, to “McKROC”? (I think not…..)