Leonard v. McCormick & Company, Inc.
A workplace that ran on two sets of rules. Three employees who complained. One HR manager with a secret to bury.
Hall & Lampros, LLP represents Markeil Leonard, Eugene Pinckney, and Shakirah Daniels — three former employees of McCormick’s Atlanta manufacturing facility who, according to a complaint filed in federal court, were fired on a pretext of “time theft” after they complained about a culture of sexual favoritism between supervisors and the subordinates they controlled. These are the lawsuit allegations only, which McCormick denies.
A McCormick facility that allegedly ran on two sets of rules
In brief: Leonard v. McCormick & Company, Inc. (Case No. 1:26-cv-03811-MLB-JSA) is a federal lawsuit alleging that McCormick’s Atlanta manufacturing facility was permeated by sexual favoritism between supervisors and their subordinates, and that the facility’s HR manager — who allegedly carried on such a relationship herself — retaliated against three employees who complained, engineering their terminations on a pretext of “time theft” to protect herself. The claims arise under Title VII and Georgia law.
According to the complaint, McCormick’s Atlanta facility operated under two sets of rules: one for employees in sexual relationships with their supervisors, and another for everyone else. The lawsuit alleges that, beginning at least as early as 2022, supervisors and managers conditioned the terms and conditions of employment on sexual relationships with the subordinates they supervised — and carried those relationships on openly, on company premises, during work hours, and on company-issued devices.
The complaint alleges that affair partners received materially better treatment — the ability to leave workstations without clocking out, freedom from discipline for substandard work, and, in at least one instance, a promotion — while everyone else absorbed the cost in extra work and stricter accountability. Central to the lawsuit is the allegation that the facility’s human resources manager, defendant Rashida Williams — the person responsible for investigating complaints of sexual misconduct — was allegedly engaged in a sexual relationship with an hourly subordinate herself.
According to the complaint, when plaintiffs Markeil Leonard and Eugene Pinckney complained about a supervisor’s sexual favoritism, Williams did not investigate their complaints — she allegedly told her affair partner she intended to “get rid of” Leonard and Daniels before they could file a formal complaint, in order to protect her marriage and keep her own conduct from surfacing. The lawsuit alleges she found her pretext in a routine payroll dispute, and that all three plaintiffs — Leonard, Pinckney, and Shakirah Daniels — were fired on February 27, 2025 for “time theft.” The complaint alleges one of them lost her home as a result.
About these allegations. The summary below describes the claims set out in the plaintiffs’ complaint, a public court filing. These allegations have not been proven, and neither McCormick & Company, Inc. nor Rashida Williams has been found liable by any court. A complaint reflects one party’s account; the defendants are entitled to respond and to contest every claim. References to non-parties describe allegations in the filing and are not findings of fact.
The account set out in the filing
01. A two-tiered workplace
The complaint alleges that, from at least 2022, supervisors and managers at McCormick’s Atlanta facility conditioned better terms and conditions of employment on sexual relationships with subordinates — conducted openly, on company premises and devices. Affair partners allegedly enjoyed leniency and advancement while other employees absorbed extra work and stricter accountability.
02. An HR manager with her own conflict
According to the complaint, HR manager Rashida Williams — the person responsible for enforcing McCormick’s anti-harassment policies and investigating complaints — was herself engaged in a sexual relationship with an hourly subordinate, conducted at the facility during work hours, while she was married. The lawsuit alleges the subordinate was promoted and given a raise, at least in part through Williams’s efforts.
03. The complaints
The complaint alleges that in early 2025, Pinckney reported a supervisor’s sexual relationship with a subordinate and the preferential treatment it produced, and that Leonard complained to a group of supervisors about the facility-wide pattern of sex-based favoritism. Both complaints, the lawsuit alleges, reached Williams — and implicated the very culture in which she was allegedly participating.
04. A stated intent to retaliate
Rather than investigate, the complaint alleges, Williams assessed her own exposure and told her affair partner she needed to “get rid of” Leonard and Daniels before they could file a formal complaint — to protect her marriage. According to the lawsuit, the affair partner relayed this to Leonard and other coworkers, and Williams then waited for a pretext.
05. The “show-up pay” pretext
On Saturday, February 15, 2025, the complaint alleges, Leonard and Daniels reported to work as directed but were sent home, and Pinckney — a crew leader with authority to make manual timecard entries — entered time reflecting their entitlement under McCormick’s written “show-up pay” policy, adding nothing for himself. The lawsuit alleges Williams was aware of the entries within minutes.
06. A sham investigation and three terminations
The complaint alleges the very supervisor the plaintiffs had accused initiated a “time theft” investigation against his accusers, that Williams conducted it despite her conflict, denied Pinckney his right to have his manager present, and pressed him to lie. It alleges a senior HR director approved all three terminations on February 27, 2025 by relying on Williams’s account without independent inquiry — a “cat’s paw” theory of liability.
07. The alleged cover-up
According to the complaint, when a corporate HR executive later traveled from Maryland to investigate an anonymous ethics-hotline complaint about Williams, Williams denied the relationship and gave a false explanation for visiting the subordinate’s home some thirty miles away. The lawsuit alleges her affair partner also lied, that their accounts were coordinated, and that a witness was later approached in an effort to keep her quiet.
08. A second investigation and the aftermath
The complaint alleges McCormick later conducted a second, more thorough investigation that confirmed the plaintiffs’ allegations, and that — upon information and belief — Williams no longer works for McCormick. The lawsuit alleges that despite this, McCormick has not reinstated any of the three plaintiffs, one of whom was rendered homeless following her termination.
Eight counts under Title VII and Georgia law
The complaint asserts five federal claims under Title VII and three claims under Georgia law. The plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages, back and front pay, reinstatement or front pay, and attorneys’ fees and costs.
Count I — Hostile Work Environment — Sexual Harassment
All Plaintiffs v. McCormick
Alleges the Atlanta facility was so permeated with sex-based favoritism — conditioning tangible benefits on sexual relationships, openly and facility-wide — that it altered the terms and conditions of employment for all employees, and that McCormick knew or should have known and failed to act.
Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2
Count II — Sex Discrimination — Disparate Treatment
Plaintiff Daniels v. McCormick
Alleges Daniels, a female non-supervisory employee, was held to materially stricter workplace standards than similarly situated male coworkers — who allegedly took unauthorized breaks and left without clocking out without discipline — because of her sex.
Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1)
Count III — Retaliation
Plaintiffs Leonard & Pinckney v. McCormick
Alleges Leonard and Pinckney engaged in protected activity by complaining about quid pro quo sexual favoritism, and that McCormick retaliated by terminating them on a pretext of “time theft” shortly after — through a biased investigation the company adopted without independent inquiry.
Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a)
Count IV — Anticipatory Retaliation
All Plaintiffs v. McCormick
Alleges Williams moved to terminate the plaintiffs preemptively — to prevent, discourage, or interfere with protected complaints she anticipated they would make — after stating her intent to “get rid of” Leonard and Daniels before any formal complaint could be filed.
Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a)
Count V — Retaliation by Association
Plaintiffs Pinckney & Daniels v. McCormick
Alleges Daniels and Pinckney were terminated because of their close association with Leonard and the complaints he raised — that their firings were the intended means of neutralizing a perceived risk rather than the product of any independent assessment of their conduct.
Title VII; Thompson v. N. Am. Stainless, 562 U.S. 170
Count VI — Fraud
All Plaintiffs v. Williams & McCormick
Alleges Williams made material false representations and omissions to McCormick’s HR decision-makers — concealing her relationship, conflict of interest, and retaliatory motive — to cause the plaintiffs’ wrongful terminations and to keep them from being reinstated.
Georgia common law; O.C.G.A. § 51-6-1
Count VII — Fraudulent Concealment
All Plaintiffs v. Williams & McCormick
Pleaded in the alternative and cumulatively with Count VI, alleges Williams suppressed material facts she had an obligation to disclose — including her disqualifying conflict — from corporate investigators, causing the plaintiffs’ terminations and prolonged unemployment.
Georgia common law; O.C.G.A. § 23-2-53
Count VIII — Negligent Supervision & Retention
All Plaintiffs v. McCormick
Alleges McCormick knew or should have known of the pervasive misconduct at the facility and negligently retained Williams and a supervisor in positions of authority over the employees complaining about them, enabling the foreseeable harm that followed.
Georgia common law
Frequently asked questions
What is Leonard v. McCormick about? ▾
It is a federal lawsuit (Case No. 1:26-cv-03811-MLB-JSA) filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on behalf of three former employees of McCormick & Company’s Atlanta manufacturing facility — Markeil Leonard, Eugene Pinckney, and Shakirah Daniels. The complaint alleges the facility ran on a culture of sexual favoritism between supervisors and subordinates, and that the facility’s HR manager retaliated against the three plaintiffs after they complained — engineering their terminations on a pretext of “time theft.” The claims arise under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Georgia law.
What is Title VII of the Civil Rights Act? ▾
Title VII is a federal civil-rights law that prohibits employers from discriminating against employees because of sex, among other protected characteristics. It forbids sexual harassment and a hostile work environment, and it makes it unlawful for an employer to retaliate against workers who oppose or complain about discrimination. Learn more about sexual harassment in the workplace.
What is quid pro quo sexual harassment or sexual favoritism? ▾
Quid pro quo sexual harassment occurs when employment benefits — such as promotions, pay, or lenient treatment — are conditioned on submitting to a sexual relationship. When this becomes widespread, courts have recognized that pervasive sexual favoritism can create a hostile work environment for all employees, communicating that sexual conduct is the path to advancement. The complaint alleges that this is what occurred at McCormick’s Atlanta facility.
What is workplace retaliation under Title VII? ▾
Retaliation occurs when an employer takes an adverse action — such as termination — against an employee because that employee complained about or opposed unlawful discrimination or harassment. Title VII protects employees from retaliation for engaging in this kind of protected activity. The complaint alleges the plaintiffs were fired because they complained about sexual favoritism at the facility. Learn more about retaliation.
What is the “cat’s paw” theory of liability? ▾
Under the “cat’s paw” theory, an employer can be held liable when a biased supervisor, acting with an unlawful motive, influences or manipulates an unwitting decision-maker into taking an adverse action against an employee. The complaint alleges that McCormick’s senior HR director approved the terminations by relying on the HR manager’s biased investigation without independent inquiry.
Have these allegations been proven? ▾
No. The statements on this page summarize allegations contained in the plaintiffs’ complaint, a public court filing reflecting one side’s account. The allegations have not been proven in court, and neither McCormick & Company nor Rashida Williams has been found liable. The defendants are entitled to respond to and contest the claims. The case is active and ongoing.
Who represents the plaintiffs? ▾
Markeil Leonard, Eugene Pinckney, and Shakirah Daniels are represented by Adam T. Mills and Christopher B. Hall of Hall & Lampros, LLP, an Atlanta-based firm that represents employees in sexual harassment, discrimination, and retaliation cases throughout Georgia.
I experienced sexual harassment or retaliation at work. What should I do? ▾
Employees who believe they have faced sexual harassment, a hostile work environment, or retaliation often have strict deadlines to act — including filing a charge with the EEOC before suing. If you would like to understand your options, you can contact Hall & Lampros, LLP for a confidential consultation. Contacting the firm does not create an attorney-client relationship, and every situation is different.
Does it cost anything to talk to Hall & Lampros? ▾
The firm offers a free, confidential case evaluation. You can reach Hall & Lampros at (404) 876-8100 or through the contact form on the firm’s website.
Hall & Lampros, LLP
Hall & Lampros, LLP is an Atlanta-based plaintiffs’ firm that stands up for employees in sexual harassment, discrimination, retaliation, and other employment and civil-rights matters throughout Georgia. Our attorneys have decades of combined experience holding employers accountable — and the resources to take on institutions and see a case through.
Sexual Harassment Lawyer · Retaliation · EEOC Cases · Discrimination · Employment Law
Counsel for the plaintiffs
Adam T. Mills
Attorney Mills represents employees in sexual harassment, discrimination, and retaliation matters, advocating for workers’ rights under Title VII and Georgia law. adam@hallandlampros.com
Christopher B. Hall
A recognized civil-rights and employment litigator, Attorney Hall represents employees in discrimination, harassment, and retaliation cases across Georgia and the Southeast. chall@hallandlampros.com
Were You Harassed or Retaliated Against at Work?
If you have faced sexual harassment, a hostile work environment, sex discrimination, or retaliation for complaining, Hall & Lampros, LLP can help you understand your rights. Consultations are free and confidential.
Request a Free Case Evaluation · (404) 876-8100
Contacting the firm does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not send confidential or time-sensitive information through the website.
Hall & Lampros, LLP
300 Galleria Parkway, Suite 300
Atlanta, GA 30339
(404) 876-8100 · Fax (404) 876-3477
Learn More: Sexual Harassment · Retaliation · Active Cases · Contact
Attorney Advertising. This page has been prepared by Hall & Lampros, LLP for informational and advertising purposes in connection with Markeil Leonard, Eugene Pinckney & Shakirah Daniels v. McCormick & Company, Inc. and Rashida Williams, Case No. 1:26-cv-03811-MLB-JSA (N.D. Ga.). It summarizes allegations contained in a publicly filed complaint. Those allegations are unproven, and neither McCormick & Company, Inc. nor Rashida Williams has been found liable by any court. References to individuals who are not parties describe allegations in the complaint and are not findings of fact. The information on this page does not constitute legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Hall & Lampros, LLP is responsible for the content of this advertisement. Adam T. Mills, Ga. Bar No. 123930. Christopher B. Hall, Ga. Bar No. 318380. Hall & Lampros, LLP, 300 Galleria Parkway, Suite 300, Atlanta, Georgia 30339. (404) 876-8100.
© 2026 Hall & Lampros, LLP. All rights reserved. | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
ES