Dover, Delaware (AP) —A Delaware judge claims that former McDonald’s CEO Stephen Easterbrook has lied about sexual relations with employees and is trying to regain millions. Rejected the request to limit the initial information sharing in. Of the severance pay dollars he received in the separation agreement.
On Monday, Deputy Prime Minister Joseph Slights Jr. also requested various documents from McDonald’s to prove that McDonald’s engaged in improper conduct and violated trustee liability by lying. I ordered Easter Brook to provide an answer.
McDonald’s deported Easter Brook in November 2019 because of improper relationships with employees. The company filed a lawsuit last year seeking to recover the multi-million dollar compensation paid to him as part of a separation contract, after which he concealed sexual relations with at least three other employees. He claimed to have learned that he had destroyed the evidence.
“Today’s ruling allows us to finally proceed with the proceedings against Steve Easterbrook and gather the evidence needed to hold McDonald’s expectations and values and take responsibility for his actions. “We will,” the company said in a prepared statement.
An Easterbrook lawyer who claimed that McDonald’s was trying to harass and embarrass him simply by requesting information did not immediately respond to the email asking for comment.
Last month, Slights, who denied Easter Brook’s allegations to dismiss the proceedings, said he saw nothing suggesting that McDonald’s was acting maliciously.
“I sympathize with the fact that the findings here require personally sensitive information, but the requested information is McDonald’s claim here, that is, a personally confidential claim in itself. There is no doubt that it is substantially related to, “said the judge.
Easter Brook, in opposition to the company’s request for information, claimed that they were disproportionate and infringed on the privacy rights of third parties. His lawyer relied on McDonald’s denying sexual relations with other employees last month when McDonald’s signed a separation contract and agreed to dismiss him “for no reason” instead of dismissing him. I have petitioned to limit the first discovery to the question of whether.
Easterbrook lawyer Sean Naunton suggested on Monday that the first findings would indicate that McDonald’s “did or chose not to know about Mr. Easterbrook’s banned relationship.” He said the case would essentially end if the court agreed. If not, the attorney can move on to additional information exchange.
“The discovery was that McDonald’s knew that Easter Brook had banned relationships with McDonald’s employees, but believed that it would be in McDonald’s best interests to avoid investigations to substantiate it. I believe it will show, “Nanton said.
McDonald’s lawyer Jonathan Clavis said Easterbrook’s concerns about the privacy of others were unfounded given the confidentiality mandated in the case.
Kravis argued that Easter Brook was not trying to prevent the information from being released to the public, but to retain information about the extent of his illegal activity from the company itself.
“What he really says is that McDonald’s doesn’t want to be known about all the employees who had inappropriate sexual relationships when he was CEO,” Kravis said.
McDonald’s lawyer asked Slight to force him to answer questions about his sexual relationship with his employees in response to Easter Brook’s refusal to request information. , And his alleged approval of stock incentives for employees with whom he had a sexual relationship.
Slights agreed that the privacy interests of Easterbrook and third-party employees are well protected by confidentiality and instructed Easterbrook to meet most of the company’s demands. The only exception is whether he acknowledged or rejected any relationship other than the one that led to his expulsion when he was interviewed by a company investigator. Slights said Easterbrook said he didn’t have enough information to admit or deny what he said to the investigators.
“In other words, he seems to say he can’t remember,” Slights said. “Of course, it can certainly be tested in testimony and may turn out to be unreliable, but for now, the parties remember that he swore by an oath he didn’t remember. Cannot be enforced by court order. “