I hope her lawsuit named Summers and Nix personally as defendants. Not to diminish Stewart's (or whoever made the calls :rolleyes) culpability, but he didn't have any power to do anything to Ogborn that wasn't given to him by Summers and Nix. They are the ones responsible for letting the phone call get beyond the 30-second nuisance stage.
And.. Well, jeepers! They're just so stupid!
An Alford plea? I've never heard of that. I'm no lawyer, but I do read court documents for fun. (Yeah, I know. My mother told me the same thing.) I'm not so sure I like the notion of an Alford plea. I've heard of "freeing the guilty on a technicality", but an Alford Plea is almost like "convicting the innocent on a technicality". That's just bizarre.
Saw the 20/20 episode, and you have to wonder when common sense would have come into play, but it sure got bizarre. And considering a police station was only 1/2 mile from the restaurant, how hard would it have been to call 911 to verify such outlandish requests. Sad story all around.
Because the McDonalds' training manual doesn't note that employees shouldn't hold other employees hostages based on anonymous phone calls. And because has money, whereas the individuals involved do not.
It's because of this sort of foolishness that my compnay recently made official that one can't eat food in bathrooms and cleanrooms (if you don't know this in my industry, you shouldn't be hired to start).
Like Pat, I saw the 20/20 episode. A coworker was so skeptical about this, he called newspaper that first reported it and confirmed that it was a legitimate story.
As mind-bogglingly stupid as this event seems (why would a person do a strip search based on a phone call?), I'm must admit that this is how people are. Psychological research has shown that people will terrible things to others based on direction from perceived authorities.
It is the company's fault for hiring dummies in the first place. The company is responsible for its supervisor's actions while on duty. The victim was employed by McDonalds, so they had the responsibility to procure a safe working environment for her. If her supervisor is stupid enough to believe that an employee should be strip searched and left naked with her fiance on the orders of a "cop" over the phone, then the poor woman deserves the $200 million and McDonalds deserves to pay it for hiring such a moron as a supervisor.
Mount Washington, KY is about ten miles from Louisville. I lived in Mt. Washington for about a year and I knew the person who performed the "search" at McDonalds. I didn't know him personally but he's been in trouble before for his little "touching" styles. I'm not sure how much I should say but his prior acts tells me he was in on this hoax. There's been a storm of controversy over this case and most feel the "caller" should have been found guilty but I'm glad he got off. I think this is just a case of stupid people.
I'm not sure how much of a case the girl has but I've got to question her as well. Her cousin works at the same place I do and again, it really wouldn't shock me if she was in on a game to get money.
You'd really have to know the city to know everything but it has around 5000 people. Cops are all over the place and even though the police station was 1/2 mile away, I would bet there were cops even closer. The "hangouts" for teens is McDonalds and the bowling alley right by the restaurant. Cops are always there due to the large number of teens.
I don't buy the "dumb manager" bit because common sense tells you what you can and can't do. I've worked as a manager and have had people call saying stuff was stolen from their cars. According to KY law, the manager/owner CAN ask an employee to empty their pockets but that employee has the right to say no and ask for a cop to search them. Of course, it's illegal for a manager to make you strip. This here has to be done by a cop. ANY manager should have known this and that's why I think this was all just one big game to get money.
Yeah, I don't understand the whole "McDonald's is responsible" because how is McDonald's supposed to look into the future and know what a person will do? I can see if they had a really bad criminal record and McD's ignored certain laws to get this person hired....is that the case here? Was this person hired, fully knowing that they would be a detriment to the company?? If not, how does one determine whether and employee will do something stupid in the future??Hmmm, this is a good point - I mean, I would hope that anyone in a managerial position, would be wise enough to understand procedure. This manager sounded so dumb that you have to wonder this person gained managerial status in the first place? I can't imagine that someone that stupid would not have been obvious stupid before being promoted, but I guess stranger things have happened.
The corporation (as a legal enitity) is responsible for the behavior of those who act in an official capacity on its behalf. While the managers may have acted on their own volition, they were using the authority given to them as an agent of the corporation (managers have the authority to hire/fire) to intimidate and harrass an employee.