A recent federal court filing outlines allegations that an individual seeking employment was denied a job after refusing to comply with a sexual proposition from an employee acting on behalf of the company. The complaint was filed by Miguel Gibson in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on March 30, 2026, naming Wenmarr Management Company, L.L.C. as the defendant.
According to the complaint, Gibson alleges that he experienced quid pro quo sexual harassment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The legal action follows Gibson’s timely charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on November 25, 2025. After receiving his Notice of Rights to Sue on January 9, 2026, Gibson proceeded with this lawsuit, asserting that all administrative remedies had been exhausted.
The factual background presented in the filing states that Wenmarr Management Company operates restaurant locations in Georgia, including a Wendy’s restaurant on Bolton Road. Spencer Dixon is identified as an employee and agent of Wenmarr Management Company who interacted with Gibson regarding potential employment opportunities. The complaint recounts that Gibson and Dixon previously worked together at another Wendy’s location during 2023 and 2024 and maintained a strictly professional relationship.
On or about May 10, 2025, Gibson encountered Dixon by chance. During this meeting, Dixon informed him that there were open positions at the Bolton Road Wendy’s and provided his phone number to facilitate communication about applying for a job. Following these instructions, Gibson submitted an application and confirmed this step via text message to Dixon but did not receive further contact until September 21, 2025.
The sequence described in the lawsuit continues with Dixon reaching out again to ask if Gibson still wanted the position. After confirming his interest and visiting the restaurant as instructed by Dixon on October 1, 2025, Gibson received no immediate response regarding his application status. However, in the early morning hours of October 2, 2025—specifically around 3:50 a.m.—Dixon allegedly sent Gibson a sexually explicit text message offering to perform oral sex on him and stating that compliance would guarantee his hiring at Wendy’s. The message also assured secrecy regarding this proposal.
Gibson asserts in the complaint that he did not consent to any sexual conduct nor respond to Dixon’s message; instead, he immediately blocked Dixon’s phone number. He further claims confusion over having believed he already secured employment based on prior communications from Dixon. Following his refusal to engage in any sexual act or respond to the proposition, Gibson reports receiving no further contact from Dixon or Wenmarr Management Company and ultimately was not hired.
The legal claim centers on allegations that Dixon conditioned employment upon submission to a sexual act—an action characterized as unwelcome advances constituting quid pro quo sexual harassment under Title VII statutes (42 U.S.C. §2000e-2(a)). The complaint states: “Dixon conditioned Plaintiff’s employment on submission to a sexual act.” It further alleges that “Plaintiff was denied employment because he refused to submit to Dixon’s sexual proposition.”
Gibson contends that Wenmarr Management Company is liable for discriminatory acts committed by its employee within the scope of actual or apparent authority during hiring communications. As outlined in the filing: “Defendant is liable for the discriminatory acts of its employee and agent committed within the scope of employment or with apparent authority.”
As part of his prayer for relief, Gibson demands compensatory damages for lost wages and economic benefits related to employment opportunities he claims were denied due to discrimination. He also seeks compensation for emotional distress and humiliation resulting from these events as well as punitive damages intended “to punish Defendant for its discriminatory actions.” Additionally requested are litigation costs and reasonable attorney’s fees along with any other relief deemed appropriate by the court.
The case identifies Jesse L. Kelly of JESSE KELLY PC as counsel representing Miguel Gibson. The civil action is docketed under Case No. 1:26-cv-01680-JPB-JSA.
Source: 126cv1680_Miguel_Gibson_v_Wenmarr_Management_Complaint_Northern_District_of_Georgia.pdf
