Lawsuit maps every pressure point HR teams hit when an accommodation request goes sideways
McDonald's is being sued by a former technology director who says the company punished him for asking to work around a disability.
The complaint, filed May 1, 2026 in federal court in Chicago, lays out a sequence that HR leaders will recognize as a textbook accommodation dispute - and a textbook list of the things plaintiffs' lawyers look for when one goes wrong.
Daryl Pace worked as a Director of Vendor Governance and RCOE in McDonald's Global Technology department from March 2024 until November 4, 2025. He has Charcot-Marie-Tooth Disease, a hereditary neurological condition that affects his mobility and his ability to travel, according to the filing. On May 14, 2025, he formally asked McDonald's for a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act: continued remote work and limits on travel, supported by his physician. The complaint says the role had been performed entirely remotely since he started, and that the original role description did not require in-person vendor travel.
What happened next is the centre of the lawsuit. According to the complaint, Pace's supervisor, James Green, Sr. Director of Global Technology, told McDonald's ADA team that the role was "vendor-facing" and required in-person travel. Pace alleges Green said he was "anti-ADA" and that "once employees go ADA, you can't fire them."
The filing alleges that on July 11, 2025, Green added vendor management duties to Pace's role and, together with HR, introduced a new requirement of two weeks onsite for every ten weeks of work - a condition his doctor had restricted. The complaint calls this a "bait and switch" in the interactive accommodation process.
The filing also alleges Green produced a negative written mid-year review on August 15, 2025 that contradicted a positive verbal review delivered five weeks earlier. Pace's last annual review, in March 2025, was "Exceeds Expectations."
Pace escalated to HR and the company's Workplace Investigation Team on August 16, 2025. The investigation, according to the filing, was overseen by HR Lead Lane Fraley, who had previously worked with Green at Walgreens. Pace alleges that prior relationship was never disclosed and compromised the inquiry's independence. McDonald's placed him on involuntary paid investigatory leave on August 20, 2025.
On September 19, 2025, Pace filed a complaint with the City of Chicago Commission on Human Relations. On October 14, 2025, McDonald's granted his full accommodation, including travel restrictions. Three weeks later, on November 4, 2025, the company fired him. According to the filing, Green cited alleged poor performance, refusal to meet, and a purported confidentiality breach at the termination meeting. The complaint alleges the timing forfeited Pace's 2025 bonus and unvested equity, both scheduled to pay out in 2026.
The Illinois Department of Employment Security later determined the termination was a "no-fault layoff," according to the filing - a finding the complaint says contradicts McDonald's stated reasons for the firing.
Pace also alleges he reported evidence of kickback arrangements involving vendor CapGemini and corruption in the CloudEQ procurement contracting process. He says those reports are protected disclosures under the Illinois Whistleblower Act.
For HR teams, the lawsuit is a map of pressure points: how accommodation requests are documented, whether role descriptions move after a request lands, who runs an internal investigation when the subject is a senior leader, and what the calendar around a termination looks like. Pace is asking the court to decide whether McDonald's failed each of those tests.
The allegations have not been tested in court. McDonald's has not yet filed a response, and no court has ruled on the claims.
