The caller was let off due to a stupid jury.
The manger should be sued for a few thousand dollars.
The oral sex recipient is in jail.
The girl should get free McDonalds food for life.
The Company should not held liable for millions.
The girl was just plain stupid.
From her interview on tv, you could tell she was not the brightest bulb in the box.
2006-12-04 09:29:05
·
answer #1
·
answered by Chris C 5
·
0⤊
1⤋
This child's parents or guardians should begin civil proceedings against McDonalds, naming the assistant manager Donna Summers. This woman in my opinion was lying to the interviewer regarding her not knowing this child was in severe distress. It was HER fiance for pete sake! The guy has issues if he went along with it and is right where he should be, in the Bendover Manor. Assistan manager Summers ought to be in the next cell too, spending her evenings entertaining a cellmate.
And this all took place at the workplace so McDonalds has liability in this matter. And I hardly think it equates to some fool dumping scalding coffee in her lap, this is a serious matter and not frivolous litigation. And my view has nothing to do with how much money the company can spare. It has to do with negligence. The assistant manager was on duty at the time and it was her fiance who did these terrible things. She, as a representative of the company is responsible and at the top of that list of those responsible is the company. Like it or not, that is the way it works.
2006-12-04 17:22:19
·
answer #2
·
answered by Rich B 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
What?
Why should McDonald's have to pay because she was forced to do these things at the threat of her life. Would it had been different if she had the phone and was told in person.
Was the crank caller an employee of McDonald's and was he or she told by McDonald's make the prank phone call. Sorry, but McDonald's is not responsible for sick people abusing the phone system.
2006-12-04 16:54:32
·
answer #3
·
answered by jasonzbtzl 4
·
0⤊
1⤋
First-- Why did she do those things? I would have walked out.
Second-- Is the corporation of McDonalds at fault? Or was it just some jerk-off shift manager? Just because you are wearing a shirt with the golden arches on it, doesn't mean that everything you do is a direct representation of the company as a corporation. It should, but it doesn't. They put those kinds of disclaimers on DVD's all the time.
2006-12-04 17:01:15
·
answer #4
·
answered by Jack 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
I watched that and was so disgusted! I think the manager should go to jail. BUT i don't get why they listened to the person on the other end giving the demands. Hell if i would have taken my clothes off and done all those things because someone on the phone "said to", cop or no cop!
2006-12-04 16:54:32
·
answer #5
·
answered by Nancy M 3
·
2⤊
0⤋
I think just about everyone in that room, including the young woman in question, should be sterilized to make sure they don't breed any more idiots. I think McDonald's should sue them, but especially the manager, for destruction of their reputation. There's no amount of training McDonald's could provide to overcome such complete stupidity.
2006-12-04 17:06:11
·
answer #6
·
answered by mattzcoz 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
The girl is an idiot for doing it.
The manager is an idiot for asking/making her do it-- he should go to jail
How can McDonalds be held responsible? Its not as if there was a corp. policy of that behavior.
If anything, maybe the francisor should be held responsible.
Its stuipd for people to say that just becuase McDonalds has money, they should pay.
2006-12-04 17:02:29
·
answer #7
·
answered by dapixelator 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think Mcdonald's should pay the girl every cent for the humiliation. The manager should go to jail for being stupid, and the prank callers should go to jail too.
2006-12-04 17:00:39
·
answer #8
·
answered by greenary 5
·
1⤊
1⤋
No. She's the idiot that did the things. If someone's telling me that the police are on the phone and I need to get naked, I'm getting the hell out of there. How could anyone fall for that crap?
2006-12-04 16:54:59
·
answer #9
·
answered by Paul P 3
·
1⤊
1⤋
um I have no idea what your talking about but it sounds like its fact. I get catch the drift of the whole story. I think that its kinda weird but if it really happened then "MacBoycott" I mean Mac donalds should pay for the behaviour of one of its employees who represented the corporation on their property.
2006-12-04 17:00:06
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋