according to a report in the Oregonian. This is from Lynne Terry's article on the civil filing:
A Clark County Sheriff’s deputy has brought his complaint about a Burger King Whopper to Oregon. On Tuesday, Deputy Edward J. Bylsma filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court in Portland, accusing a company employee of spitting in his burger.
The incident happened at 1:50 a.m. March 24 at the Burger King at 5513 N.E. Gher Road in Vancouver. The complaint says the deputy drove in, ordered a Whooper with cheese and left, with an uneasy feeling when the man refused to respond when the deputy attempted 'to engage him in friendly conversation.' Bylsma later examined the burger and found a spit ball on the patty, the complaint says. A Washington State Patrol crime lab confirmed that it was saliva, leading to the arrest of the cook, Gary Herb"
There is an interesting legal question implicit in the lawsuit which is: how is Burger King liable for the "intentional act" of it's employee if it did not know that this idiot did this sort of thing? Apart from the disgusting aspect of the lawsuit where is the liability?
The general rule is that an employer will not be held liable for the intentional acts of an employee absent evidence that they knew or should have nknow that this sort of thing was going on. Serious yuck-factor, though.