Nearly a decade of top ratings, then a swift performance plan she calls a pretext
A former marketing director has alleged McDonald's fired her because of her Muslim faith, not her performance.
According to a complaint filed August 4, 2026, in the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, the woman worked at McDonald's for nearly ten years and rose to Director–Field Marketing Officer. The filing states she was promoted roughly every two years, rated "Significant" or "Excellent," designated "High Potential" talent, and ranked among the country's top field marketers on sales and guest counts.
The complaint alleges her standing deteriorated after October 7, 2023, as boycotts and public controversy affected McDonald's operations in the Middle East. During that period, according to the filing, a senior company leader told an all-employee town hall that decreased sales were tied to "Muslim countries boycotting McDonald's," or words to that effect. The complaint says she raised concerns that the phrase was an inappropriate generalization.
Much of the case concerns a newly appointed supervisor. The complaint alleges that a vice president took over her field office around March 2024 and, after spending approximately 90 minutes meeting with her one-on-one during his first five to six weeks, placed her on a Performance Improvement Plan on May 15, 2024. Before that, the filing states, she had received no negative review, no written discipline, and no warning that her job was at risk.
The complaint alleges the plan was "designed to generate a record that McDonald's could use to justify a decision that had already been made." According to the filing, McDonald's terminated her employment on July 18, 2024, approximately eight weeks later. The complaint alleges the company's performance-based explanation was "false and pretextual" and that her religion was a motivating factor in both the plan and the termination.
The filing also alleges McDonald's continued to rely on her as a public representative during the plan. It states that on June 12, 2024, the company had her speak as a subject-matter expert at an industry summit with approximately 1,600 attendees.
On religious observance, the complaint alleges she was expected to attend team meals during Ramadan while fasting, and that her supervisor made comments mocking her practices. According to the filing, he asked her to repeat the word "ramadan" four times while pretending he could not hear, and added "on the rocks" when she ordered water for religious reasons. The complaint also alleges she was required to work on Eid al-Adha on June 17, 2024, while a non-Muslim colleague was permitted flexibility for a personal celebration.
The complaint further alleges the supervisor excluded her from presenting a marketing proposal she had developed, despite what the filing describes as a 100% approval rate on votes she personally presented. According to the complaint, the proposal was rejected after the supervisor presented it himself - the only rejected marketing vote of her tenure. The filing states she reported his conduct to senior management and was terminated shortly afterward.
The complaint alleges substantial losses, including forfeited equity compensation the filing estimates at approximately $500,000, a lost eight-week sabbatical tied to her approaching ten-year anniversary, and significant health effects. It alleges her role was not eliminated - that within days or weeks, a non-Muslim man was moved into the field office to assume her responsibilities.
The complaint brings a claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The filing states she filed a charge with the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission before bringing the lawsuit.
For HR professionals, the allegations touch familiar pressure points: a sudden reversal in performance assessment without a documented record, a performance plan opened by a manager with limited exposure to the employee, questions around consistent handling of religious observance, and a prompt replacement from outside the protected class.
None of the allegations have been tested in court, and no judge has ruled.
