# McDonald's employee wins strip search lawsuit **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 5, 2007, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcdonalds-employee-wins-strip-search-lawsuit/421688 "2007-10-05T21:14:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2007, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcdonalds-employee-wins-strip-search-lawsuit/421688/81 "2007-10-08T00:17:23Z")
[QUOTE=DigitalC] I just read this thread right after reading the “15 year old girl gets pepper sprayed” thread and its funny seeing the contrast between that threads “you should always do whatever a cop says even if they are wrong or being assholes” vs this threads “the girl is a retard for following orders”. [/QUOTE] There’s a gifuckingantic difference between obeying reasonable although unpleasant requests by a uniformed police officer in a police car such as “put your hands behind you” and obeying a voice on the phone who merely says he’s a police officer and asks you to do all manner of incredibly unreasonable things. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2007, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcdonalds-employee-wins-strip-search-lawsuit/421688/82 "2007-10-08T00:18:01Z")
> [@](#): > > I just read this thread right after reading the “15 year old girl gets pepper sprayed” thread and its funny seeing the contrast between that threads “you should always do whatever a cop says even if they are wrong or being assholes” vs this threads "the girl is a retard for following orders That same thought occurred to me, and the line is often blurry, especially for unsophisticated people. For example, if a cop pulls you over and starts asking you questions about where you are going, most people will assume they have to answer. It takes a certain amount of courage to refuse to answer. Maybe school should have a class that teaches you how to deal with cops. First, it would teach you to be skeptical that the person is really a cop. For example, if you get pulled over by what seems to be a cop, and you are a woman traveling alone, it may make sense to call 911 on your cell phone to verify things. But also the class should teach you that if a uniformed officer is arresting you, it’s probably better not to resist. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2007, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcdonalds-employee-wins-strip-search-lawsuit/421688/83 "2007-10-08T00:19:31Z")
[QUOTE=cosmosdan] There’s a gifuckingantic difference between obeying reasonable although unpleasant requests by a uniformed police officer in a police car such as “put your hands behind you” and obeying a voice on the phone who merely says he’s a police officer and asks you to do all manner of incredibly unreasonable things. [/QUOTE] I agree that there’s a big difference – but in the heat of the moment, it may not be so obvious. ---
**Author:** ![DigitalC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ebca7d/32.png) [@DigitalC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DigitalC)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2007, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcdonalds-employee-wins-strip-search-lawsuit/421688/84 "2007-10-08T00:41:29Z")
[QUOTE=cosmosdan] There’s a gifuckingantic difference between obeying reasonable although unpleasant requests by a uniformed police officer in a police car such as “put your hands behind you” and obeying a voice on the phone who merely says he’s a police officer and asks you to do all manner of incredibly unreasonable things. [/QUOTE] Heres a few of the quotes from the other thread: > [@](#): > > This is why I am trying to teach my children that the correct course in dealing with the cops is “Yes Sir, No sir” until it’s over. Then, if things have gone badly (Beaten, assualted, etc) we can deal with it after the fact. > [@](#): > > If a cop pulled me over to say the sky was red and the moon was made of green cheese, I would say, “Yes, I’ve been noticing the redness for a while now and I’ve always suspected the cheese thing, I’m glad it is finally confirmed.” Those arent supposed to apply in this situation? ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2007, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcdonalds-employee-wins-strip-search-lawsuit/421688/85 "2007-10-08T00:45:13Z")
[QUOTE=DSYoungEsq] Yes, but you conveniently left out: From the same link. It’s always convenient in discussing trial outcomes to leave out the evidence that doesn’t support your position. 😉 Even so, let’s look at what you did include: What McDonald’s did was provide its management trainees with a manual, **which includes 45 pages on security issues alone.** And the only testimony we have on this is that the attendees to the training session were to do some “pre-work” prior to attending, presumably including reading all 45 pages of this manual. If that is the sum total of the training provided to assistant managers in this area, is it any wonder that NEITHER assistant manager on duty considered what was going on something they should handle differently? Shift managers for McDonald’s aren’t always the brightest bulbs in the packet (which is what you should expect when you pay what McDonald’s does for the position). Asking them to read and digest, then remember 45 pages of detailed instructions on what to do when certain security issues crop up is not exactly the prudent way to proceed, is it? And the trainer himself says he wishes he’d been told about it, presumably so that he could have emphasized the issue in training. [/quote] You’re right. It’s not reasonable to expect that McDonald’s would be able to get each of it’s asst. managers to read up on every incident at the company. That’s my entire flipping point. After being in business for decades and with over 12,000 franchises in the U.S. alone there has to be a litany of incidents as stupid or bizarre as this one. As I said before, in order for McDonald’s to cover all of these issues they would have to have a year long “How not to be an idiot” course. [QUOTE=DSYoungEsq] You stateWell, perhpas so, but evidence shows that they cannot expect that, at least in these types of cases. Certainly it is not unreasonable to hold that McDonald’s had a duty to do more than they did about this type of situation. [/QUOTE] It’s completely unreasonable. The manager violated numerous policies and rules set forth by McDonald’s, including one that was specific to just this type of situation. Yeah, it would be good if they could inform every employee about every incident, but it’s not practical for them to do so. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2007, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcdonalds-employee-wins-strip-search-lawsuit/421688/86 "2007-10-08T01:06:13Z")
[QUOTE=DigitalC] Heres a few of the quotes from the other thread: Those arent supposed to apply in this situation? [/QUOTE] Police officer in front of you,…voice on the phone. Quite a difference wouldn’t you say? The points being made are do not resist arrest, and don’t be belligerent and argumentative when pulled over even if the officer is surly and you think he’s mistaken. Nobody’s suggesting you should bend over and spread your cheeks at an officers request. There is a line drawn between a reasonable but perhaps unpleasant request by an officer in front of you and an obvious way over the line request by a voice on the phone. It’s a pretty wide line. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2007, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcdonalds-employee-wins-strip-search-lawsuit/421688/87 "2007-10-08T01:19:47Z")
[QUOTE=treis] It’s completely unreasonable. The manager violated numerous policies and rules set forth by McDonald’s, including one that was specific to just this type of situation. Yeah, it would be good if they could inform every employee about every incident, but it’s not practical for them to do so. [/QUOTE] But nobody is expecting anything even close to that so your point doesn’t seem to apply IMO. Here’s a very serious issue that they are well aware of because it’s happened dozens of times already and in that area right? Regardless of how bizarre and stupid it is once they are clearly aware of a specific problem they have some responsibility to issue a serious warning to make employees and lower management aware. The training courses we took on sexual harassment required that we sign a paper to show we had received the training. Yes it’s expensive and time consuming to coordinate but many major companies do it. The fact that this was a clear threat that they were well aware of makes the difference for me. Seems to me after the incidents have happened in the double digits in McDonald’s alone they should have issued a clear warning that management and employees had to sign so they would know they had received it. Then the home office could check the signatures with employee lists and credibly say they had taken significant steps to protect their employees from a known threat. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2007, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcdonalds-employee-wins-strip-search-lawsuit/421688/88 "2007-10-08T01:27:26Z")
[QUOTE=brazil84] I agree that there’s a big difference – but in the heat of the moment, it may not be so obvious. [/QUOTE] I certainly agree that people who have authority and those who simply pretend to have it can impose their will on others. Lot’s of people seem programed to obey a strong willed authority figure …_to some reasonable point_ IMO asking someone to strip search another person is as bizarre as asking them to get a bat and beat them repeatedly. It’s such a violation of that other human being that the “but he told me too” excuse seems non existent. An authority figure might get me to reveal information I shouldn’t reveal and surrender some rights but … geez. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2007, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcdonalds-employee-wins-strip-search-lawsuit/421688/89 "2007-10-08T01:33:50Z")
[QUOTE=cosmosdan] But nobody is expecting anything even close to that so your point doesn’t seem to apply IMO. Here’s a very serious issue that they are well aware of because it’s happened dozens of times already and in that area right? [/QUOTE] No, 17 times over a 10 year period. Anyways, what is the threshold frequency of a specific incident before McDonald’s has a responsibility to warn every one of it’s managers? As noted before, McDonald’s does have a policy in it’s managers handbook on how to deal with this type of situation that managers are instructed by McDonald’s to read. How much more would they have had to do in order to satisfy you? ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2007, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcdonalds-employee-wins-strip-search-lawsuit/421688/90 "2007-10-08T02:02:40Z")
[QUOTE=treis] No, 17 times over a 10 year period. Anyways, what is the threshold frequency of a specific incident before McDonald’s has a responsibility to warn every one of it’s managers? As noted before, McDonald’s does have a policy in it’s managers handbook on how to deal with this type of situation that managers are instructed by McDonald’s to read. How much more would they have had to do in order to satisfy you? [/QUOTE] Perhaps I misunderstood. I’d want to know the details of how often it happened and when. If these bizarre incidents were indeed few and far between then I’d tend to agree more with your point. ---
**Author:** ![samclem](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@samclem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samclem)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2007, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcdonalds-employee-wins-strip-search-lawsuit/421688/91 "2007-10-08T02:08:51Z")
[QUOTE=treis] No, 17 times over a 10 year period. [/QUOTE] Where does the “17 times/10 years” figure come from? ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2007, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcdonalds-employee-wins-strip-search-lawsuit/421688/92 "2007-10-08T02:26:30Z")
[QUOTE=samclem] Where does the “17 times/10 years” figure come from? [/QUOTE] > [@](#): > > The first report of such a call came in 1995, in Devil’s Lake, N.D.; another came later that year in Fallon, Nev. The caller, usually pretending to be a police officer investigating a crime, targeted stores in small towns and rural communities – areas where managers were more likely to be trusting. > [@](#): > > Managers of at least 17 McDonald’s stores around the nation had been conned by that time, and the company already was defending itself in at least four lawsuits stemming from such hoaxes. [http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051009/NEWS01/510090392](http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051009/NEWS01/510090392) ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2007, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcdonalds-employee-wins-strip-search-lawsuit/421688/93 "2007-10-08T02:53:44Z")
[QUOTE=treis] [http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051009/NEWS01/510090392](http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051009/NEWS01/510090392) [/QUOTE] You know upon rereading that article I find your post pretty disingenuous, selecting the facts to support your position and ignoring the rest. how about this > [@](#): > > But the hoaxes continued – by the end of 2000, there were more than a dozen. By the end of 2003, there were nearly 60. not all at McDs but since you just reminded us they had four outstanding law suits I think that indicates that as we get closer to the incident in question we clearly see the number if incidents greatly increasing amd the threat to their employees increasing, thus increasing their responsibility to respond more than they did. How about > [@](#): > > On May 29, 2002, a girl celebrating her 18th birthday – in her first hour of her first day on the job at the McDonald’s in Roosevelt, Iowa – was forced to strip, jog naked and assume a series of embarrassing poses, all at the direction of a caller on the phone, according to court and news accounts. Here’s a pretty serious and similar incident about two years before the one in question at a McDs. The article doesn’t say for sure but considering the increase in incidents as we get closer to the one in question I’m thinking most of the 17 McDs happened after 2000. Rereading the article it seems clear they knew there was a danger to their employees that they failed to address specifically and adequately ---
**Author:** ![samclem](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@samclem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samclem)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2007, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcdonalds-employee-wins-strip-search-lawsuit/421688/94 "2007-10-08T03:09:32Z")
If this video or a link to it has been posted previously, then I apologize. [![](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/UFXeXK3szOk/hqdefault.jpg "Opie & Anthony - Louise Ogborn McDonalds Security Tape") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFXeXK3szOk) The Manager is possibly the most clueless person(of mature years) I have met lately. Or, at least, she “pretends” to be. If I were 18-25 years old, I might have gone along with this thing. I hope I wouldn’t, but you do things differently in your younger years. There were probably MORE than 17 incidents involving McDonal’s by then. Not all things get reported. The verdict is entirely appropriate. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2007, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcdonalds-employee-wins-strip-search-lawsuit/421688/95 "2007-10-08T03:13:06Z")
[QUOTE=samclem] If this video or a link to it has been posted previously, then I apologize. [![](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/UFXeXK3szOk/hqdefault.jpg "Opie & Anthony - Louise Ogborn McDonalds Security Tape") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFXeXK3szOk) The Manager is possibly the most clueless person(of mature years) I have met lately. Or, at least, she “pretends” to be. If I were 18-25 years old, I might have gone along with this thing. I hope I wouldn’t, but you do things differently in your younger years. There were probably MORE than 17 incidents involving McDonal’s by then. Not all things get reported. The verdict is entirely appropriate. [/QUOTE] What would McDonald’s have to do in order to avoid liability in your opinion? ---
**Author:** ![samclem](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@samclem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samclem)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2007, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcdonalds-employee-wins-strip-search-lawsuit/421688/96 "2007-10-08T03:34:26Z")
[QUOTE=treis] What would McDonald’s have to do in order to avoid liability in your opinion? [/QUOTE] I would think they needed, by then, to absolutely inform each manager/assistant manager about what was going down in the US in relationship to fast food restaurants. Not send around an email to the “owner/operator.” I, again, apologize if I"ve missed a post which indicates they did this. This wasn’t a “one-off” deal. It had been big time in the industry for years. > [@](#): > > Although these cases have been popping up for nearly five years, they are beginning to gain the attention of the National Food Service Security Council, a 25-year-old group of restaurant-industry security executives. Industry insiders say the restaurant chains hesitated to talk about the hoaxes because it was so embarrassing to the outlets that were involved. Tom Briggs, a council spokesman, said the idea of managers falling for the hoax points to a serious training flaw. “Whoever this caller is must be a hell of a good con man,” Mr. Briggs says. “You’d think nobody would fall for this.” From a WSJ story in March,2004. The incident in question in the OP, occured in April, 2004. If the Wall Street Journal knew enough to write a story about this the month before, then McDonald’s surely had enough time to make this a priority. Or not. ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2007, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcdonalds-employee-wins-strip-search-lawsuit/421688/97 "2007-10-08T15:27:03Z")
[QUOTE=treis] You’re right. It’s not reasonable to expect that McDonald’s would be able to get each of it’s asst. managers to read up on every incident at the company. That’s my entire flipping point. After being in business for decades and with over 12,000 franchises in the U.S. alone there has to be a litany of incidents as stupid or bizarre as this one. As I said before, in order for McDonald’s to cover all of these issues they would have to have a year long “How not to be an idiot” course. [/QUOTE] At what point have you failed to comprehend that **even McDonald’s thought it had a duty to warn its managers?** Or are you conveniently forgetting that McDonald’s claims it tried to do so? What fried McDonald’s here **isn’t** the fact that a duty to warn existed, it is that they didn’t follow through on making sure that the people who needed to be warned were. In other words, this isn’t a duty case, it’s a breach case. ---
**Author:** ![steronz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steronz/32/11765_2.png) [@steronz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steronz)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2007, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcdonalds-employee-wins-strip-search-lawsuit/421688/98 "2007-10-08T15:39:58Z")
[QUOTE=DSYoungEsq] At what point have you failed to comprehend that **even McDonald’s thought it had a duty to warn its managers?** Or are you conveniently forgetting that McDonald’s claims it tried to do so? What fried McDonald’s here **isn’t** the fact that a duty to warn existed, it is that they didn’t follow through on making sure that the people who needed to be warned were. In other words, this isn’t a duty case, it’s a breach case. [/QUOTE] Does this sort of thing ever cause companies _not_ to act, for fear that partial action can be a sign of admitted liability? Like, if McDs hadn’t sent out any emails/voicemails at all, it sounds like that would have helped their case. ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2007, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcdonalds-employee-wins-strip-search-lawsuit/421688/99 "2007-10-08T15:43:15Z")
[QUOTE=treis] What would McDonald’s have to do in order to avoid liability in your opinion? [/QUOTE] They should have done what their corporate attorneys, at least, tried to get the ball rolling on. They should have made sure that each and every store manager, at a minimum, knew about the hoax, knew that it was accellerating in occurrence, and knew both what to expect from the hoaxer and precisely what steps to take. Go into a McDonald’s restaurant office (it’s usually a small cubbyhole). Look around. I guarantee that that office has posted on its walls any number of corporate directives regarding things McDonald’s finds important at that moment. As the plaintiff’s attorney noted, they manage to inform everyone about a McRib special. So all McDonald’s had to do was make certain that, posted right next to the office phone, was a specific warning about this hoax and a list of steps to take to contact proper authorities if someone called attempting it. But they weren’t even successful in alerting the local AREA manager, OR the local management TRAINER. In short, they dropped the ball. Now, had they managed to properly get the word out, the liability here would be much less likely. With a proper warning out, the duty to the employee then becomes not to have an act like this done by someone who is an employee. Given the circumstances, with proper warnings given, it would likely be the case that a judge would make a determination that no reasonable jury could establish breach of a duty proximately causing damage, for exactly the reasons that you and **Una Persson** among others have been stating: the intervening illegal acts of the assistant manager in contravention of company rules. Of course, the main point is that, had they issued the proper warnings, seen to it that local management knew about the hoax and that it was serious and that they should post the warnings or take other reasonable steps to avoid it happening, the assistant manager in this case might well never have asked the employee to do anything at all, because she would have recognized the hoax for what it was. Which is why the proximate cause chain gets harder to break in the face of a failed duty to warn: failure to warn means some management people will do what happened here, as evidenced by over 60 cases of similar nature across the nation. In short: McDonald’s knew it should issue a warning, as evidenced by the fact that someone at high level attempted to do so, and as evidenced by the claimed attempt at voice-mail warnings. It failed to do a competent job of issuing such a warning. As a result, two assistant managers on duty at the time the call came in failed to recognize the hoax for what it was, and proceeded to do what I think most of us would agree were really dumb things. McDonald’s KNEW it was in trouble once they understood what had happened; that’s why they first attempted to keep it a workers’ comp. claim by falsely claiming the employee was on the clock at the time of the incident, then attempted to pin false statements about what had happened on the store maintenance man, THEN proceded to do their damndest to avoid having to reveal 17 boxes of information about the prior incidents, finally producing them on the eve of the trial on the order of a special master judge. You connect the dots… :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2007, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcdonalds-employee-wins-strip-search-lawsuit/421688/100 "2007-10-08T19:01:37Z")
[QUOTE=DSYoungEsq] At what point have you failed to comprehend that **even McDonald’s thought it had a duty to warn its managers?** Or are you conveniently forgetting that McDonald’s claims it tried to do so? What fried McDonald’s here **isn’t** the fact that a duty to warn existed, it is that they didn’t follow through on making sure that the people who needed to be warned were. In other words, this isn’t a duty case, it’s a breach case. [/QUOTE] How divorced from reality are you? Just because I, or a company, does something does not mean that I consider that I have a legal duty to do that action. > [@DSYoungEsq](#): > > Go into a McDonald’s restaurant office (it’s usually a small cubbyhole). Look around. I guarantee that that office has posted on its walls any number of corporate directives regarding things McDonald’s finds important at that moment. As the plaintiff’s attorney noted, they manage to inform everyone about a McRib special. So all McDonald’s had to do was make certain that, posted right next to the office phone, was a specific warning about this hoax and a list of steps to take to contact proper authorities if someone called attempting it. But they weren’t even successful in alerting the local AREA manager, OR the local management TRAINER. In short, they dropped the ball. As I’ve said numerous times before. It’s unrealistic to expect that McDonald’s warn each and everyone of it’s employees about each and every action that they might consider. Besides, as noted, the manager in question was required to read a policy that specifically covered this situation. If the legal requirement is as you say then their stores are going to be covered in memos. They need one near the drive through window warning employees not to put marijuana in a happy meal. [link](http://consumerist.com/consumer/fast-food/mcdonalds-employee-hides-pot-stash-in-happy-meal-box-gives-happy-meal-to-child-260864.php) They need one near the salt dispenser warning that if they over salt a burger they might be arrested. They need one near the cheese station warning that if an allergic customer requests a burger with no cheese that they shouldn’t put cheese on it. [link](http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1879570/posts) Those are three that I found in a quick google search. McDonald’s is most likely aware of hundreds of other such incidents. The irony of the matter is that if McDonald’s did follow what you consider to be their legal requirement they would send out so many memos that you would claim that it’s unreasonable to expect that employees would read them all. I mean look at what your saying. It’s not enough to expect your managers to apply a little common sense. It’s not enough to have general policies that should have prevented this incident. It’s not enough to have a specific policy that applied to exact situation the manager found herself in. McDonald’s is now required to have a memo posted next to the phone to address a situation that occurred in .14% of their US restaurants over a 10 year period. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcdonalds-employee-wins-strip-search-lawsuit/421688.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcdonalds-employee-wins-strip-search-lawsuit/421688.md?page=6)