Maarthandam

Lawsuit claims chronic understaffing, pressure to work while hospitalized, and termination immediately after approved disability leave

A former general manager at a Hardee’s restaurant in Missouri has filed a lawsuit alleging systemic labor exploitation, retaliation, and wrongful termination, claiming he was forced to work 70–80 hour weeks due to chronic understaffing and was fired immediately after returning from approved medical leave, according to court filings and multiple local news reports.

The lawsuit, filed in Jackson County Circuit Court, adds to growing scrutiny of labor practices in the U.S. fast-food industry, particularly around excessive working hours, medical leave protections, and retaliation against employees who assert their rights.

Allegations of Extreme Work Hours

Macklin was expected to stay for open-to-close shifts and was expected to stay on call even after time-offs

According to the lawsuit, Robert Macklin, who served as a general manager at a Hardee’s location in the Kansas City area, was routinely required to work 70 to 80 hours per week after being promoted to the role in August 2024. The complaint alleges that the excessive workload was caused by persistent understaffing, forcing Macklin to cover shifts that would normally be filled by multiple employees.

Local station KWQC, citing the court filing, reports that Macklin frequently worked open-to-close shifts and was expected to remain on call even during scheduled time off

The lawsuit argues that these conditions were unsustainable and contributed directly to his declining health.

Hospitalization and Approved Medical Leave

On October 27, 2025, Macklin was hospitalized for severe anemia and leg pain, conditions that required immediate medical attention. Doctors ordered him not to work, and the lawsuit states that his medical leave was formally approved by management.

Also Read – How long working hours are quietly destroying lives

However, the complaint alleges that despite this approval, Macklin was repeatedly contacted by his district manager and supervisors and pressured to work while still under medical orders not to do so.

According to reporting by WSFA, the lawsuit claims Macklin was contacted multiple times during his hospitalization and recovery period and was later written up for absences that were medically excused

Termination Upon Return From Leave

The lawsuit alleges that on December 3, 2025, Robert Macklin formally notified Hardee’s management that he had been medically cleared by his doctors to return to work following his approved disability leave. According to the complaint, Macklin reported to the restaurant expecting to resume his duties as general manager, only to be terminated immediately upon arrival, without prior notice, corrective counseling, or any form of progressive discipline.

The filing asserts that Macklin had not been issued any final warnings, performance improvement plans, or disciplinary actions that would ordinarily precede termination under standard employment practices. Instead, the lawsuit claims the decision to fire him was directly tied to his medical leave, pointing to the timing of the termination as evidence that the employer acted in response to his absence rather than any documented misconduct or performance deficiency. The complaint characterizes the same-day termination as a retaliatory act, arguing that the employer waited until Macklin was medically cleared and physically present to end his employment, rather than addressing any alleged concerns through established internal procedures.

The lawsuit further contends that this sequence of events undermines any claim that the termination was routine or performance-based, asserting that the immediacy of the firing supports allegations of disability-based discrimination and retaliation under state employment law, with Hardee’s allegedly failing to engage in good-faith compliance with medical leave protections.

Reporting by KCTV5 confirms that the firing allegedly occurred the same day he attempted to resume work, a central claim in Macklin’s argument that the termination was retaliatory

Claims of Retaliation and Post-Termination Conduct

Beyond the alleged wrongful termination, the lawsuit claims that retaliatory actions continued even after Macklin’s employment ended, reinforcing his assertion that the firing was punitive rather than performance-based. According to the complaint, Hardee’s and its franchise operator actively contested Macklin’s unemployment benefits, despite his termination occurring immediately after medically approved leave and without prior disciplinary escalation.

In our opinion, Macklin’s firm began snitching on him in the pettiest way. This is the worst way you could make a hard-working employee leave.

The lawsuit further alleges that the company made false or misleading statements about Macklin’s job performance in post-termination proceedings, actions that the complaint characterizes as an effort to discredit him and limit his access to legally entitled benefits.

The complaint argues that such post-termination conduct constitutes an extension of unlawful retaliation, asserting that employer obligations under disability and labor protections do not end at termination, particularly when actions interfere with statutory benefits.

Legal Basis and Damages Sought

Before filing the lawsuit, Macklin submitted a formal discrimination complaint to the Missouri Commission on Human Rights, which reviewed the allegations and issued a right-to-sue notice, allowing the case to proceed in civil court. The lawsuit alleges violations of Missouri state disability discrimination statutes, retaliation protections related to medical leave, and wrongful termination under state employment law.

According to court documents cited by KWQC, Macklin is seeking monetary damages exceeding $25,000, along with recovery of legal costs and attorney’s fees. He has also formally requested a jury trial, signaling an intent to challenge both the termination and the alleged retaliatory conduct in open court rather than through settlement alone

Court records show that a case management conference has been scheduled for April 13, 2026, indicating that the case is moving forward procedurally and has not been dismissed or resolved at an early stage

Company’s Response

As of publication, Hardee’s and the franchise operator named in the lawsuit have not issued any public statement addressing the allegations. Court records show that no formal response or motion to dismiss has yet been filed, and the claims outlined in the complaint remain unchallenged in public filings at this stage.

Employment law experts note that cases involving termination following approved medical leave often focus on timing, documentation, and whether employers followed established disciplinary procedures. Courts typically examine whether adverse employment actions occurred soon after protected leave and whether similarly situated employees were treated differently. Such lawsuits have become increasingly visible amid broader scrutiny of labor practices in the service sector, where staffing shortages and extended work hours can place additional strain on both employees and management.