Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Remember the McDonald's Strip Search Case? Jury has case

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
RamboLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 04:26 PM
Original message
Remember the McDonald's Strip Search Case? Jury has case
It was the shocking story and unbelievable surveillance video that riveted the nation. A young McDonald's employee humiliated, forced to strip and then to perform a sexual act in the back office, during her work day.

This horrifying ordeal changed one woman's life forever, and most recently put McDonald's on trial for their alleged failure to warn Louise Ogborn and other employees that a hoax caller was on the loose. Ogborn is seeking $200 million in damages, and the closely watched civil trial is now in the hands of a jury in Bullitt County, Ky.

-----

But inside the back office, which had now become an "interrogation room," Ogborn's protests fell on deaf ears.

"She said, 'Well, they said it was a little girl that looked like you in a McDonald's uniform, so it had to be you.'"

It was Ogborn's word against the accusation of a man claiming to be a cop, and she was given a choice: submit to a search or be escorted to the police station.

Ogborn was told to empty her pockets and surrender her car keys and cell phone, which she did. Then the caller demanded that Summers have Ogborn remove her clothes even her underwear leaving her with just a small, dirty apron to cover her naked body.

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=3688563&page=1

A jury on Thursday began deliberating the case of woman who said she was forced to strip in a McDonald's back office at the behest of a caller posing as a police officer.

Louise Ogborn, 21, is suing the fast-food giant, accusing it of failing to warn her and other employees about the hoaxer, who had already struck other McDonald's stores and other fast-food restaurants across the country.

Ogborn is seeking $200 million in compensatory and punitive damages. McDonald's has said Ogborn is responsible for whatever damages she suffered for not realizing it was a hoax. After a four-week trial, the jury starting deliberations Thursday.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gthvjx0hyBqv5SyJLN_d...



How in the hell can a manager be so damned stupid? And she wasn't the only one to fall for this hoax. I give the girl a bit of a pass cause she was 18 - you can be incredibly naive at that age and submit too easily to authority.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
niyad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 04:33 PM
Response to Original message
1. was there any indication ever that summers and her fiance were in on the hoax? sure sounds like it
to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RamboLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 04:39 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. The manager's boyfriend is serving a 5 year term
McDonald's is pointing the finger at others -- namely Summers and her boyfriend, Walter Wes Nix, Jr., Dockery and Ogborn -- saying they should have known better than to obey the caller's instructions. At one point during the 3-1/2 hour phone call, Summers called Nix and asked her to help keep an eye on Summers.

The caller then began giving Nix orders -- including having Ogborn perform oral sex on him. Nix has pleaded guilty to sexual abuse and is serving a 5-year sentence.

http://www.wave3.com/Global/story.asp?S=7153285&nav=0RZ...

Don't know if they knew the caller - but as I said others fell for this hoax.

But in an opening statement that lasted about 90 minutes, Oldfather recounted incident by incident how managers at 28 stores across the country were duped by the caller, who claimed that young employees had stolen money from customers, then conned supervisors into conducting degrading searches.

"Come back with me to Aug. 4, 1994, to the little town of Saybrook, Ohio," Oldfather told the jury." A phone rings in the McDonald's and the caller tells a manager that a young female employee has stolen a purse." The manager a male proceeded to strip search two girls, both minors.

Speaking for about 30 minutes before she even mentioned her client, Oldfather described more than two dozen other incidents, as the caller's freakish sexual demands escalated and what she said was McDonald's meager response.

That response included adding, in 2001, a single paragraph banning strip searches to its 4-pound, 750-page employee manual, which at the Mount Washington store was placed on a shelf unread, Oldfather said. She dropped the manual on a table in front of the jury to show how voluminous it is.

http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AI...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 04:36 PM
Response to Original message
2. Fascinating case on the power of human gullibility.
So absolutely absurd I find it hard to believe McDonalds is liable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RamboLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 04:43 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. I'm not surprised the victim was a avid church goer
Also came from a military family. Kind of conditioned not to question authority. One article I read said after the incident she blamed God and quit going to church.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tularetom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 04:48 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. Well if that's the case perhaps something good came out of
this horrible incident. The poor kid learned to think for herself instead of blindly following the orders of authority figures.

McDonald's ought to pay something just for hiring such douchebags as managers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 04:49 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. I guess that explains part of it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RavensChick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 04:46 PM
Response to Original message
5. I hope she wins big time!
You don't forget something like that. The first time I saw it on 20/20 I was horrified beyond words. I'm all but certain that poor child is still in therapy for having to endure something like that. If the jury comes back in her favor, she should sue the managers and their familes for everything they own!! I give her a pass too 'cause of her age, but my God! What sick ass freak in their twisted mind would think of something that evil to do to an innocent person? Jail time ain't good enough. Let her win, but let the perps get the Ultimate Judgement when their time comes!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aikoaiko Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 05:16 PM
Response to Reply #5
13. Do you really think it was McDonald's fault though?

After all, they did train their managers to not strip search anyone on the job.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Richard Steele Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 05:49 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. McDonalds is responsible for the actions of their employees.
And that manager, Donna Jean Summers, clearly bears
a great deal of responsibility for what happened
to that poor girl.

Whether or not that's "right", I honestly don't know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aikoaiko Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 06:40 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. I am not a lawyer, but I think McDonald's responsibility not so clear cut.
Edited on Thu Oct-04-07 06:43 PM by aikoaiko

I'm more familiar with sexual harassment law. If a company takes reasonable effort to educate, prevent, and punish sexual harassment among its workers, then they are not liable if one of their employee harasses.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Richard Steele Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-05-07 01:32 AM
Response to Reply #17
18. I think you're probably on the right track there.
I'm no lawyer myself, and that article leaves me with
a whole bunch of unanswered questions...

But when I see this sentence: "Judge Thomas McDonald
said he would allow jurors to see a copy of the employee
handbook that Ogborn signed...
"
I suspect that McDonalds Inc. is basing its defense on some variation
of that "reasonable effort to educate" principle that you mention.
At least some part of its defense, anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AngryAmish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-05-07 02:21 PM
Response to Reply #17
21. McDonald's responsibility is clear
(and not just because the jury came back for the plaintiff)

Under the concept of respondiate superior, an employer is liable for the actions of their employees during working hours unless the employee goes on "a frolic of their own". That means totally abandons the employers business. This manager was clearly doing McDonald's business.


Your knowledge may be in sexual harassment. This is the tort law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
niyad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 04:47 PM
Response to Original message
6. even at 18, I knew enough to demand that the person on the phone present himself and his badge IN
PERSON.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chulanowa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 04:57 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. When was that?
Kids these days are trained to follow orders without thought. It's a reflexive thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Forrest Greene Donating Member (946 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 04:59 PM
Response to Original message
10. Always Do What The Man In The Uniform Says
He's your friend, there to protect you. And if you don't, he'll taser you. If you're innocent, you have nothing to worry about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mountainman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 05:04 PM
Response to Original message
11. I am so amazed that this all could even have happened. Is this country ready to accept
marshal law or what? No one in this story except one of the guys told to watch the girl had any sense or questioned what was going on!

Has the last six years programed us to accept fascism? When I was a kid the adults would have protected the kid in spite of the "police." I don't know how they could have let this kid stay naked for 3 hours, the didn't call her parents, the did nothing to protect her!

I'm stunned!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aikoaiko Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 05:14 PM
Response to Original message
12. If McDonald's can make the case they took reasonable measures to train...

their managers to not strip search anyone (i.e., its in the manual), then its hard to see how the victim will win.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Democrat 4 Ever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 05:34 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. Supposedly McDonald's had this hoax pulled at several restaurants
throughout the nation over a period of years. McDonald's is arguing they warned all store managers to be on the look out for such behavior. The local manager is saying she never received any instructions or warnings of any kind from McDonald's. This is a big story locally. I really believe the young woman was harmed due to the actions of a McDonald's manager. Millions? I don't know about that but she deserves something. She was 16 at the time of the event, green as grass and was presented with authority figures telling her they were going to take her to jail if she didn't comply. They accused her of stealing and her boss and the McDonald's "executive" on the phone were threatening her with jail time, her parents and friends knowing, etc.

That said, the hoax caller instructed the manager to CALL HER BOYFRIEND to help watch over the employee. The MANAGER OBEYED. Once on the scene the boyfriend FOLLOWED INSTRUCTIONS and had the child (16 is a child) perform oral sex on him like she was "ordered."

According to some in the local media, McDonald's did not inform their managers and the public because they were afraid of negative publicity and parental difficulties in hiring teen kids to sling their food. Remember - McDonald's is the happy place. Where no one gets stripped, embarassed or abused.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RamboLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 06:39 PM
Response to Reply #12
16. 1 paragraph in a 750 page 4 pound manual
Edited on Thu Oct-04-07 06:41 PM by RamboLiberal
That response included adding, in 2001, a single paragraph banning strip searches to its 4-pound, 750-page employee manual, which at the Mount Washington store was placed on a shelf unread, Oldfather said. She dropped the manual on a table in front of the jury to show how voluminous it is.

This is from response I posted upthread. I doubt the managers even read that sucker all the way through. Hell I think my employer has only a 50 page manual and I haven't consulted it for years. Still any manager who did this is STUPID and lacked COMMON SENSE!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eugene Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-05-07 01:48 PM
Response to Original message
19. Jury gives $6.1M to woman in strip hoax (AP)
Source: Associated Press

Jury gives $6.1M to woman in strip hoax

By BRUCE SCHREINER, Associated Press Writer
24 minutes ago

SHEPHERDSVILLE, Ky. - A jury awarded $6.1 million
Friday to a woman who said she was forced to strip
in a McDonald's back office after someone called the
restaurant posing as a police officer.

Louise Ogborn, 21, had sued McDonald's Corp.,
claiming the fast-food giant failed to warn her and
other employees about the caller who already struck
other McDonald's stores and other fast-food
restaurants across the country.

-snip-

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071005/ap_on_re_us/strip_s...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Quantess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-05-07 02:02 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. The jury probably felt sorry for the young woman.
Not in small part because she was an avid church goer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AngryAmish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-05-07 02:22 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. Don't you?
She was stip search and then sexually assaulted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Quantess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-05-07 03:06 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. Of course I do.
I'm not sure that McDonalds was liable, though. Obviously the jury thought so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Sep 02nd 2014, 05:31 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC