Photo: Roadsidepictures, Flickr
According to a suit filed in Cook County Circuit Court on Wednesday, Sarah Theines claims the incident occurred when she pulled up to the drive-thru of a McDonald's in Chicago's West Side to order a cheeseburger at 3:50 a.m. one morning last December.
The suit alleges an employee told her in "an aggressive and unfriendly tone" that she couldn't order the burger -- only the breakfast menu was available.
Theines claims the employee then denied her a ham, egg and cheese bagel and "yelled at her that ham cannot be included with any of the bagel sandwiches," the paper reported.
She would have to order bacon.
After she placed her order and pulled up to the drive-thru window, Theines alleges the employee screamed at her again and spit in her face.
Franchise operator Ron Lofton said he was aware of the suit but had not been served a copy, the Tribune reported.
"As always, we investigate claims to gather the facts and take action as appropriate," he said in a statement. "At this time, these are just allegations."
Theines said she filed a police report the next day, claiming she suffered "injury, embarrassment and humiliation," the paper reported. She is seeking unspecified monetary damages.

Live from Microsoft's New Generation Xbox event!
Xbox Reveal liveblog on Joystiq
Dozens Killed in Oklahoma Tornado; Death Toll to Rise
Xbox One architecture panel liveblog!
H&M's Plus-Size Model Jennie Runk Says She Chose To Gain Weight
Okla. Sheriff's Deputy Finds Dog Guarding Body Buried Under Destroyed Home
South American 'Crazy' Ants Are a Threat in Southern US
Watch: Kansas Meteorologist Seeks Shelter From Tornado
Selena Gomez Leaving Justin Bieber's House: Booty Call Rumors Swirl









12-12-2010 @8:46PM BOBBB said... she suffered "injury, embarrassment and humiliation," That is my defination of eating at McDonald's period.
Reply
12-12-2010 @10:28PM Chris C. said... HA HA HA LOL So TRUE!!!
12-12-2010 @8:39PM U Got 2 B Kidding Me said... Suffering injury from "SPIT"???? What the??? I don't believe a word of any of it. Embarrassment and humiliation??? Why?? Who was around to witness? Anger maybe, "IF" it did happen, but embarrassment? I'm not buying any of this. Just another piece of crap, too lazy to get out and work, that wants to sue to get a nice sum of money. At that hour, they were probably out partying, drunk, and being in Chicago, the window open, it was probably rain or snow and they thought it was spit. Someone would have to be a pretty good spitter to get into a car from inside their building!!!
Reply
12-13-2010 @6:21AM ConnieJ said... I have no opinion on whether or not this incident actually happened. HOWEVER; If the customer had been spit upon, she should have immediately called the police and filed a report. Human spit can be very dangerous, causing the spread of many communicable diseases, including AIDS. If a police officer gets spit upon, he has to undergo testing and preventive care, and the 'spitter' is charged with assault. This is NOT a minor incident.
12-13-2010 @12:09PM BOBBB said... Just how embarassing can it be if you get spit on at the "drive through window" at a SmacD's?
Reply
12-12-2010 @9:00PM jhmntz said... so why is this lady suing McDonald's? if the incident did actually occur, they should have that on camera, since all mc'ds have cameras installed (i used to work for them and know that it is a requirement by corporate). McDonald's should not be sued; rather, the employee himself. besides, just another meaningless lawsuit so someone can get rich. then people wonder why things cost so much. do you really thing the company will eat the losses if they are found liable-no. they put the prices up a few cents and recover the loss. the lawsuit now costs everyone else.
Reply
12-12-2010 @9:19PM Craig R said... As an employee, on-duty at one of thier franchises, the clerk is acting as an agent of the corporastion.
That makes the company liable.
Also, if they had video that contradicted this suit, the franchise owner would have said so right away.
12-12-2010 @9:28PM PJ said... I agree. Why is she suing McDonalds? She should have had this person arrested and sued her. Mickey D's had nothing to do with it and doesn't allow that behavior. It's a personal issue and should be treated as such between the 2 people involved.
12-12-2010 @10:26PM kbrown2225 said... It is like Craig said, it is the law of agency. The employee did the alleged act while in the pursuit of her duties as a McDonald's employee therefore she represents McDonald's in this scenario and McDonalds is responsible for the consequences of her actions. Simple agency law.
12-13-2010 @12:30AM Joe said... Hello! Do you enjoy being spit on? What about the HEALTH risks? If the employee has HIV, it can be transmitted by spitting on someone if the spit gets in the eyes or nasal passages! To be honest, if I'd been spit on by a McDonald's employee, the employee would've been dragged though the window and gotten a good old-fashioned A**-whipping!
12-12-2010 @9:14PM Mark said... Who cares Latesha spit on Consnsha, its mostly they planned it all and want to split the mo money!!!
Reply
12-12-2010 @9:12PM SUE said... I'm guessing there is more to this story that the lady is not telling.
Reply
12-12-2010 @9:15PM tench said... Several years ago, Jesse Jackson admitted that when he was a teenager and worked at a hamburger joint, he would spit on the burger if he knew it was going to be served to a white customer. When this factoid was released, my friends and I stopped going to hamburger joints; knowing that kids who heard this story would copy Jackson's behavior and do the same. Today, we just sue the offender, while editting out any politically incorrect stories that might accompany the offense.
Reply
12-12-2010 @9:18PM Willie said... If the 'victim' was spit upon and she was smart enough to collect & save the evidence, then she's got a case she'll win.
Reply
12-13-2010 @1:43AM Debi said... Although it didn't say it in this article, there is also a witness -- the woman was in a cab at the time. Regardless, all McDonald's (at least in Chicago) have cameras at the drive-thru, so there will be evidence either way. Also, legally, the worker is representing the company while working and wearing the uniform -- which technically means McDonald's can be held responsible for his actions while at work. Whether the case ever gets to court, or whether she can win, remains to be seen.
12-12-2010 @10:07PM Blackjkdealer said... What a bunch of crap. Seems to me that someone is just looking to get a free happy meal
Reply
12-12-2010 @10:17PM dligrad71 said... This should be easily verifiable as most , if not all Mickey D's ahve security cameras covering the drive through windows and counters....Im thinking someone is simply looking for a easy big bucks setttlement...hopefully Mickey D's wont just roll over and pay her......
Reply
12-12-2010 @10:20PM cliff said... let the video speak
Reply
12-12-2010 @10:26PM Gram2Haliae said... I would love to see if she wins anything in this case. Although knowing todays screwed up justice system she probably will walk away with a million plus for something that did not happen. What people will not come up with today to try and get money from other people. Dang.
Reply
12-12-2010 @10:48PM Charlie said... McDonals is an east touch for large pay outs, ( Remeber the frighen 3.5 million coffee burn by the AH women who took the lid off and placed it between her legs and drove off??) Hope there is some kind of video to prove this happen, then the cleck is McDonalds while she is working, and if she did then pay the customer!!! If it's a scam, then send the driver to jail for a long time to make a point about stealing !!
Reply