^

Quote :

"The jury also awarded $1.1 million to Donna Summers, a former McDonald's assistant store manager who also sued the fast-food chain. Summers, who had asked the jury to award her $50 million, led the strip search of Ogborn at the direction of the hoax caller. Summers was placed on probation for a misdemeanor conviction in relation to the incident. Her former fiance, Walter Nix Jr., is serving five years in prison for sexually abusing Ogborn during the hoax call."

Forget trying to win the lottery for a million, all you have to do is strip search one of your employees and deal with a misdemeanor conviction.

10/14/2007 12:39:53 PM

I just watched that video, and ive changed my mind: the girl doesn't deserve a $6M settlement.

she deserves a $12M settlement.

...

but I will agree that cunt of a manager needs to be locked up like her loser boyfriend, not collecting any money. the jury who awarded her any money should be publicly flogged.

10/14/2007 8:25:54 PM

^ using your logic and sense of justice; family memebers of victims that are killed when the fired employee goes on a shooting rampage should be able to sue the company. Even though it was a rouge employee and something out of the companies hands it was there fault since the shootings happened at the office from one of their employees right??

10/14/2007 10:11:49 PM

wait, the woman who did the strip searching got paid too? WTF?

10/14/2007 11:08:41 PM

Quote :

" when the fired employee goes on a shooting rampage should be able to sue the company. Even though it was a rouge employee "

when someone is fired, they are no longer an employee of said company. Don't know if you considered that in your made up hypothetical situation. Also, did you mean rogue employee?

Even so, when an authority figure in a company uses their authority to commit a crime, the company has more culpability than if it was committed by an individual contributor.

10/14/2007 11:20:14 PM

I misread, whoops

[Edited on October 14, 2007 at 11:39 PM. Reason : .]

10/14/2007 11:35:15 PM

psychiatric evaluation?

the guy was a fucking opportunist, not a head case. he's in prison where he belongs, hopefully getting sodomized by broom handles....

10/14/2007 11:38:10 PM

^ yea, I just assumed since Nix only got 5 years, that there was more to this. How in the world did he only get 5 years for that type of crime when it's on tape?? I would also assume that there are a host of charges to which the prosecution would prosecute to the fullest?? 5 years, wow...

10/14/2007 11:44:10 PM

maybe the 3 of them were all in on it together and are going to split the cash when he gets out.....

10/14/2007 11:56:18 PM

the girl probably loved sucking the cock. Just used the lawsuit to get McD's topay for the upgrade of her trailor to a double wide and so she could be lazy and not work again.

[Edited on October 15, 2007 at 12:13 AM. Reason : l]

10/15/2007 12:13:35 AM

you already posted that, fool.

here's a hint: its not that clever.

especially since you spelled it "trailor" both times.

10/15/2007 1:31:50 AM

Well, give him a break, he's a TKE.

10/15/2007 10:02:59 AM

so did the twat thing happen? i've read like 3 news articles and they didnt say anything

10/15/2007 12:57:39 PM

Hi everyone this is Louise,

now that justice has been served I feel so much better about my life with my $6.1 million. I finally moved out of my mom's home in the trailor park and moved into the Double Wide down the street. As a house warmin party I'm getting a kilo of blow and will have 4 kegs. I am ready to meet some handsome guys and I also am able to afford birth control now so no longer have to worry about getting knocked up by the new guy i sleep with every weekend. Momma always says a stupid is as a stupid does.

<3

Louise

10/15/2007 1:37:01 PM

Quote :

"but I am saying that it concerns me that we as a society don't think that a woman who can legaly sign her life away can't and shouldn't be able to recognize and protect herself from a situation like this."

I don't care if it concerns you. You live on planet 1337 b4k4 and I live on planet Earth. There isn't some magical switch that makes kids go from naive to worldly overnight and the transition takes a while for some people. Don't believe me? Go observe any freshman class at our hallowed alma mater.

10/16/2007 1:41:33 AM

neurophysiology has repeatedly shown that most people dont become fully cognizant "adults", completely capable of making rational informed decisions, until into their early 20's. some, even later. some (as evidenced by the comments in this thread), never.

so that she's 18 and can "legaly" sign her life away (wtf does that mean???) doesnt mean she wasnt coerced, manipulated or otherwise exploited in a criminal manner.

at the end of the day, all you haters just need to remember one thing:

SHE has $6.1M, and YOU dont.

so fuck off already.

10/16/2007 3:22:18 AM

honestly im not hating her but the idiots who made the court decision

10/16/2007 7:49:10 AM

Quote :

"There isn't some magical switch that makes kids go from naive to worldly overnight and the transition takes a while for some people. Don't believe me? Go observe any freshman class at our hallowed alma mater."

Irrelevant. If we are going to provide people with the full rights and responsibilities of adults at age 18, then we should treat them as and assume that they are adults and capable of making adult decisions. However, if 18 year olds are just children who need to be shielded from the bad people in the world, then they shouldn't be given rights as an adult.

Quote :

"so that she's 18 and can "legaly" sign her life away (wtf does that mean???) doesnt mean she wasnt coerced, manipulated or otherwise exploited in a criminal manner. "

No, you're right it doesn't. I never said she wasn't the victim of a crime. But she wasn't coerced or manipulated by McDonalds and just because she was manipulated doesn't mean she doesn't share some responsibility.

Quote :

"SHE has $6.1M, and YOU dont. so fuck off already."

So does britney spears, that doesn't make her intelligent or innocent.

10/16/2007 9:45:55 AM

This is no different than an manager at IBM ordering a female employee to suck him off if she wants to get promoted. It's ethically, morally, and legally wrong, and the company is liable for it.

Just because this situation happens to deal with uneducated hourly workers does not change anything. Her manager ordered her to comply, and as soon as that happened that manager was acting on behalf of McDonald's.

10/16/2007 9:51:35 AM

I think we need to reduce the amount of suing in the country. This is ridiculous the manager should get nothing. The fiance should get more time in jail. The girl should get maybe the cost of psychiatric visits from the manager and fiance but not mcdonalds. The corporation should not be sued for 3 people being stupid.
I mean look the JANITOR came in and said no he wouldnt do what the caller asked why couldnt she do that too?

10/16/2007 10:13:40 AM

So I'm having a hard time understanding why she deserves 6 million dollars.

Even if she is the victim and has no control over what she allows other people to do to her, which is ridiculous, why does she need millions of dollars?

10/16/2007 10:37:59 AM

^^you are right, the setting shouldn't make a difference, but why the fuck is anyone responsible except the manager at IBM?

Unless it can be proven that the company promotes or otherwise finds this type of behavior acceptable, why is it the company's fault that one of their employees is a bastard?

The fact that the company has more money is not an acceptable answer.

10/16/2007 10:40:29 AM

Because people in positions of power in an organization are representatives of that organization, and their actions in said position of power are on behalf of that organization.

With power comes absolute responsibility and culpability. I don't understand why the Mcdonald's manager got paid, that part of it is bullshit. As a figure of authority, she has to be held to a higher standard, and should be in prison along with her boyfriend.

Let me put it in terms that you can appreciate. Let's take a fraternity where pledges are being hazed and after a night of forced drinking, one of the pledges dies. I can assure you that the national fraternity organization will be sued, and the parents of the pledge will get paid. It's happened countless times, and even though most fraternity chapters' only connection to the national organization is greek letters and dues payments, the national organization is still culplable. I doubt any of you would complain about fraternities getting sued...

10/16/2007 11:45:05 AM

Quote :

"The girl should get maybe the cost of psychiatric visits from the manager and fiance but not mcdonalds. "

yeah i would almost say that McD's might be liable for the psychiatric visits as well as punitive damages equal to her earning potential (hourly wage) extrapolated over a few weeks to "recover"

which is still <<<<<<<<<< than 6.1 million.

A McD's liability of 60K i could have shrugged my shoulders at. 6.1 is fucking tort

10/16/2007 12:52:27 PM

ok, here's my opinion:

ideally, Lousie gets 2 or 3 million, half of which her lawyers will take, and the rest may or may not be taxable. that should be enough for her pain and suffering.

the manager spends a little time in jail, and gets nothing.

the fiance gets the jail time that he did.

McD's is liable for every penny of psychiatric treatment she gets for the rest of her life, and is made to pay $20-50 million plus to centers accross the country that counsel abuse victims.

some of you are formulaic beyond belief. yeah we get it -- you love free markets and lawsuits are evil and will bring down the country -- git er dun! you'll be sure to get an audience among the plebeians at the State fair, so why don't you take the speech out there.

$6 mil is nothing to McD. the publicity does more harm than that amount of pocket change. $6 mil gives McD no incentive to prevent this crap from happening. if you want to run an empire, you have to make sure you prevent abuse from happening in your territory.

that's just my opinion.

10/16/2007 1:41:24 PM

Well, if the fraternity organization published a document which was required reading by all fraternity managers which stated in no uncertain terms "binge drinking is illegal and permitting it is grounds for termination" then no, the only responsibility in my mind for the organization is to actually fire people that it finds permitting such behavior.

Similarly, McDonald's would be completely liable for $6.1 million IF the manager had a history of strip searching employees and McDonald's either knew about it or failed to put forth the effort to find out. In this case, there is nothing more McDonald's could have done to prevent this event short of shutting down, as surely some manager somewhere will be dumb enough to do with and didn't get the message.

[Edited on October 16, 2007 at 1:49 PM. Reason : .,.]

10/16/2007 1:45:53 PM

agreed^

Quote :

"A McD's liability of 60K i could have shrugged my shoulders at. 6.1 is fucking tort"

I forgot lawyers fees so i'd accept tacking on an additional amount to the 60K to pay for her lawyers.

[Edited on October 16, 2007 at 1:58 PM. Reason : l]

10/16/2007 1:58:24 PM

BobbyDigital I would have a problem with a national fraternity getting sued over that as well. There to me is no such thing as FORCED drinking unless u are tied down with a funnel in your mouth or someone is seriously pouring alcohol into your mouth. A person makes the choice to join the fraternity, they also make the choice to drink or not. If people cannot stand up for themselves then they should not be in college where mommy and daddy cannot protect them as easily.
As for the girl getting money i am fine with that and i dont really care how much she is awarded. I just have a problem with the corporation being liable for having a manager that acted wrongly in a situation. The manager with power should take on responsibility.

10/16/2007 2:32:22 PM

Quote :

"Because people in positions of power in an organization are representatives of that organization, and their actions in said position of power are on behalf of that organization. "

Only assuming the organization condones, permits or does not attempt to stop those actions upon complaint. And yes, I do have a problem with national fats being sued for something a local chapter did. In case you haven't noticed, my entire message has been about personal responsibility and blaming and punishing the right people.

10/16/2007 2:40:21 PM

Quote :

"Irrelevant. If we are going to provide people with the full rights and responsibilities of adults at age 18, then we should treat them as and assume that they are adults and capable of making adult decisions. However, if 18 year olds are just children who need to be shielded from the bad people in the world, then they shouldn't be given rights as an adult."

So in your mind, then, seriously mentally handicapped people shouldn't be "given" rights at age 18 (or any age) because they're incapable of acting as adults?

And besides the pointless theoretical acrobatics of the Rights of Man that you devolve into whenever you can't win an argument -- I think there is a concept in law of "partial liability." In my view the girl's own share of the liability was incredibly small compared to the total event, and that was the basis for her settlement. Perhaps that worldly consideration is trumped by your penchant for solipsistic nonsense like what you posted above.

10/19/2007 2:44:21 AM

My feeling is that McDonald's really fucked this one up by pissing off the jury. From the USA Today article (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-10-05-strip-search-hoax_N.htm):

Quote :

"Parrish said jurors were mad at McDonald's for altering Ogborn's time records to show she was on the clock during her ordeal. That would have ended her lawsuit and left her eligible only for workers' compensation benefits. Several McDonald's officials admitted Ogborn wasn't working during her 3½ hour detention, during which she was spanked and sexually assaulted. "We thought it was very suspicious that they could never say who did it," Parrish said. She also said jurors believed McDonald's took advantage of an illiterate maintenance man who worked at the Mount Washington store by attributing false comments to him in a statement. The man, Thomas Simms, who refused to go along with some of the caller's demands, "was the smartest one of them all," she said. "

Don't you think after reading that the company basically got what they deserved? Especially the part about the time clock alterations.

10/19/2007 2:55:09 AM

Right, cause the only person that could have altered the time card information was the CEO himself. Not the manager freaking out or one of the other regional managers.

As such, charge them with tampering with evidence, fine them $2000, and move on.

And since Thomas Simms understood what was going on, why didn't he call the police? It is one thing to claim stupidity, but to freely admit you knew a crime was being committed and yet did nothing to prevent it?

10/19/2007 8:52:03 AM

the main reason that McDs should never have even had these charges go to trial is because he manager's fiance, who did all this shit, is in no way and employee of Mcdonalds

10/19/2007 9:17:39 AM

Quote :

"So in your mind, then, seriously mentally handicapped people shouldn't be "given" rights at age 18 (or any age) because they're incapable of acting as adults?"

Absoloutely. And it's already the case. A seriously mentally handicapped person can no legaly enter into a contract by themselves. But thats an entirely seperate case. We're not talking about a mentally handicapped girl here. We're talking about a fully functioning 18 year old woman.

Quote :

" In my view the girl's own share of the liability was incredibly small compared to the total event, and that was the basis for her settlement. Perhaps that worldly consideration is trumped by your penchant for solipsistic nonsense like what you posted above."

I've already said that she has paid the price for her liability in this case. That doesn't mean though that McDonalds is responsible for her liability or the liability of employees acting against the specific direction of McDonalds and non employees.

10/19/2007 9:45:58 AM

Quote :

" Absoloutely. And it's already the case. A seriously mentally handicapped person can no legaly enter into a contract by themselves."

Well, that's just not true. A mentally handicapped person cannot enter into a contract if they are unable to understand the significance of their actions. But that only rules out a subset of people who are "seriously mentally handicapped."

For example -- people with low IQs are clearly seriously mentally handicapped. But as far as I know, there's no IQ test for voting or entering into contracts. Just a competence test -- you must have a "sound" mind, not a "smart" mind.

So in your pseudo-libertarian, solipsistic-junk-philosophy world, what is the requisite IQ for voting?

Quote :

"We're not talking about a mentally handicapped girl here. We're talking about a fully functioning 18 year old woman."

What you said was -- she shouldn't get any breaks because she's 18; and if we were to give people over 18 breaks, then they shouldn't have any rights to begin with.

Which is why I asked about the whole mentally handicapped thing -- under the law they have basically the same rights and responsibilities as the rest of us. But for the sake of sheer practicality in a courtroom and real life setting, they have to be treated differently on some level. That's just an example for the sake of clarity -- substitute any other mitigating circumstance that might arise in the real world, like a serious illness or some such.

I just don't understand the viewpoint that "everything is black & white, everyone is the same person as me, etc. etc." view that you bring to these boards. It's completely solipsistic. I use that word a lot in reference to you, and I think for good reason.

10/22/2007 3:16:09 AM

Quote :

"Right, cause the only person that could have altered the time card information was the CEO himself. Not the manager freaking out or one of the other regional managers. As such, charge them with tampering with evidence, fine them $2000, and move on."

That's not fair -- the goal of the tampering was to get a $200 million lawsuit thrown out on its face. And the just punishment is a $2000 fine? Doesn't sound equitable to me. McDonald's was effectively seeking to make sure this girl didn't get due process. They got what they deserved.

(and don't give me the "CEO" crap -- that's about the most juvenile argument you could ever make; this isn't grade school. If you're going to post that, please piss off)

10/22/2007 3:24:06 AM

This trailor trash girl doesn't deserve 6.1 million even if Ronald McDonald came in and raped her himself

10/22/2007 10:02:09 AM