quote:Originally posted by Al-The Mayor-Bowen
We have a really weird $200 million lawsuit working in a county just south of Louisville right now. The short version.... a female employee was strip-searched by the store manager after the Manager received a telephone call from a person identifying themselves as a police officer. The fake officer said that the employee was carrying contraband on her person and the only way to apprehend her was using the strip-search to obtain the evidence. The management did the search (within range of the store's video camera). The employee is now suing the McDonalds Corporation for the big bucks for not training the management to deal with this sort of hoax situations. Apparently there are over one hundred incidents in McDonalds nationwide in the past 10 years to substanciate the employee's claim for corporate liability.
I really have trouble believing that 1. The management was that stupid... 2. That the employee agreed to the search...and 3. That the corporation would actually be held liable in this situation. (But I could never believe the hot-coffee suit would go as it did either.)
If the incident actually occurred and is not just an urban legend that is circulating, my thoughts are:
1) While is is difficult to believe that the store manager was that stupid, it is possible that he felt intimidated by someone who identified himself as a police officer. While nobody should be that dumb, it really is possible that a manager succumbed to this trickery.
2) While the employee certainly should have protested, maybe she is also one who succumbs to intimidation by those in a position of authority--or maybe she is also really, really dumb.
3) Of course the corporation would be held responsible--under the legal principle of
Respondeat Superior. Ultimately, those in authority at a company (and the corporation itself) can be held responsible for acts committed by an employee while he/she is employed by the company.
And, regarding the infamous
Hot Coffee case, if McDonald's had simply paid the fairly minimal medical bills of that customer, then the suit would never have gone to court. And, it should be noted that the customer never sought a settlement of the size that was granted by the court (and subsequently reduced in size). Once all of the facts of the case are understood, it is abundantly clear that McDonald's had liability for that woman's injuries and for the skin grafts that she required as a result of the injuries.
