I first heard of this while watching a documentray on human psychology a while back, and was wondering what others think of the decision. IMO, if the supervisor had done the strip search and nothing more, then maybe thegirl should not have won the suit, as a strip search may have seemed like a reasonable request from a cop. However, the sex act would not be a reasonable request to any sane person, and once he did that, then I think McD’s should pony up. The supervisor had to have realized the person on the phone could not see him, and even if he was convinced he was a cop and was trying to comply, could have pretended he was going along with the request. I also find it a bit assholish of the McDonald’s rep in the article who had a problem with the decision.
For one, the girl is an idiot. Anyone who just sits there and submits to that kind of thing without trying to get away or protesting is stupid. I don’t really believe in rewarding stupid people for submitting to stupid things.
Two, if anyone should have paid up, it was the guy who was relaying orders to the girl. He, too, is an idiot. I don’t think McDonald’s has any responsibility here.
Before you jump on the “bad verdict” band wagon, I strongly recommend you read up on the actual facts of the case. This reminds me of the coffee in the lap fiasco, where everyone’s popular view of the case was totally out of line with both the actual evidence and the legal theory under which the case was decided.
Where have I heard this attitude before? It seems oh so familiar.
Wait…wait…it’s coming back to me…
“That stupid slut. If she didn’t want to get raped, she shouldn’t have worn a short skirt/smiled so much/given out her phone number/gone to a bar/left her house.”
Yeah, that’s the one. Thanks for jogging my memory, Boner.
I could hardly disagree more. This strikes me as an extreme example of blaming the victim.
Ed
But she was a teen girl at the time, probably scared shitless, comlying with what she thought were a cop and her supervisors orders. I don’t think if I were a teen girl I would have the balls to say ‘fuck off’ in that situation. I believe she was made to believe she would be in trouble with the law if she didn’t comply.
And I can’t recall the name of the IFC or Sundance type documentary that included this, but it showed that the average person will comply with things like this in those circumstances, strange as it may seem, and that the guy had done this sucessfully dozens of times. Very good psychology documentary if anyone ever sees it or knows the name.
I know the facts of the case. There was an hour-long show on it a while back. I’ve also read a lot about it. Did I say she “deserved” to be sexually assaulted? No. I said she’s an idiot. Even idiots should not be assaulted. But to stand there and comply with orders to sexually please a man without trying to leave makes you an idiot. Anyone who thinks she will be in trouble with the law if they don’t comply with a demand to have sex against her will is on the very low side of the IQ chart.
I’ve studied the Liebeck vs. McDonald’s lawsuit quite thoroughly, and I’m still of the opinion that this woman didn’t deserve one thin dime. Yeah, the coffee was hotter than it should have been. But that doesn’t change the fact that she’s a total klutz. McDonald’s did NOT cause her to spill coffee all over herself in the first place!
And now we have another case (which appears to be a random sexual assault) in which the victim managed to score yet another civil lottery.
What’s the message here? If you get injured at a McDonald’s…better hope it’s in the deep South, because there’s a potential for a major payout at the end!!!
(Hope that’s not too Pit-worthy…)
In other words, if she weren’t so stupid, she wouldn’t have been sexually assaulted, so it’s her fault for being a dumbass.
You’re right, that’s totally different.
It’s true if she wasn’t so stupid she wouldn’t have been assaulted, but that doesn’t mean it’s her fault. She could have left at any time, however, and the fact that she did not do so makes her an idiot.
It’s like if I’m in a room with a guy who is giving me repeated beatings. It’s not my fault he’s doing so, but if I’m free to leave and do not do so, and in fact remain in the room between beatings, then I’m pretty stupid.
Sorry, I don’t see where McDonald’s owes her much of anything. The case seems spurious and just another attorney going after a deep-pocketed corporation. The poor girl went through a horrible experience. The Prankster should have had jail time and the rock stupid manager and boyfriend should be in jail. These 3 should owe future wages to the girl.
But, please Mr. Attorney, explain to me, why we are being so ignorant to think McDonald’s should not be held responsible, especially to the tune of $6.1 million?
I am just too ignorant to understand how and why McDonald’s is responsible to send out notifications about this. Even if they were, it is not their fault that the manager was a complete idiot and allowed her criminally stupid fiance to sexually assault the girl.
Maybe you could convince me they share some small blame, but I would say no more than the girl herself. One of the guilty is in jail and this is good. Another is off free and this is bad. It just does not make McDonald’s the guilty party in any world with common sense.
Jim
Similar to the coffee lawsuit, McD’s has responsibilties here. Their chain of authority was vested in their manager, their employee. I worked for a McD’s once upon a time and the manager there locked the doors when it was closing time and didn’t open them for anyone, not even cops unless they had a warrant and presented ID. That behavior was rewarded by the restaurant owner even when it was him locked out one night. He had to go home and get his own damn keys because she said she wasn’t going to open up case someone around the corner had a gun on him and she let a gunman into the store after closing and risked her employees and her own safety. How realistic her views on safety were is a matter for debate, but the reality is McD’s has a contract with their employees. Part of that contract is to follow the instructions of a superior in the chain of command. If McD’s put people in the chain of command who would use their authority to enforce the commands of an unverified “police officer” then McD’s has some culpability for creating the situation. Idiot employee + idiot manager + asshole fake cop = bad shit. If McD’s didn’t make an idiot a manager the equation wouldn’t have worked.
Klutz woman + coffee served well over industry standard heat = bad shit. McD’s owns part of that equation too.
Enjoy,
Steven
I think McD’s owes because one of their supervisors and managers had an employee do this- it wasn’t a fry cook who had been there a week grabbing a another employees ass or anything like that. Parents don’t send their teens off to work there to have a supervisor and her manager boyfriend assault their daughter, no matter the psychological trick used. Regular employee, no, well trained upper management involved, yes they pay.
The coffee I don’t agree with- it’s like if I went to a Meixcan restaurant and stuck my hand on the sizziling hot fajita platter. I would think everyone who drinks coffee should know that it is served hot, and if the spill was the customers fault, I don’t see it as any different than spilling some homebrew and then trying to sue Mr. Coffee. But the coffee being overly hot, I can maybe see that.
As an aside, does anyone know how the “cop” brought the sexual assualt into the mix?
And McD’s should send out notices of this sort. At Kroger we were always alerted when someone tried a short change scam or something at a nearby store so that we would know to be aware and not fall for it- same here.
Does McD’s have a responsibility to include the following question on their manager’s application:
“Imagine that you received a phone call from someone claiming to be a cop. If that caller asked you to strip search an employee, have her do naked jumping jacks, and then have her perform a sex act on your boyfriend, would you comply? Y/N”
Heh. I just got off the phone with her. I told her I’m with the IRS. Now I’m 6.1 million dollars richer!
IIRC, she wasn’t Stewart’s first victim. The first time McD’s got wind of this happening once, they should have put the word out to every manager.
I don’t go along with the abdication of personal responsibility just because you work for a large corporation. There were people responsible for what happened there. If you were to assign actual percentage of blame, how much would go to the corporate policy-makers and decision-makers? One or two percent, perhaps? So why should the business be responsible for the whole $6+ million?
She got paid $6.1 million for sitting there. Doesn’t sound stupid to me.
But what I want to know is, what sex act was she made to perform?
It was indeed overly hot. McDonald’s had been officially warned on several occasions that it was serving liquids too hot for safe consumption. It was routinely served at a temperature about 40 degrees hotter than coffee one would brew at home.
The facts of the case have been out and about in the public for years. While the transcript of the trial is not public (yet), it’s pretty fucking clear what happened.
It was a bad verdict, and she shouldn’t get a dime from McDonalds. She should however be able to sue those people…who are they called…oh yeah, the actual perpetrators into the Stone Age.
Perhaps some of you missed this gem: http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/10/04/strip.search.ap/index.html
Now let me get this straight - the convicted criminal, who assisted in the sexual assault, is suing for $50M.
Gosh, is it too judgmental of me to say she’s a fucking piece of shit? Or is that a rush to judgment? :rolleyes:
No comment on the past coffee case. Some people just don’t get it.