- McDonald's hoax trial jury to begin deliberations WHAS11 with videos
-
McDonald's Corp. knew that assistant manager Donna Summers was the victim of a ruse that had fooled dozens of its other supervisors but let her "twist in the wind," her lawyer said. But the company blames a lack of common sense.
- Ann Oldfather issued a call to arms. Oldfather told an eight-woman, four-man jury at the end of a civil suit against fast-food giant McDonald's that any verdict should send a message that rural Bullitt County can't be had cheaply. "McDonald's conduct needs to be punished, needs to be deterred so we can say, 'Not here, not again,'" Oldfather said.
- McDonald's Corp. is not responsible for the strip search and sexual abuse of a former employee who is seeking more than $200 million in a lawsuit, the attorney for the restaurant chain said Wednesday.
W. R. Patterson, the attorney for the company, told a jury that the restaurant chain was sued because it has deep pockets. Patterson said that Louise Ogborn, the former employee who was searched, did not sue the man who sexually assaulted her or the person who directed the strip search over the phone.
"I think the reason is obvious, McDonald's has money and they want you to give it to them," Patterson said. "That's why they're shooting at McDonald's."
- A psychologist hired by McDonald's Corp. testified today that Louise Ogborn has "grown in some ways" because of the ordeal in which she was strip searched and sexually assaulted.
- After 18 days of trial, the fiercely litigated case pitting hoax victim Louise Ogborn against the McDonald's Corp. is expected to go to a jury tomorrow, after today's closing arguments.
- An update on the McDonald's phone hoax case being held in Shepherdsville.
- A McDonald's executive testified yesterday that Louise Ogborn should have known she had the right to stop a humiliating strip search at its Mount Washington restaurant under a company policy that prohibits offensive conduct in its stores.
Every customer in North America should be made aware that McDonald's view of this is that the victim is just after money because she didn't sue the (unknown) hoax caller; and that the ordeal helped her to grow. Also, this new part-time employee should have demanded her rights under obscure company policies.
http://www.kentuckylawblog.com/2007/10/more-on-mcds-st.html?cid=86676998#comment-86676998
Posted by: Dan | Wednesday, October 17, 2007 at 07:30 AM
Every customer in North America should be made aware that McDonald's view of this is that the victim is just after money because she didn't sue the (unknown) hoax caller; and that the ordeal helped her to grow. Also, this new part-time employee should have demanded her rights under obscure company policies.
Posted by: Dan | Wednesday, October 17, 2007 at 07:27 AM
I sure am glad I am not from Kentucky. Seems like no one has any common sense there including the jurists.
Posted by: Jean Merritt | Thursday, October 11, 2007 at 08:07 PM
Legally, this case is perfectly reasonable. Rodney, your jealousy is a little pathetic. Punitive damages save society at large far more money than they cost those who pay them. they send important messages. Yes, the girl lucked out that it was McDonald's, and not a mom and pop store with smaller pockets (to whom a few thousand would have been adequate punitive damages). McDonald's did screw up, and was negligent here. They deserve to pay.
Posted by: 3L | Friday, October 05, 2007 at 02:30 PM
It must have been a slow day at the office when this girl came to Ann Oldfather with this suit. This just falls in line with every other ridiculous and frivolous lawsuit. How can anyone hold McDonalds responsible for an idiot employee? And to ask for 200 million dollars is ridiculous as well. "Oh I don't want to have to work for the rest of my life." The real people who are responsible for this are paying their debt to this girl and society, in jail. Somebody shoot me please!!!
Posted by: Rodney | Thursday, October 04, 2007 at 02:38 PM