While McDonald's "has the rightidea," the judge wrote in her order, "it is not being put intopractice exactly as McDonald's envisioned, thus endangering publichealth."

In one of the first rulings to order a business toimprove its COVID-19 pandemic protections, a Chicago judge hasordered McDonald's to better enforce social distancing and maskwearing at its stores, concluding the risks to the community are"severe" and potentially a "matter of life or death" for itsemployees.

Wednesday's ruling, by Cook County CircuitCourt Judge Eve Reilly, found that McDonald's had supplied enoughface coverings, hand sanitizer and gloves, monitored infectionsamong workers and educated employees on how the COVID-19 pandemicspreads. However, she wrote, McDonald's was not properly trainingits employees on two key elements of its policies: socialdistancing and correct wearing of masks. And that contradictedIllinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker's executive order on May 29 regardingCOVID-19 protections.

While McDonald's "has the right idea," the judge wrote in herorder, which partly granted an emergency motion for preliminaryinjunction, "it is not being put into practice exactly asMcDonald's envisioned, thus endangering public health."

"The potential risk of harm to these plaintiffs and thecommunity at large is severe," she wrote. "It may very well be amatter of life or death to individuals who come in contact withthese restaurants or employees of these restaurants on a regular,or even semi-regular basis, during the COVID-19 pandemic. And whilethere are many individuals who believe the pandemic is no longer athreat, science and medical research indicate otherwise. There is along road to recovery for all of us."

The ruling comes after four days of testimony that included BillGarrett, the senior vice president of operations at McDonald's, andtwo days after another judge in California granted a temporaryrestraining order against a McDonald's franchise in a case in whichemployees at a store were told to wear coffee filters and doggiediapers as masks.

"The preliminary injunction shows that McDonald's restaurantsfailed to keep their workers safe amid the COVID-19 pandemic andposed a danger to public health, particularlywhen it came to social distancing and masks," Danny Rosenthal ofJames & Hoffman in Washington, D.C., an attorney for theplaintiffs, wrote in an emailed statement.

"We are pleased that Judge Reilly issued an injunction that willnot only help keep workers safe, but will also protect workers'families, McDonald's customers, and the community at large,"Rosenthal said.

McDonald's, represented by Jonathan Bunge of Quinn, Emanuel,Urquhart & Sullivan, said in an emailed statement that thejudge found its COVID-19 policies did many things right.

"McDonald's is pleased the judge found that strong measures arealready in place across these Chicagoland restaurants to create asafe experience for customers and crew, including providingsufficient supply of masks, gloves and sanitizers and sufficientlymonitoring for COVID cases, as McDonald's is doing throughout thecountry," the statement said.

"These measures are part of the 50 processes we haveenhanced during the pandemic to keep restaurant employees andcustomers safe. We have also issued a 59-page guide outliningnational minimum restaurant standards, including adhering to socialdistancing guidelines for customers and crew, conducting wellnessand temperature checks, requiring protective barriers, face masksand gloves, increasing the frequency of handwashing and providingcontactless purchasing options to customers."

The case, filed on May 19, involved five employees at fourMcDonald's locations in Chicago, and four people who lived withthem, alleging the restaurant chain had failed to provide enoughprotections from the coronavirus. The case is one of the few to aska judge to order a business to impose COVID-19 protections, themost prominent of which involved a public nuisance case againstmeat processor Smithfield Foods Inc. that ended in an order denyingthe plaintiffs' injunction request.

McDonald's also faces another class action, brought on June 16,alleging the restaurant chain created a public nuisance at a storein Oakland, California, by allowing 23 people to getsick with COVID-19, includinga 10-month-old baby.

The class action in Chicago alleges both public nuisance andnegligence claims against McDonald's and two franchise owners, oneof which dropped out of the case after selling its store. Two ofthe stores had COVID-19 cases among their employees, according tothe judge's order.

McDonald's lost an attempt to dismiss the case on jurisdictional grounds, setting the stagefor a showdown over a potential preliminary injunction.

In addition to Garrett, the preliminary injunction hearing, heldvia Zoom and broadcast live on YouTube, featured lengthy testimonyfrom the plaintiffs, store managers and experts on both sides, andnumerous slides of store signs, layouts and photographs.

In her ruling, Reilly found that McDonald's had provided much ofwhat the plaintiffs initially had asked for, such as hand sanitizerand masks. She also found that its policies, such as posting signsrequiring customers to wear masks and installing Plexiglas at thecounter and drive-thru, were "not unreasonable."

But, she noted, McDonald's also told employees they could becloser than six feet if they passed each other momentarily, as longas it's not for 10 minutes or more.

"McDonald's has created an environment that leads employees,including managers, to believe they can take off their masks andstand within 6 feet of each other as long as they do not do so inexcess of 10 minutes," Reilly wrote. "This increases the healthrisk for the employees, their families and the public as a wholeand conflicts with the governor's order on social distancingpotentially undoing any good it has done as we fight thisincredibly contagious disease."

She also cited photographic evidence and the testimony ofemployees that workers stood within six feet of each other withoutproperly wearing masks—both of which were "serious failures."Social distancing and masks, she wrote, were key elements of thegovernor's order, as well has health guidelines from the IllinoisDepartment of Public Health and the U.S. Centers for DiseaseControl and Prevention.

"Although neither in and of themselves necessarily create asubstantial or unreasonable interference with the public's or theplaintiffs' rights, the combination certainly does," she wrote.

She denied an injunction as to the plaintiffs' negligenceclaims, calling their alleged injuries "speculative" given thatnone of the plaintiffs had evidence of COVID-19 exposure orinfection.