Jury: McDonald's should pay millions for strip-search hoax

[Clove]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-10-05-strip-search-hoax_N.htm?csp=34

Apparently we need our bosses to tell us when we're assaulting people now.

[Skeeter]

I'm against frivalous lawsuits, but in this case I think Ogborn got what she deserved.

[Warriorbird]

This was a 3.5 hour "strip search."

[Tolwynn]

I'm just wondering when the person in question maybe twigged on that this wasn't actually an officer of the law performing a search, or to perhaps refuse to further comply, or maybe even ask for help.

Experts for Ogborn — who was detained for 3½ hours, forced to do calisthenics in the nude, spanked on her naked buttocks and forced to perform oral sex — testified that she suffered from major depression after her ordeal and will struggle with post-traumatic stress disorder for the rest of her life.

And of course, there's the obligatory 'I just hit the legal system jackpot' quote:

"It was never about the money," Summers told reporters yesterday. "It was about getting the truth out that McDonald's knew all along what was going on. This was a complete vindication."

Of course, since it was never about the money, she'll simply refuse the 6.1 million dollars awarded to her, or donate it to see good works done.

[Parkbandit]

I watched this on TV last night.. why again are we rewarding stupid people money?

In what universe would a cop tell someone that they have to give oral sex to a guy to prove she was innocent?

Where else but the US would reward a really stupid supervisor a million dollars for being really stupid.

[Clove]

McDonald's had a responsibility to warn employees about the hoaxe since they were aware of it, in my opinion; but I'm not convinced they were 50% responsible as the jury decided. I'm sorry but using common sense in this situation would have prevented so much of the trauma that resulted.

You wouldn't put your hand in the deep-fryer because a you received a phone call from someone claiming to be a police officer- and you shouldn't require training to make that decision, in my opinion.

[Tolwynn]

I'm sorry but using common sense in this situation would have prevented so much of the trauma that resulted.

Using common sense might prevent trauma, but it won't get you fat multi-million dollar awards from the legal system lottery either.

[Sean of the Thread]

BEEFALO?

How insulting to those of us who take Taurens and their names seriouslyl.


Signed,
http://sigs.guildlaunch.net/sig.php/1045387dWHkW.png

[Parkbandit]

BEEFALO?

How insulting to those of us who take Taurens and their names seriouslyl.


I know what you mean Lactating.

Signed - Bullchip (The Wonder Twink)

http://sigs.guildlaunch.net/sig.php/1045284UFOIR.png

[Kranar]

McDonald's had a responsibility to warn employees about the hoaxe since they were aware of it, in my opinion; but I'm not convinced they were 50% responsible as the jury decided. I'm sorry but using common sense in this situation would have prevented so much of the trauma that resulted.

You wouldn't put your hand in the deep-fryer because a you received a phone call from someone claiming to be a police officer- and you shouldn't require training to make that decision, in my opinion.

I'm pretty sure the reason why the damages are so severe is because this case counts as an incident of sexual harassment. Even if she didn't comply with the request, the simple fact that the request was made for her to remove her clothing and perform sexual acts by one of her managers constitutes sexual harassment. It's not at all uncommon to see multi-million dollar lawsuits for sexual harassment, and this one is no different.

Heck I remember during sexual harassment training being told about a case where some 80 year old 'old fashioned' Texan would call the woman who worked for his company sweetheart or darling, and then one day a new female employee asks him to stop calling her that, and he responds by saying simply out of habit, 'Alright darling."

Bang... she's awarded 2 million bucks.

Whether it's right or wrong or excessive, one thing is for sure... sexual harassment is not tolerated one bit.

[AestheticDeath]

I find cases like the name calling to be seriously and excessively stupid.

Money doesn't do shit for people who are sexually harassed. They shouldn't be getting awarded anything IMO.

If someone is seriously sexually harassing others, give them community service or jail/prison sentence, depending on the severity.

The whole point is to punish the person doing something wrong. Not make the other person a millionaire.

[Sean of the Thread]

The award should go to an education fund or something for the state.

[Warriorbird]

Civil vs criminal so that isn't likely to happen, Aesthetic Death.

[AestheticDeath]

So civil suits are for nothing but money? Criminal is the only thing that can lead to imprisonment?

Also, how is sexual harassment not criminal? I figured it was a big deal because its so close to molesting, or raping etc..

A rape case would be criminal yeah?

[Sean of the Thread]

Calling someone "darling" is not so close to molesting or raping.

[Kranar]

So civil suits are for nothing but money? Criminal is the only thing that can lead to imprisonment?

Yep, a civil suit is a formal and well... a "civilized" way of resolving a conflict between a group of people. You have a dispute with someone, rather than going to his house and bashing his face in, you resolve that dispute in front of a judge.

A crime is an act judged to be a threat to people/society in general, hence comitting a crime means you are removed from society/jailed.



Also, how is sexual harassment not criminal? I figured it was a big deal because its so close to molesting, or raping etc..


Don't confuse sexual harassment with sexual assault.

[Clove]

At least one of the participants was charged with a criminal violation. I believe this would be sexual assault and it would be criminal also.

This wasn't about sexual harassment this was about McDonald's not training their retarded employees not to strip search someone and assault them over a 3 1/2 hour period because someone on the phone tells them to.

[CrystalTears]

Don't confuse sexual harassment with sexual assault.
Which is what you seem to be doing. This was assault, not harassment. This wasn't about someone threatening to go along with something or risk losing their job and then covering it up. This is about being sexually assaulted.

I'm simply amazed at this story and that someone would be stupid enough to do what some stranger on the phone tells them to do, not question them, and not HANG UP THE STUPID PHONE. Fucking hell.

[TheEschaton]

You can sue in civil court for a criminal charge if it's worth your time (IE, someone who can pay you lots of money). Much like the Browns and Goldmans sued OJ and got a civil judgment against him, even if he was found criminally not guilty.

-TheE-

[Clove]

You can sue in civil court for a criminal charge if it's worth your time (IE, someone who can pay you lots of money). Much like the Browns and Goldmans sued OJ and got a civil judgment against him, even if he was found criminally not guilty.

-TheE-

Oh of course, I just think she sued the wrong person, and I'm surprised more of the participants didn't end up in jail (though maybe they did and it isn't mentioned in the article).

[TheEschaton]

It's a theory called respondeat superior which basically says employers are responsible for the actions of their employees while they are at work and acting in capacity as employees of that company.

I personally am not sure I agree with such a philosophy, but it's a valid tort theory of loss shifting.

[Clove]

As I understood it from my biz-law classes you use a shotgun pattern in a tort suits and take what sticks. And I wasn't commenting on whether suing McDonald's was proper, I was commenting on whether suing McDonald's was right (and I know that confuses some lawyers :P) .

Yes an employer holds some responsibility for the actions of their employees- but I believe the majority of the responsibility should fall on her dumbass coworkers and the prank caller in this situation; it's the opinion I would have held were I a juror in that case.

[TheEschaton]

You say the majority should be on the co-workers. Fine. But it depends on the state - in some states, as a defendant, you're responsible for the percentage you're found guilty of. In other states, if you're at least 50% responsible, you can be liable for the whole amount entered in against you.

As to whether it's right - at the very least, McDonald owes a duty to hire people and train them not to do this sort of shit. And then if they actually knew what was going on, well then, they're even more responsible.

[Stanley Burrell]

http://images.southparkstudios.com/media/images/306/306_panda_dance2.gif

[CrystalTears]

As to whether it's right - at the very least, McDonald owes a duty to hire people and train them not to do this sort of shit.
Really? McDonald's has to train people now to not be fucking idiots and use common sense? This is Mickey D's we're talking about, right? Sell happy meals and such?

WHAT COMPANY DOES THAT?!

[Clove]

As to whether it's right - at the very least, McDonald owes a duty to hire people and train them not to do this sort of shit. And then if they actually knew what was going on, well then, they're even more responsible.


You wouldn't put your hand in the deep-fryer because a you received a phone call from someone claiming to be a police officer- and you shouldn't require training to make that decision, in my opinion.

Honestly. There isn't any amount of training that can serve as a replacement for a brain stem.

[TheEschaton]

I dunno, maybe that sounds like a funny prank in that part of the world.

The best part of this is that the conservatives who scream about idiots who lead to their company's having judgments entered against them, would dismantle the government and trust the same idiots to spend their own money wisely and govern themselves.

At least I'm intellectually honest - I believe there should be big gov't to support the idiots when they fuck up, and I believe corporations should train their employees for common sense, lest these idiots fuck up.

[CrystalTears]

I'll bite. How do you train common sense?

[TheEschaton]

Well, first, I'd say, "Anything which involves tricking or deceiving someone is bad."

Then, I'd follow up with "Don't do illegal things."

Then, I'd go with, "Don't ever have anyone's genitals exposed at any time at work."

[Tolwynn]

Why should an employer be responsible for teaching any of these things?

If it is their responsibility to do so, does that mean a person that is unemployed can do any of the three and claim ignorance and lack of personal responsibility as well?

[Clove]

Well, first, I'd say, "Anything which involves tricking or deceiving someone is bad."

Then, I'd follow up with "Don't do illegal things."

Then, I'd go with, "Don't ever have anyone's genitals exposed at any time at work."

And right about now we enter what PB likes to call The E's fantasy world.

[CrystalTears]

Well, first, I'd say, "Anything which involves tricking or deceiving someone is bad."
But it was a cop on the phone! What kind of trickery could there possibly be from an officer of the law?!


Then, I'd follow up with "Don't do illegal things." But Mr. Ahthori-tay told me too! He wouldn't tell me to do illegal things!


Then, I'd go with, "Don't ever have anyone's genitals exposed at any time at work." Genitals are bad, mmkay?

/sarcasm

[Clove]

But it was a cop on the phone! What kind of trickery could there possibly be from an officer of the law?!

But Mr. Ahthori-tay told me too! He wouldn't tell me to do illegal things!

Genitals are bad, mmkay?

/sarcasm

I can see orientation now...

"Somewhere in your past, or perhaps at previous jobs you may have come believe that it's okay to lock-up your coworkers and force them to expose their genitals. We would like to make clear that this is not the McDonald's way right from the beginning."

[CrystalTears]

Question 1:
When you answer the phone and there's someone stating to be a police officer, do you...
a) Ask them for credentials and have them show up personally.
b) Do as they request and have coworker perform sodomy on someone.
c) Hang up the phone.

Coworker: Ugh.. hehehe... sodomy... <circles b>
Manager: No, this is wrong. You'll need to return to Burger University at once for your common sense training... again.

[Tolwynn]

A strange question - two of the answers are correct, and the third is worth ~6 million dollars.

[TheEschaton]

Hmmmmmmmmmm, I can see these test questions:

A suitable prank is:

A) one not performed at work
B) pantsing your fellow employees
C) forcing your colleague to perform sodomy on someone else.

-TheE-

[Skeeter]

Hey the way the girl was dressed... She was practically begging for it.

[Sean of the Thread]

Good point.