PDA

View Full Version : McDonald's Refuses To Serve Woman With No Hands



Blandy vs Terrorism
07-03-2007, 10:21 PM
http://cbs2chicago.com/watercooler/watercooler_story_184031037.html

(CBS) ROCKFORD, Ill. A genetic syndrome has left Illinois resident Dawn Larson without hands or fully developed arms.

Larson has learned to lead a full life by using her feet. She's even able to drive.

She says she's never had a problem in public until she went through a McDonald's drive-thru in Rockford last fall. Normally, Larson first gives the cashier her debit card to pay for the order and then grabs the food and drink with both feet.

But at McDonald's she said they took her money at one window but wouldn't give her the food at the next window. Larson says she felt degraded.

"I reached my foot out the window to grab the food," says Larson. "She set the food down, raised her hands up really high in the air and slammed them down on the counter. This was like violently."

"'I am not doing this,' she screamed that at me, 'Absolutely not doin' this.'"

The restaurant offered her a $10 gift certificate. She then contacted a lawyer and two months later experienced the same thing at a different Rockford McDonald's.

Now she's suing the company for $4 million and wants it to improve employee training.

"She was asking for no special accommodations, she just wanted to be treated like everyone else. And that's where I believe McDonald's certainly violated her rights," said Laurel Wykes Smith, Dawn's Attorney.

McDonald's says it can't comment on Larson's lawsuit but it has a strict policy against any discrimination in its restaurants.

King of Mars
07-03-2007, 10:25 PM
Fuck her and her stumps. The drive-thru monkey probably thought that she was some wiseass fucking around. Granted, it was a dumb reaction but the restaurant tried to make it right. This another bullshit, "get rich quick" lawsuit.

Blandy vs Terrorism
07-03-2007, 10:28 PM
......

sto110
07-03-2007, 10:28 PM
Fuck her and her stumps. The drive-thru monkey probably thought that she was some wiseass fucking around. Granted, it was a dumb reaction but the restaurant tried to make it right. This another bullshit, "get rich quick" lawsuit.

agreed

and points for calling the drive thru person a monkey when the person in the car was trying to pick things up with thier feet.

thatguyfromsyracuse
07-03-2007, 10:30 PM
$10 gift certificate? Thats ten double cheeseburgers off the dollar menu!! She didn't take it?!! What a dumbass!!

A.Huerta
07-03-2007, 10:31 PM
She doesnt have any arms and McDonalds is bad for everyone. Give her the 4 mill.

TheKraken
07-03-2007, 10:32 PM
Four million dollars because her admittedly bizarre method of retrieving the food freaked some people out? Jesus Christ...

XSaraXPoeX
07-03-2007, 10:35 PM
SAY MY NAME, BITCH!:mad: SAM WHEAT!

adam_warlock_2099
07-03-2007, 10:41 PM
SAY MY NAME, BITCH!:mad: SAM WHEAT!

Michelle, Michelle!

jugglersdespair
07-03-2007, 10:42 PM
Four million?! Good God!

At Applebee's today I told my server I didn't want coleslaw with my chicken fingers so he offered to substitute stuffed mashed potatoes instead. When I got my check I noticed he charged me $.99 for the potatoes. My suffering must be worth, what, fifty maybe sixty grand?

XSaraXPoeX
07-03-2007, 10:43 PM
She wants to buy new hands. :D

Jamie Howdeshell
07-03-2007, 10:43 PM
Wha? 9 posts in and nobody has wrongly complained about how terrible our legal system is?

Tsk tsk tsk.

:no:

thatguyfromsyracuse
07-03-2007, 10:46 PM
Our legal system is horrible.

Jamie Howdeshell
07-03-2007, 10:48 PM
Our legal system is horrible.

At least you didn't say "terrible.

:surrend:

thatguyfromsyracuse
07-03-2007, 10:49 PM
At least you didn't say "terrible.

:surrend:

Thats what I meant. Our legal system is terrible. Yup. Terrible.

Jamie Howdeshell
07-03-2007, 10:49 PM
Thats what I meant. Our legal system is terrible. Yup. Terrible.

I'm suing.

Magnum V.I.
07-03-2007, 10:49 PM
Our legal system is horrible.

It's the worst legal system in the Best country.

Matthew Brown
07-03-2007, 10:50 PM
Just goes to show you to never go to McDonald's unarmed.

Blandy vs Terrorism
07-03-2007, 10:51 PM
So....employees at two different McDonald's restaurants treat this woman rudely because she has to use her feet to take food since she has no hands, and she's a money grubber?

thatguyfromsyracuse
07-03-2007, 10:52 PM
Just goes to show you to never go to McDonald's unarmed.

http://i189.photobucket.com/albums/z69/thatguyfromsyracuse/ZING.jpg

jugglersdespair
07-03-2007, 10:57 PM
So....employees at two different McDonald's restaurants treat this woman rudely because she has to use her feet to take food since she has no hands, and she's a money grubber?

I certainly think she has a beef (pun intended) with McDonald's over this and it's awful that she was treated this way but is it worth 4 million dollars? I'm taking into consideration that she and her lawyer probably aren't expecting the full amount but still. It seems a bit ridiculous to me.

Petey Parker
07-03-2007, 10:58 PM
So....employees at two different McDonald's restaurants treat this woman rudely because she has to use her feet to take food since she has no hands, and she's a money grubber?

People get treated rudely all the time wherever you go, doesn't mean they deserve 4 million dollars for it. The woman deserves an apology, that's obvious. But the money amount is excessive.

Dan McLellan
07-03-2007, 11:00 PM
People get treated rudely all the time wherever you go, doesn't mean they deserve 4 million dollars for it. The woman deserves an apology, that's obvious. But the money amount is excessive.

Maybe if she kept it (which any of us would (except for Moderator Moneybags). But it's less about her receiving and more about McDonald's having to pay enough to make sure it doesn't happen again.

Magnum V.I.
07-03-2007, 11:01 PM
That's like 4 Million Crispy Chicken Sandwiches! Before Taxes!

Blandy vs Terrorism
07-03-2007, 11:03 PM
People get treated rudely all the time wherever you go, doesn't mean they deserve 4 million dollars for it. The woman deserves an apology, that's obvious. But the money amount is excessive.

If it weren't specifically aimed at a woman with an obvious disability, I'd agree.

King of Mars
07-03-2007, 11:04 PM
So....employees at two different McDonald's restaurants treat this woman rudely because she has to use her feet to take food since she has no hands, and she's a money grubber?Yes, because A)it's very likely neither of the people who assisted her knew why she was using her feet and B)even if they did, it's ridiculous to seek such an excessive amount for compensation.

Blandy vs Terrorism
07-03-2007, 11:06 PM
Yes, because A)it's very likely neither of the people who assisted her knew why she was using her feet and B)even if they did, it's ridiculous to seek such an excessive amount for compensation.

I imagine the lack of hands would be a pretty big sign.

King of Mars
07-03-2007, 11:09 PM
I imagine the lack of hands would be a pretty big sign.Who knows if they could clearly see her upper body if she was leaning back and sticking her feet up in their faces?

JackBauer
07-03-2007, 11:18 PM
If I had been the employee the first thing that would have come to my mind is that this woman wants to make fun of me, not that she's lacking hands.

It's not worth 4 million dollars, she just wants to make money out of her handicap.

Blandy vs Terrorism
07-03-2007, 11:31 PM
Who knows if they could clearly see her upper body if she was leaning back and sticking her feet up in their faces?

Maybe if it were just once. But twice? I'd imagine she'd at least make a little effort to let the person know why she was using her feet the second time, if not both.

Len Snark
07-03-2007, 11:36 PM
Maybe if it were just once. But twice? I'd imagine she'd at least make a little effort to let the person know why she was using her feet the second time, if not both.

Weren't there two different McDonalds that she visited?

Anyway, feet are disgusting and people shouldn't handle food with them. I'm sorry that the lady has no hands, but let's get real. If any of you, with hands or without, tries to handle food in my presence, I will be rude.

King of Mars
07-03-2007, 11:43 PM
Maybe if it were just once. But twice? I'd imagine she'd at least make a little effort to let the person know why she was using her feet the second time, if not both.Who knows? Perhaps she's been looking for an opportunity to file this sort of lawsuit.

Obviously, I can't say for sure what happened...but people aren't typically that cruel to someone with an obvious disability. Given that fact, and the exorbitant amount of compensation she's looking for, I'm extremely skeptical about her claim.

XXXenophile
07-03-2007, 11:56 PM
If I had been the employee the first thing that would have come to my mind is that this woman wants to make fun of me, not that she's lacking hands.

It's not worth 4 million dollars, she just wants to make money out of her handicap.

Yeah sorry, you're an ass.

Why don't you wake up with a disability to see how the world treats you and see how you react to certain things most take for granted. Those of us who do have them are well aware how the world really works.

This is a woman who's been able to compensate for everything she's been able to do and some fry cook at McDonald's is going to be that rude to her?

Do they not know how low they actually are on the totem pole?

She's not going to get 4 million, if the lawsuit has merit she'll smartly take the first settlement that comes her way. But the point will also be made.

Marcdachamp
07-04-2007, 12:00 AM
I'm a manager at a local fast food chain. A few years back, a soccer team came in and we were quite busy, so I wasn't paying much attention as I handed out each order. I handed one off to a kid who politely asked me to place it on the counter. I readily obliged only to discover that the kid had no hands. I was 17 or 18 at the time and immediately felt like the biggest jerk in the world. The kid grabbed it with his elbows and made no big deal of it. I really hope he's a star some day. Good for him.

Blandy vs Terrorism
07-04-2007, 12:04 AM
Weren't there two different McDonalds that she visited?

Anyway, feet are disgusting and people shouldn't handle food with them. I'm sorry that the lady has no hands, but let's get real. If any of you, with hands or without, tries to handle food in my presence, I will be rude.

Yes, and from the article, she was treated rudely at both.

Considering all the random objects people put their hands on every day out in public, hands could be considered just as disgusting as feet.

King of Mars
07-04-2007, 12:17 AM
Yeah sorry, you're an ass.

Why don't you wake up with a disability to see how the world treats you and see how you react to certain things most take for granted. Those of us who do have them are well aware how the world really works.

This is a woman who's been able to compensate for everything she's been able to do and some fry cook at McDonald's is going to be that rude to her?

Do they not know how low they actually are on the totem pole?

She's not going to get 4 million, if the lawsuit has merit she'll smartly take the first settlement that comes her way. But the point will also be made.How do you know it wasn't a misunderstanding? Drive-thru attendants undoubtedly put up with all kinds of strange, rude behavior when they're working. If I was working there and saw someone's feet come up at me, my first thought certainly wouldn't be, "This person probably doesn't have any arms so she's using her feet to take her food." I'd probably think someone was trying to screw with me...and I might get angry.

Hard to know what exactly happened...but the fact that she filed a four million dollar lawsuit because she was treated rudely at the drive-thru really does make me question this woman's credibility.

/(. . )/
07-04-2007, 12:27 AM
Four million dollars because her admittedly bizarre method of retrieving the food freaked some people out? Jesus Christ...

No, four million dollars for making someone suffer discrimination. A company needs to be responsible for the people they employ. $4 million is pennies to McDonalds.

I hope she wins.

/(. . )/
07-04-2007, 12:29 AM
Four million?! Good God!

At Applebee's today I told my server I didn't want coleslaw with my chicken fingers so he offered to substitute stuffed mashed potatoes instead. When I got my check I noticed he charged me $.99 for the potatoes. My suffering must be worth, what, fifty maybe sixty grand?

you're completely missing the point of this.

it's not about money. it's about discrimination. suing for millions of dollars just causes the company to take things seriously. they'll probably lose, but not have to pay a ridiculous amount.

but if they do? we all have arms, right? imagine not having hands. that must suck. I have no problems with someone born without hands getting rich without effort.

/(. . )/
07-04-2007, 12:33 AM
If I had been the employee the first thing that would have come to my mind is that this woman wants to make fun of me, not that she's lacking hands.

Don't take this personally. But if you really think that way.. I dunno dude, that's sad.

Smokinblues
07-04-2007, 04:36 AM
If I had to guess I'd say it's probably a lot less about the money than it is about bringing attention to the situation. A multimillion dollar lawsuit will attract a lot more attention from McDonalds, the media, and other resteraunts than pretty much anything else she could have done.

JackBauer
07-04-2007, 04:50 AM
Don't take this personally. But if you really think that way.. I dunno dude, that's sad.

Why? Those people at the drive-ins are constantly the aim of bad jokes.
When something like this happens you just don't think in the very first moment that this person who is DRIVING A CAR might have no hands to grab his Mc Donald's menu.

bartleby
07-04-2007, 04:55 AM
If someone comes through the drive-thru with their ass hanging out the window, should McDonald's serve them as well?

AAlgar
07-04-2007, 04:56 AM
Somebody needs to teach McDonald's a lesson. A J. Walter Weatherman lesson.

ShortStack
07-04-2007, 05:03 AM
Give her the four million. One person is a misunderstanding, two is assinine. They need to improve their training.
Oh, and more fast food ignorance
http://video.aol.com/video-detail/id/3399639166

Mylazycat
07-04-2007, 05:08 AM
If someone comes through the drive-thru with their ass hanging out the window, should McDonald's serve them as well?

So, you're saying being born without hands is equal to hanging your ass out a window?

Blandy vs Terrorism
07-04-2007, 05:09 AM
So, you're saying being born without hands is equal to hanging your ass out a window?

Looks like that's it exactly.

Good thing I didn't lose any limbs in Iraq, or apparently every fast food worker in the country would be perfectly alright to be rude to me if I couldn't just pick up a bag of burgers and fries with my hands like anyone else.

bartleby
07-04-2007, 06:12 AM
So, you're saying being born without hands is equal to hanging your ass out a window?

No, I'm saying a McDonald's employee could easily interpret a person sticking their feet in the drive-thru window as an act of tomfoolery.

Kefky
07-04-2007, 06:18 AM
*whimpers* I wish I could have four million dollars.

Fake Pat
07-04-2007, 06:19 AM
This is a woman who's been able to compensate for everything she's been able to do and some fry cook at McDonald's is going to be that rude to her?

Do they not know how low they actually are on the totem pole?


You're being quite rude to those who work at drive-thru's.

I hope someone sues you for 4 million dollars, and they WIN. You need to be taught a lesson.

Blandy vs Terrorism
07-04-2007, 06:20 AM
*whimpers* I wish I could have four million dollars.

Cut off your hands and go to a McDonald's in Chicago.

silverboy
07-04-2007, 06:26 AM
...how does she eat her food?

xyzzy
07-04-2007, 06:29 AM
No, I'm saying a McDonald's employee could easily interpret a person sticking their feet in the drive-thru window as an act of tomfoolery.

That explains the initial reaction, but not the subsequent failure to serve.

First of all, $4 million may be high (but maybe not, most of that is likely punitives), but McDonalds offering a $10 gift certificate is insulting. Second, McDonalds is responsible for the conduct of their employees, no matter how low on the totem pole they are.

Foolish Mortal
07-04-2007, 06:46 AM
Part of the reason why people have to sue for so much money is legal costs. Cases like this can drag on for months, even years and can rack up hundreds of thousands of dollars.

If this woman wins, she might be lucky to get awarded half the amount she's seeking. And attorneys will end up taking half of that.

Gecko
07-04-2007, 06:47 AM
This thread is all kinds of LOL!

Foolish Mortal
07-04-2007, 06:52 AM
...how does she eat her food?
Probably with her feet.

Like I said in the previous thread about this story, I've seen several stories about people who were born with the defect, but amazingly, they can compensate with the feet and legs.

Their legs become extremely flexible, and they use their feet to such an extent that their toes became phenomenally dexterous. They can pick up small objects, write, and even drive with their feet with some minor modifications to a car. It's extraordinary.

Marissa
07-04-2007, 06:55 AM
Why? Those people at the drive-ins are constantly the aim of bad jokes.

This is completely irrelevant. Even if this woman was not disabled, the behavior of the McDonald's employees would still constitute poor customer service. Maybe if the employee had had a better reaction that "I'm not doing this" at the drive thru window, this could have been resolved without a lawsuit.

If this lawsuit makes employees think twice about how they treat any paying customer, then great.

/(. . )/
07-04-2007, 07:01 AM
Probably with her feet.

Like I said in the previous thread about this story, I've seen several stories about people who were born with the defect, but amazingly, they can compensate with the feet and legs.

Their legs become extremely flexible, and they use their feet to such an extent that their toes became phenomenally dexterous. They can pick up small objects, write, and even drive with their feet with some minor modifications to a car. It's extraordinary.

http://www.lenamaria.com/english/index.php

JackBauer
07-04-2007, 07:02 AM
This is completely irrelevant. Even if this woman was not disabled, the behavior of the McDonald's employees would still constitute poor customer service. Maybe if the employee had had a better reaction that "I'm not doing this" at the drive thru window, this could have been resolved without a lawsuit.

If this lawsuit makes employees think twice about how they treat any paying customer, then great.

If the disabled lady had told that she is disabled before she hanged out her feet out of the window everything would have been fine.

So why is this the employee's fault?

Foolish Mortal
07-04-2007, 07:07 AM
http://www.lenamaria.com/english/index.php
Wow, and she only has one good leg, and she's able to do so much. It really is remarkable how adaptable human beings are.

Blandy vs Terrorism
07-04-2007, 07:07 AM
If the disabled lady had told that she is disabled before she hanged out her feet out of the window everything would have been fine.

So why is this the employee's fault?

A rude employee is a rude employee, regardless of whether or not they were told the situation.

Kirblar
07-04-2007, 07:08 AM
That explains the initial reaction, but not the subsequent failure to serve.

First of all, $4 million may be high (but maybe not, most of that is likely punitives), but McDonalds offering a $10 gift certificate is insulting. Second, McDonalds is responsible for the conduct of their employees, no matter how low on the totem pole they are.
However, she is also responsible for informing the drive-thru worker of her disability, and if she just stuck her feet up without informing them of her disabilty, I can't blame the worker for her natural reaction to food being handled with feet.

Queen of the Ban Age
07-04-2007, 07:09 AM
If the disabled lady had told that she is disabled before she hanged out her feet out of the window everything would have been fine.

So why is this the employee's fault?

Since she had already paid for her meal, the employee was refusing to give her something she already paid for. I'd say that the other employee had no problems taking the credit card or money from the woman.

Honestly, as long as she's paid and not causing a problem, what difference does it make WHAT she uses to get her food?

Foolish Mortal
07-04-2007, 07:10 AM
If the disabled lady had told that she is disabled before she hanged out her feet out of the window everything would have been fine.

So why is this the employee's fault?
She goes through her day doing everyday things without having to inform people about her lack of arms. She probably didn't even think about it.

JackBauer
07-04-2007, 07:14 AM
She goes through her day doing everyday things without having to inform people about her lack of arms. She probably didn't even think about it.

So if I had no arms and went into a supermarket. Would it be ok to ask the cashier to get my erection outta my trouser and hang the bag with my shopping around it?

Foolish Mortal
07-04-2007, 07:14 AM
However, she is also responsible for informing the drive-thru worker of her disability, and if she just stuck her feet up without informing them of her disabilty, I can't blame the worker for her natural reaction to food being handled with feet.
How is it her "responsibility"? As Alysha said, she paid for her food, give her the food. It's none of the employee's business how she accepts the food.

Queen of the Ban Age
07-04-2007, 07:15 AM
So if I had no arms and went into a supermarket. Would it be ok to ask the cashier to get my erection outta my trouser and hang the bag with my shopping around it?

Now that's just being ridiculous and stubborn in your argument.

Foolish Mortal
07-04-2007, 07:17 AM
So if I had no arms and went into a supermarket. Would it be ok to ask the cashier to get my erection outta my trouser and hang the bag with my shopping around it?
Okay, I'm going to wait here while you try to explain to me how that's a reasonable analogy. :)

changingshades
07-04-2007, 07:18 AM
She wants to buy new hands. :D

what? is she edwina scissorhands all the sudden?

changingshades
07-04-2007, 07:19 AM
It's the worst legal system in the Best country.

sweden?

xyzzy
07-04-2007, 07:20 AM
However, she is also responsible for informing the drive-thru worker of her disability, and if she just stuck her feet up without informing them of her disabilty, I can't blame the worker for her natural reaction to food being handled with feet.

As I said, initial reaction, sure. But the subsequent failure to serve is simply not justified by anything.

jason hissong
07-04-2007, 07:23 AM
As I said, initial reaction, sure. But the subsequent failure to serve is simply not justified by anything.

you'd think a manager or someone else at the store could step in and hand the woman her food.

/(. . )/
07-04-2007, 08:19 AM
So if I had no arms and went into a supermarket. Would it be ok to ask the cashier to get my erection outta my trouser and hang the bag with my shopping around it?

not worth getting banned again.. not worth getting banned again..

why why why do you make such stupid comments?

she's not asking for $4 million dollars to get rich quick.

1. she was wronged.
2. she is seeking to change the system that wronged her TWICE
3. she is suing McDonalds. THAT TAKES MONEY.
4. as stated earlier, if she wins, most of the money will go to legal costs and there will probably be a settlement for much less
5. $4 million is for attention. if she sued for less than a million, it might not be taken so seriously.

it's great that people are taking the side of McDonald's. We shouldn't all think the same. But one using one's feet to make up for the lack of arms does not equal one using one's penis for their lack of brains.

JackBauer
07-04-2007, 08:25 AM
That comment shouldn't be taken too seriously, but I just don't buy it that she sues McDonald's because she feels hurt as a disabled person.

If that was her real motivation she could just go to restaurant owner and tell him about his employee's behaviour.

Dan McLellan
07-04-2007, 08:26 AM
That comment shouldn't be taken too seriously, but I just don't buy it that she sues McDonald's because she feels hurt as a disabled person.

If that was her real motivation she could just go to restaurant owner and tell him about his employee's behaviour.

Well it's a good thing that nobody in the legal system is asking you then.

Queen of the Ban Age
07-04-2007, 08:26 AM
That comment shouldn't be taken too seriously, but I just don't buy it that she sues McDonald's because she feels hurt as a disabled person.

If that was her real motivation she could just go to restaurant owner and tell him about his employee's behaviour.

She apparently did. And then got a $10 gift certificate for her troubles.

And then it happened again at another McDonald's.

JackBauer
07-04-2007, 08:31 AM
She apparently did. And then got a $10 gift certificate for her troubles.

And then it happened again at another McDonald's.

Then she should have done the same thing again.
I wonder how often she went to McDonald's and everything went just fine.

/(. . )/
07-04-2007, 08:31 AM
That comment shouldn't be taken too seriously, but I just don't buy it that she sues McDonald's because she feels hurt as a disabled person.

If that was her real motivation she could just go to restaurant owner and tell him about his employee's behaviour.

well, why don't you ask her. I'm sure she has email or myspace..

edt

Queen of the Ban Age
07-04-2007, 08:33 AM
Then she should have done the same thing again.
I wonder how often she went to McDonald's and everything went just fine.

So what you're saying is that because she was born with a handicap that she has overcome without people having to go out of their way to accommodate, she should be discriminated against repeatedly?

bartleby
07-04-2007, 08:36 AM
If McDonald's was refusing to serve her because she didn't have arms, then her complaint has merit. But if the employee didn't serve her because she thought it was just some jackass sticking their feet out the window, then it's a whole different matter.

Master Jack Rabbitt
07-04-2007, 08:41 AM
Just goes to show you to never go to McDonald's unarmed.

:lol:

Jim.
07-04-2007, 08:43 AM
I live in Rockford, I am going to try to find this woman, and have her post a resp.....oh wait....can she type with her feet?

Masculine Todd
07-04-2007, 08:55 AM
Yeah sorry, you're an ass.

Why don't you wake up with a disability to see how the world treats you and see how you react to certain things most take for granted. Those of us who do have them are well aware how the world really works.

This is a woman who's been able to compensate for everything she's been able to do and some fry cook at McDonald's is going to be that rude to her?

Do they not know how low they actually are on the totem pole?

She's not going to get 4 million, if the lawsuit has merit she'll smartly take the first settlement that comes her way. But the point will also be made.

I'm sorry for your handicap, but now you're the one acting like an ass.

"Do they not know how low they actually are on the totem pole?" Seriously, get over yourself. I know many people who work at fast food joints. I've done it for a summer myself. How dare you insinuate that they're some kind of low-level part of humanity?

As for the woman, I truly feel for her and the hostility aimed at her is inexcusable. Conversely, $4,000,000 is excessive to the point of absurdity.

jugglersdespair
07-04-2007, 09:02 AM
she's not asking for $4 million dollars to get rich quick.

1. she was wronged.
2. she is seeking to change the system that wronged her TWICE
3. she is suing McDonalds. THAT TAKES MONEY.
4. as stated earlier, if she wins, most of the money will go to legal costs and there will probably be a settlement for much less
5. $4 million is for attention. if she sued for less than a million, it might not be taken so seriously.

Is that really how much it would take to sue someone like McDonald's? I honestly don't know. But if so then our legal system is truely fucked.

I haven't read anywhere on how McDonald's handled the offending employees. If the managers responsible at either the local/regional/national level got wind of this and didn't reprimand or fire the individuals responsible I'd be more concerned. But this is just a few employees out of thousands. Obviously when these people did this they were representing the company and McDonald's has to be held responsible. But, in my opinion, a $4 million lawsuit in this situation screams of a lawyer sneaking in and trying to make himself some money/attention.

moonspider
07-04-2007, 09:05 AM
4mil?

seriously that's waaaaaaaaaaay too much
seriously, people are doing whatever they can to get rich quick, whatever their handicap is, be it physical or even mental

Foolish Mortal
07-04-2007, 09:11 AM
People, she's not going to get 4 million dollars. Even if she wins the case, (and that's not a sure thing) she won't get awarded anywhere close to 4 million. And the attorneys will probably take a large chunk of what she wins anyway.

jugglersdespair
07-04-2007, 09:26 AM
People, she's not going to get 4 million dollars. Even if she wins the case, (and that's not a sure thing) she won't get awarded anywhere close to 4 million. And the attorneys will probably take a large chunk of what she wins anyway.

Then you're going to have to explain to me why she isn't suing for a more reasonable amount. Maybe it has to do with a fucked up legal system.

But whether she believes she's going to get the full amount or not she's still telling the world, "I was treated unfairly and I believe it's worth $4 million dollars." This whole thing would be easier if there were some sort of "lawsuit to expected awarded compensation" conversion chart.

xyzzy
07-04-2007, 09:27 AM
Then you're going to have to explain to me why she isn't suing for a more reasonable amount. Maybe it has to do with a fucked up legal system.

But whether she believes she's going to get the full amount or not she's still telling the world, "I was treated unfairly and I believe it's worth $4 million dollars." This whole thing would be easier if there were some sort of "lawsuit to expected awarded compensation" conversion chart.

When you go to a job interview, do you ask for the salary you expect or the salary you want?

jugglersdespair
07-04-2007, 09:31 AM
When you go to a job interview, do you ask for the salary you expect or the salary you want?

I've honestly never been to a job interview where I had to ask for a certain salary.

The Sentient Xbox
07-04-2007, 09:41 AM
Here is my issue with the whole thing:

Handicapped people want to be treated like everyone else. But there is a problem, and that problem is...they are not like everyone else. They are different...and some people are going to be genuinely freaked about touching someones feet, and most people would assume that it is a joke. Also, the article doesn't go into much detail at all...she obviously called the company later, they apologized and offered her her money back or the gift certificate. Had she demanded to talk to a manager at that time, which is what everyone else in the free world has to do when they get bad service...she probably would have gotten both her meal and the gift certificate. The girl that treated her that way would have been told about her situation.

Normally, as it said in the article...she has no problem going through McDonalds...but this time was different, it says the same thing happened again, but Id like to know the details on that one for sure, since the article includes none.

Anyway, my point is this...handicapped people cant expect to live the exact same lives as other people because they are different. If they are realistic, then handicapped people with extreme handicapped/deformities should expect some people to not know how to react when it could potentially be a joke, or should be willing to explain the situation...and we dont know that she did.

Training all the employees from now on to deal with that situation when Im sure that situation is EXTREMELY rare to have to deal with...well, thats a bit ridiculous. Standard handicapped training should be sufficient.

xyzzy
07-04-2007, 09:48 AM
I've honestly never been to a job interview where I had to ask for a certain salary.

Well, whatever. Any negotiation. You don't ask for what you expect to get. You ask for maybe a little more than you're hoping for, otherwise you have no position to bargain from.

xyzzy
07-04-2007, 09:49 AM
Training all the employees from now on to deal with that situation when Im sure that situation is EXTREMELY rare to have to deal with...well, thats a bit ridiculous. Standard handicapped training should be sufficient.

Instructing employees to serve customers who are handicapped and to make reasonable accommodations should be a part of that training.

bartleby
07-04-2007, 09:50 AM
Instructing employees to serve customers who are handicapped and to make reasonable accommodations should be a part of that training.

Yeah, but did the customer make a reasonable request for accommodation, or did she just stick her feet out the window without warning?

The Sentient Xbox
07-04-2007, 09:52 AM
Instructing employees to serve customers who are handicapped and to make reasonable accommodations should be a part of that training.

Id say there is a good chance that it is, since that is 99% of the time going to be serving someone in a wheelchair, deaf, or perhaps even blindness. We have no idea how this woman handled herself, and i find it highly unlikely that if she calmly explained her situation...shed have been fine. We dont know though, so Im not gonna crucify McDonalds for being discriminating jerks if we dont know what went down.

xyzzy
07-04-2007, 09:54 AM
Yeah, but did the customer make a reasonable request for accommodation, or did she just stick her feet out the window without warning?

I don't see how that's relevant.

jugglersdespair
07-04-2007, 09:55 AM
Well, whatever. Any negotiation. You don't ask for what you expect to get. You ask for maybe a little more than you're hoping for, otherwise you have no position to bargain from.

Ok, fine. So how much is a little more in this situation? Personally I believe even a $1 million dollar lawsuit would be suing for too much.

xyzzy
07-04-2007, 09:58 AM
Ok, fine. So how much is a little more in this situation? Personally I believe even a $1 million dollar lawsuit would be suing for too much.

Without more facts, it's difficult to evaluate the value of this lawsuit.

bartleby
07-04-2007, 09:58 AM
I don't see how that's relevant.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but a business can refuse service to anyone as long as it's determined not to be an act of discrimination based on race, age, sex, handicap, etc. If the employee refused to give the customer the food because she thought it was some knucklehead teenager screwing around, then it wouldn't be like the business was intentionally discriminating against a handicapped person.

xyzzy
07-04-2007, 10:00 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but a business can refuse service to anyone as long as it's determined not to be an act of discrimination based on race, age, sex, handicap, etc. If the employee refused to give the customer the food because she thought it was some knucklehead teenager screwing around, then it wouldn't be like the business was intentionally discriminating against a handicapped person.

As I said, that excuses the initial reaction, but not the subsequent failure to serve.

jugglersdespair
07-04-2007, 10:01 AM
Without more facts, it's difficult to evaluate the value of this lawsuit.

You're right, we haven't heard (as far as I know) from the employees who were responsible. McDonald's seems to be pretty tighted lipped as well. So far we've only got one side of this.

The Sentient Xbox
07-04-2007, 10:02 AM
I don't see how that's relevant.

On any public College Campus, if you need any accommodation for any specific class, then you have to go to student support services and request that accommodation. It is not up the teacher to just know your situation...you have to make it known, and also make known what accommodation it is you might need.

Its entirely relevant.

bartleby
07-04-2007, 10:04 AM
As I said, that excuses the initial reaction, but not the subsequent failure to serve.

Of course, the article doesn't really say what happens after that point. For all we know, the customer drives off without giving the restaurant a chance to rectify the situation.

xyzzy
07-04-2007, 10:05 AM
On any public College Campus, if you need any accommodation for any specific class, then you have to go to student support services and request that accommodation. It is not up the teacher to just know your situation...you have to make it known, and also make known what accommodation it is you might need.

Its entirely relevant.

I'm not sure how those situations compare. If you walked up to your professor and tried to hand in a paper with your feet because you had no hands the accommodation required is just that he accept it. No prior arrangements need to be made.

half guard
07-04-2007, 10:07 AM
Don't take this personally. But if you really think that way.. I dunno dude, that's sad.

then i guess it's sad that i think that way too. having worked at a fast food joint when i was a kid, i know how much crap they put up with.

if someone were to stick their foot in the window to grab their food without any explanation as to why, the first thing i would think is that they were some dumbass prankster.

people are complaining about how this is some horrific discriminatory incident, when it boils down to the woman with no hands failing to explain her condition and simply shoving her bare feet into a window to grab food. how many people have her condition that these clerks have come into contact with? i'm guessing the answer is one: the idiot who is suing them. had she explained the situation up front, the situation could have gone down a lot differently.

xyzzy
07-04-2007, 10:07 AM
Of course, the article doesn't really say what happens after that point. For all we know, the customer drives off without giving the restaurant a chance to rectify the situation.

I suppose it's possible that she drove off without saying a word, but... that seems pretty unlikely to me. I just can't imagine paying for something, not getting it and then just leaving without doing anything.

The Sentient Xbox
07-04-2007, 10:17 AM
I'm not sure how those situations compare. If you walked up to your professor and tried to hand in a paper with your feet because you had no hands the accommodation required is just that he accept it. No prior arrangements need to be made.

Well, if Im in class in perfect view...then Id say its fairly obvious what the situation is, my lack of arms being made completely open and public, and the professor knowing it before hand.

If I just walked up to my professor and handed in my paper with my feet because my arms are paralyzed, he has every right to not take it, because feet arent the cleanest things in the world and he has every right to wait untill I explain my situation.

We dont know the specifics, it is likely that the woman, inside her car, leaning with her foot out to take her food, did not make it clear what her situation was. I dont know that for sure, so Im not gonna say she is a horrible person, however...Im also not gonna rag on McDonalds either

half guard
07-04-2007, 10:20 AM
I suppose it's possible that she drove off without saying a word, but... that seems pretty unlikely to me. I just can't imagine paying for something, not getting it and then just leaving without doing anything.

unless, of course, it was just a planned set-up to sue mcdonalds by the woman without hands.

The Sentient Xbox
07-04-2007, 10:24 AM
unless, of course, it was just a planned set-up to sue mcdonalds by the woman without hands.

It also could have been when the woman freaked out...the lady got really pissed and stormed off. There are two types of people...the ones who want to make a huge scene and scream in front of everyone...and the people who get mad and storm off.

Andreas
07-04-2007, 10:27 AM
It baffles me how she's able (and that she's allowed) to drive a car. It's likely that the car's modified to suit her needs, but still... More power to her.

Though I have very little sympathy for a $4 million law suit that stands in no relation to the damage she has suffered. I don't want to excuse the behavior of the cashier, but you have bad apples in every business. That's life, whether you're a handicapped person or not. And million dollar law suits just encourage people to sue companies for whatever reason.

Andreas

half guard
07-04-2007, 10:29 AM
It also could have been when the woman freaked out...the lady got really pissed and stormed off. There are two types of people...the ones who want to make a huge scene and scream in front of everyone...and the people who get mad and storm off.

good point. i hadn't thought of that, but that's because the cynic in me assumes the handless woman is a douche looking to cash in on her disability.

Len Snark
07-04-2007, 11:02 AM
Americans like to sue people for things. It's a sad truth. McDonalds has been sued for multiple things, from serving hot coffee to making people fat. I'm sorry that the foot driver felt sad about being treated differently, but I'm not sure she was discriminated against. They would have to prove that the (probably young) drive thru worker had realized her disability and then chose not to serve her based on that disability. As I said before, I don't like feet and I wouldn't want to touch someone else's feet, especially when food is involved.

Every day all over the country, people are being treated rudely. People are treated unfairly, ridiculed, and suffer all manner of indignities. That doesn't entitle you to sue a corporation for millions of dollars. This isn't a cause, this is a frivolous lawsuit that will probably be settled out of court and soon forgotten.

Remember: we weren't there at the drive-thru window and we don't know exactly how it went down. There's this whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing that people forget sometimes...

Caley Tibbittz
07-04-2007, 12:04 PM
I'm not sure $4 million is enough here. This is so thoroughly offensive.

Ben
07-04-2007, 12:06 PM
Americans like to sue people for things. It's a sad truth. McDonalds has been sued for multiple things, from serving hot coffee to making people fat. I'm sorry that the foot driver felt sad about being treated differently, but I'm not sure she was discriminated against. They would have to prove that the (probably young) drive thru worker had realized her disability and then chose not to serve her based on that disability. As I said before, I don't like feet and I wouldn't want to touch someone else's feet, especially when food is involved.

Every day all over the country, people are being treated rudely. People are treated unfairly, ridiculed, and suffer all manner of indignities. That doesn't entitle you to sue a corporation for millions of dollars. This isn't a cause, this is a frivolous lawsuit that will probably be settled out of court and soon forgotten.

Remember: we weren't there at the drive-thru window and we don't know exactly how it went down. There's this whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing that people forget sometimes...What is it okay to sue for in your crazy world?

King of Mars
07-04-2007, 12:25 PM
That explains the initial reaction, but not the subsequent failure to serve.

First of all, $4 million may be high (but maybe not, most of that is likely punitives), but McDonalds offering a $10 gift certificate is insulting. Second, McDonalds is responsible for the conduct of their employees, no matter how low on the totem pole they are.They made an effort to serve her. The ten dollar gift certificate was a part of that. What do you feel she was entitled to, a lifetime of free food?

In a world ruled by common sense, rude behavior by a couple of low level employees wouldn't open an employer up to a four million dollar lawsuit. That's just ridiculous. Yeah, in our pathetically litigious society, she CAN sue for this...but that doesn't mean it's right.

Jim.
07-04-2007, 12:42 PM
She's suing for 4 will settle for 1.5. Everyone will be happy.

Foolish Mortal
07-04-2007, 12:58 PM
She's suing for 4 will settle for 1.5. Everyone will be happy.
They'll try to settle for as little as possible. She might be lucky enough to get a few hundred thousand after legal fees.

King of Mars
07-04-2007, 01:05 PM
I suppose it's possible that she drove off without saying a word, but... that seems pretty unlikely to me. I just can't imagine paying for something, not getting it and then just leaving without doing anything.I can't imagine anyone being so rude to a person with such an obvious handicap but you seem to be open to that unlikely possibility. Perhaps she drove off in a huff over her rude treatement...or maybe - just maybe - she was looking to file a suit over something like this so she did everything she could to make it difficult for them to rectify the situation. Who knows? It's hard to know what happened just from reading that article.

Jef UK
07-04-2007, 01:07 PM
Watching some of you defend McDonald's and worry about them being sued for 4 million is laughable.

I hope she wins.

Ben
07-04-2007, 01:08 PM
I can't imagine anyone being so rude to a person with such an obvious handicap but you seem to be open to that unlikely possibility. Perhaps she drove off in a huff over her rude treatement...or maybe - just maybe - she was looking to file a suit over something like this so she did everything she could to make it difficult for them to rectify the situation. Who knows? It's hard to know what happened just from reading that article.
In the photo of her that's posted in this thread, I can't tell that she has no arms.

King of Mars
07-04-2007, 01:14 PM
Watching some of you defend McDonald's and worry about them being sued for 4 million is laughable.

I hope she wins.I'm not worried about McDonald's, I'm worried about the other people in our society who can be ruined by this type of (seemingly) frivolous lawsuit.

Jamie Howdeshell
07-04-2007, 01:16 PM
Who knows? It's hard to know what happened just from reading that article.

You say this... but somehow that doesn't stop you from your own baseless speculations against the woman in this thread.

I don't understand.

:-?

King of Mars
07-04-2007, 01:27 PM
You say this... but somehow that doesn't stop you from your own baseless speculations against the woman in this thread.

I don't understand.

:-?I never said there was anything wrong with speculation based on the information we do have. I just think it's important for everyone, on both sides of the argument, to bear in mind that we don't have all the facts in this case.

XXXenophile
07-04-2007, 02:21 PM
You're being quite rude to those who work at drive-thru's.

I hope someone sues you for 4 million dollars, and they WIN. You need to be taught a lesson.

LOL true enough. Point conceded.

XXXenophile
07-04-2007, 02:23 PM
If the disabled lady had told that she is disabled before she hanged out her feet out of the window everything would have been fine.

So why is this the employee's fault?

You expect someone to say "I want a Big Mac, fries and a coke, oh and I'm disabled so you'll be serving my feet" through the drive thru?

We have to announce our disabilities?

Foolish Mortal
07-04-2007, 02:25 PM
You expect someone to say "I want a Big Mac, fries and a coke, oh and I'm disabled so you'll be serving my feet" through the drive thru?

We have to announce our disabilities?
Exactly. They're not asking for special treatment, just be treated like everybody else. Which in both of her instances she wasn't.

XXXenophile
07-04-2007, 02:27 PM
I'm sorry for your handicap, but now you're the one acting like an ass.

"Do they not know how low they actually are on the totem pole?" Seriously, get over yourself. I know many people who work at fast food joints. I've done it for a summer myself. How dare you insinuate that they're some kind of low-level part of humanity?

As for the woman, I truly feel for her and the hostility aimed at her is inexcusable. Conversely, $4,000,000 is excessive to the point of absurdity.

You're right it was an irrational statement to make. And this is especially in light of how I yell at my friends for how they treat workers at Wal-Mart with some of their actions.

So it certainly needs to be retracted.

Lyfeforce
07-04-2007, 02:33 PM
Since she had already paid for her meal, the employee was refusing to give her something she already paid for. I'd say that the other employee had no problems taking the credit card or money from the woman.

Honestly, as long as she's paid and not causing a problem, what difference does it make WHAT she uses to get her food?

...this brings up a question. Did she give the money/credit card to the drive-thru attendant with her feet prior to the employee's blowup? She'd kinda have to, right? Maybe it was one of those two drive thru (one for payment, one for food) McD's and the first drive thru employee was smart enough not to freak out?

Fat Randy
07-04-2007, 03:03 PM
If this lady wins her lawsuit I really really hope that Ronald McDonald breaks into her house, cuts off her feet and sets the house on fire.

This just seems like shes trying to make up for years of people making fun of her and giving her strange looks for missing her feet.

Is she suing because she couldn't get a job at Mcdonalds?

xyzzy
07-04-2007, 09:45 PM
I'm not worried about McDonald's, I'm worried about the other people in our society who can be ruined by this type of (seemingly) frivolous lawsuit.

Yeah, I don't think you really understand what a frivolous lawsuit is.

Kirblar
07-04-2007, 10:13 PM
Yeah, I don't think you really understand what a frivolous lawsuit is.
Oh, I'd say this definately qualifies.

Blandy vs Terrorism
07-04-2007, 10:15 PM
Oh, I'd say this definately qualifies.

Kramer burning himself because "the coffee was too hot" is a frivolous lawsuit. A woman with a disability getting discriminated against isn't.

WillieLee
07-04-2007, 10:17 PM
Oh, I'd say this definately qualifies.

Are you a lawyer?

Magnum V.I.
07-04-2007, 10:17 PM
http://homepage.mac.com/aalgar/pics/misc/scream.jpg

AAlgar
07-04-2007, 10:18 PM
http://homepage.mac.com/aalgar/pics/misc/scream.jpg

Hey, now... use it responsibly or I'll take it away from you.

Magnum V.I.
07-04-2007, 10:19 PM
Hey, now... use it responsibly or I'll take it away from you.

:sad:

Kirblar
07-04-2007, 10:24 PM
Kramer burning himself because "the coffee was too hot" is a frivolous lawsuit. A woman with a disability getting discriminated against isn't.
Where's the discrimination?

I don't see them refusing to serve her food after talking to management or based on the fact that she has a disability. The drive through attendant in both cases reacted to having someone attempt to grab food with their foot, and was resolved at the store when the customer came inside and talked to management.

Kirblar
07-04-2007, 10:26 PM
Are you a lawyer?
No, but its irellevant. There's the legal definition, and then there's the colloquial definition 99% of the populace uses. I'm using the latter.

WillieLee
07-04-2007, 10:28 PM
No, but its irellevant. There's the legal definition, and then there's the colloquial definition 99% of the populace uses. I'm using the latter.

Uh...sure.

Blandy vs Terrorism
07-04-2007, 10:35 PM
Where's the discrimination?

I don't see them refusing to serve her food after talking to management or based on the fact that she has a disability. The drive through attendant in both cases reacted to having someone attempt to grab food with their foot, and was resolved at the store when the customer came inside and talked to management.

The attendant in both cases refused to give food to someone who had already paid for it. And as I've said before, I could see them making the mistake of not knowing the first time, but not in both cases.

Blandy vs Terrorism
07-04-2007, 10:36 PM
No, but its irellevant. There's the legal definition, and then there's the colloquial definition 99% of the populace uses. I'm using the latter.

Which seems to be "whatever I happen to think is a frivolous lawsuit".

Kirblar
07-04-2007, 10:36 PM
The attendant in both cases refused to give food to someone who had already paid for it. And as I've said before, I could see them making the mistake of not knowing the first time, but not in both cases.
2 different McDonald's restaurants. Was not repeated at the same place.

Blandy vs Terrorism
07-04-2007, 10:37 PM
2 different McDonald's restaurants. Was not repeated at the same place.

Unless she's hiding her arms behind her back, I think she'd let them know the situation somehow after the first time.

Kirblar
07-04-2007, 10:39 PM
Which seems to be "whatever I happen to think is a frivolous lawsuit".
No, it's "XYZZY was sticking the fact that he knew what the difference between the legal and colloquial definitions were in the previous poster's face".

In general conversation, frivolous lawsuit means one thing. In legal terminology it means another. This isn't a board composed completely of lawyers, and people weren't using the legal definition. So to then throw it in their faces is pretty rude.

WillieLee
07-04-2007, 10:43 PM
No, it's "XYZZY was sticking the fact that he knew what the difference between the legal and colloquial definitions were in the previous poster's face".

In general conversation, frivolous lawsuit means one thing. In legal terminology it means another. This isn't a board composed completely of lawyers, and people weren't using the legal definition. So to then throw it in their faces is pretty rude.

Are you drunk?

Kirblar
07-04-2007, 10:43 PM
Are you drunk?
Not at all.

WillieLee
07-04-2007, 10:46 PM
Not at all.

Oh. So someone who knows the definition of words is rude when they point out that someone else is not using the word correctly?

Kirblar
07-04-2007, 10:49 PM
Oh. So someone who knows the definition of words is rude when they point out that someone else is not using the word correctly?
Yes, when the "correct" terminology only applies to its usage within a very limited percentage of the population while the general usage has a different meaning.

That, and I found the post condescending as hell.

Len Snark
07-04-2007, 10:57 PM
What is it okay to sue for in your crazy world?

Things That It Is NOT Okay to Sue For, a partial list:
- Blaming someone else for letting you have the freedom to be stupid
- Someone hurt your feelings

Things That It Is Okay for Sue For, another partial list:
- Someone deprived you of your civil liberties
- The Man kept you down


I don't really see how foot hands lady was deprived of her civil liberties. What's more, I don't think you should be driving around with your feet. I'm not sure what device she's using to drive the car, but it seems wrong somehow. At worst, and I do mean at worst, I think this lady was treated very rudely and McDonalds should probably do more than a $10 McGift Certificate. I think a lifetime supply of chicken mcnuggets or whatever she wants along those lines would be a nice gesture. Maybe they could loan Grimace out to drive her around on Saturdays. The important part of this is that it's not lawsuit material. America has got too many freakin' lawsuits.

Len Snark
07-04-2007, 10:59 PM
Watching some of you defend McDonald's and worry about them being sued for 4 million is laughable.

I'm not worried about McDonalds being sued for 4 million dollars. I just object to the idea that all mega-corporations are evil simply because they are successful. Make McDonalds donate money to handicap awareness or something.

WillieLee
07-04-2007, 11:05 PM
Yes, when the "correct" terminology only applies to its usage within a very limited percentage of the population while the general usage has a different meaning.

That, and I found the post condescending as hell.

I find this post to be very transubstantiatio.

Dan McLellan
07-05-2007, 12:17 AM
Things That It Is NOT Okay to Sue For, a partial list:
- Blaming someone else for letting you have the freedom to be stupid
- Someone hurt your feelings

Things That It Is Okay for Sue For, another partial list:
- Someone deprived you of your civil liberties
- The Man kept you down


I don't really see how foot hands lady was deprived of her civil liberties. What's more, I don't think you should be driving around with your feet. I'm not sure what device she's using to drive the car, but it seems wrong somehow. At worst, and I do mean at worst, I think this lady was treated very rudely and McDonalds should probably do more than a $10 McGift Certificate. I think a lifetime supply of chicken mcnuggets or whatever she wants along those lines would be a nice gesture. Maybe they could loan Grimace out to drive her around on Saturdays. The important part of this is that it's not lawsuit material. America has got too many freakin' lawsuits.

She shouldn't even be driving? Wow.

Joe Kalicki
07-05-2007, 01:13 AM
At first I thought this would be about the restaurant not letting her in because she wasn't wearing shoes. . .

But anyway, yeah, the first person didn't serve her food, but presumably a second employee did and the manager tried to make it up to her with a Gift Card. It was a simple mistake and the business attempted to rectify it.

The fact that it happened two times after how many trips to McDonalds? Presumably dozens, if not hundreds. It happens. People get freaked out. Even if they know she has a disability it doesn't mean they're not grossed out. And if another employee came by immediately and served her food, no big deal. Yeah, I imagine it's embarrassing for her, but oh well. When I had long hair and was clean shaven I was called "ma'am" once at a gas station (true story), it was embarrassing as all hell. It happens.

And what if the employee at the window had podophobia (fear of feet) or something, and took the job with a reasonable expectation of never having to see the disgusting things? She might be emotionally damaged now! She should sue the foot lady, and McDonalds, for putting her in that position.

King of Mars
07-05-2007, 01:58 AM
Yeah, I don't think you really understand what a frivolous lawsuit is.I probably don't know the legal definition, Johnnie Cochran, but I can certainly make some determination of the general, "real world" merit of her case. Also, if I'm using the term incorrectly, why not enlighten me as to its proper use rather than just make a smartass comment. Oh, that's right, that wouldn't allow you to throw your superior knowledge of the law in my face. :rolleyes:

sto110
07-05-2007, 06:54 AM
She shouldn't even be driving? Wow.


SHE HAS NO HANDS!!!!!!!!! how is she going to properly control a car??

Kirblar
07-05-2007, 06:56 AM
Exactly. They're not asking for special treatment, just be treated like everybody else. Which in both of her instances she wasn't.
However, she ISN'T like everyone else due to her disability.

Foolish Mortal
07-05-2007, 07:00 AM
However, she ISN'T like everyone else due to her disability.
She can drive, she can use a damn credit card, and pick up a damn bag. So how is that different than 99% of the other people that come in McDonalds?

If you say you're treating her differently because of her lack of arms, then you're admitting you're discriminating, and you just lost your court case.

xyzzy
07-05-2007, 07:14 AM
No, it's "XYZZY was sticking the fact that he knew what the difference between the legal and colloquial definitions were in the previous poster's face".

In general conversation, frivolous lawsuit means one thing. In legal terminology it means another. This isn't a board composed completely of lawyers, and people weren't using the legal definition. So to then throw it in their faces is pretty rude.

This isn't a general conversation. It's a conversation about a lawsuit. If you're going to use legal terms in a legal conversation, they should probably be accurate.

Kirblar
07-05-2007, 07:14 AM
She can drive, she can use a damn credit card, and pick up a damn bag. So how is that different than 99% of the other people that come in McDonalds?

If you say you're treating her differently because of her lack of arms, then you're admitting you're discriminating, and you just lost your court case.
I'm saying that she was treated like anyone else who would stick their feet out their car window and attempt to pick up food. If the attendant is unaware of the disability (which isnt obvious unless they can see her torso clearly), then their response is understandable. In neither case did she leave without food. She just had to walk into the store to get it and explain the situation to a manager once at two different restaurants.

xyzzy
07-05-2007, 07:15 AM
I probably don't know the legal definition, Johnnie Cochran, but I can certainly make some determination of the general, "real world" merit of her case. Also, if I'm using the term incorrectly, why not enlighten me as to its proper use rather than just make a smartass comment. Oh, that's right, that wouldn't allow you to throw your superior knowledge of the law in my face. :rolleyes:

A frivolous lawsuit is one that has no merit and that the plaintiff knows has no merit. By the way, in this context, "merit" doesn't mean that you don't think it's any good. It means that it has no basis in law.

Kirblar
07-05-2007, 07:18 AM
This isn't a general conversation. It's a conversation about a lawsuit. If you're going to use legal terms in a legal conversation, they should probably be accurate.
Except that when non-lawyers use the term in reference, it does not have the same highly specific meaning. And you're not talking to other lawyers who should be expected to know that meaning. We're using the regular usage of the word, not the legal one.


Frivolous
adjective
1. characterized by lack of seriousness or sense: frivolous conduct.
2. self-indulgently carefree; unconcerned about or lacking any serious purpose.
3. (of a person) given to trifling or undue levity: a frivolous, empty-headed person.
4. of little or no weight, worth, or importance; not worthy of serious notice: a frivolous suggestion.
1. Unworthy of serious attention; trivial: a frivolous novel.
2. Inappropriately silly: a frivolous purchase.

xyzzy
07-05-2007, 07:19 AM
The important part of this is that it's not lawsuit material. America has got too many freakin' lawsuits.

You know, even if this lawsuit turns out to be total bullshit, it's still an infinitesimal percentage of the lawsuits filed.

Sometimes it seems like people make determinations about the status of the legal system based on the types of cases that get posted on internet message boards.

Which is not representative, by the way.

xyzzy
07-05-2007, 07:21 AM
Except that when non-lawyers use the term in reference, it does not have the same highly specific meaning. And you're not talking to other lawyers who should be expected to know that meaning. We're using the regular usage of the word, not the legal one.

So, in the conversations about evolution when someone says "It's just a theory," it would be wrong to correct them there, right?

Kirblar
07-05-2007, 07:23 AM
So, in the conversations about evolution when someone says "It's just a theory," it would be wrong to correct them there, right?
Wrong, rude, inappropriate, and likely to start an argument? Yes.

xyzzy
07-05-2007, 07:26 AM
Wrong, rude, inappropriate, and likely to start an argument? Yes.

Okay, now you're just being ridiculous.

Bill!
07-05-2007, 07:29 AM
I'm not sure how anyone can find a difference between frivolous in a legal and non legal sense. The legal definition IS the definition. It's not like lawyers go out and create new concepts just to fuck with people.

bartleby
07-05-2007, 07:32 AM
I'm not sure how anyone can find a difference between frivolous in a legal and non legal sense. The legal definition IS the definition. It's not like lawyers go out and create new concepts just to fuck with people.

From a legal standpoint, it's whether or not the suit has grounds within the written law to proceed. From a layman's standpoint, it's whether or not the suit seems excessive or unnecessary.

Len Snark
07-05-2007, 07:33 AM
You know, even if this lawsuit turns out to be total bullshit, it's still an infinitesimal percentage of the lawsuits filed.

Sometimes it seems like people make determinations about the status of the legal system based on the types of cases that get posted on internet message boards.

Which is not representative, by the way.

You're actually right. I was caught in the moment.

Bill!
07-05-2007, 07:34 AM
From a legal standpoint, it's whether or not the suit has grounds within the written law to proceed. From a layman's standpoint, it's whether or not the suit seems excessive or unnecessary.

I don't recognize that layman's view at all. When I hear the word frivolous, I think of something that is not worth a shit. That's basically the legal definition. In the eyes of the law, its not worth a shit.

Kirblar
07-05-2007, 07:38 AM
Okay, now you're just being ridiculous.
Not really. It's a "theory" because there's no way to actively prove it (as we dont have time machines or a way to speed up time in a bubble.) Yes, that person's obviously ignorant, but picking a fight with the obediently religious will get neither person anywhere.

King of Mars
07-05-2007, 07:40 AM
This isn't a general conversation. It's a conversation about a lawsuit. If you're going to use legal terms in a legal conversation, they should probably be accurate.This isn't a courtroom, it's an internet message board. If you're going to discuss matters like this, you should probably do it with the knowledge that both the legal and "real world" definitions of a word may come into play. A legal matter can certainly be "frivolous" without meeting the legal, textbook definition of the term.

WillieLee
07-05-2007, 07:42 AM
Not really. It's a "theory" because there's no way to actively prove it (as we dont have time machines or a way to speed up time in a bubble.) Yes, that person's obviously ignorant, but picking a fight with the obediently religious will get neither person anywhere.

Are you using the layman's definition of theory? Because I don't want to be rude.

Ben
07-05-2007, 07:42 AM
This isn't a courtroom, it's an internet message board. If you're going to discuss matters like this, you should probably do it with the knowledge that both the legal and "real world" definitions of a word may come into play. A legal matter can certainly be "frivolous" without meeting the legal, textbook definition of the term.Maybe laymen should use a different term.

WillieLee
07-05-2007, 07:44 AM
This isn't a courtroom, it's an internet message board. If you're going to discuss matters like this, you should probably do it with the knowledge that both the legal and "real world" definitions of a word may come into play. A legal matter can certainly be "frivolous" without meeting the legal, textbook definition of the term.

You used a word without knowing what it meant. You're going to have to learn to accept this fact.

Kirblar
07-05-2007, 07:45 AM
You used a word without knowing what it meant. You're going to have to learn to accept this fact.
People are using the word EXACTLY how it is meant. I posted the dictionary definition upthread.

Cth
07-05-2007, 07:46 AM
Jeez, now I know what that picture was from last week.

It was everywhere.

Bill!
07-05-2007, 07:47 AM
People are using the word EXACTLY how it is meant. I posted the dictionary definition upthread.

Did you miss the part that says: of little weight, worth, or importance?

King of Mars
07-05-2007, 07:51 AM
You used a word without knowing what it meant. You're going to have to learn to accept this fact.Uhh...no, I knew the definition of frivolous. I just wasn't concerned about whether or not this was a textbook case of a frivolous lawsuit.

King of Mars
07-05-2007, 07:52 AM
Maybe laymen should use a different term.Huh. You said, "Laymen." Huh huh huh huh.

KingMob
07-05-2007, 07:54 AM
Feel my ubituity bitches.

WillieLee
07-05-2007, 08:00 AM
Uhh...no, I knew the definition of frivolous. I just wasn't concerned about whether or not this was a textbook case of a frivolous lawsuit.

They why make a statement declaring it a (seemingly) frivolous lawsuit?

Jef UK
07-05-2007, 08:00 AM
Not really. It's a "theory" because there's no way to actively prove it (as we dont have time machines or a way to speed up time in a bubble.) Yes, that person's obviously ignorant, but picking a fight with the obediently religious will get neither person anywhere.

You don't know what the word "theory" means when used by non-layman. That we can't witness their origins is not why natural selection or gravity are deemed, "theories." Not even close.

RebootedCorpse
07-05-2007, 08:20 AM
Thalidomide Boy would have kicked the shit out of that clerk.
http://www.fpigraphics.co.uk/blogger/skinweb.jpg

Jamie Howdeshell
07-05-2007, 03:48 PM
I think it's safe to say that when talking about legal issues, one should accept that the legal definition is the default.

If one doesn't know the proper definition of a word being used, there are plenty of educational resources only a few clicks away that can easily remedy that shortcoming.
The improper response is to say, "A lot of people use the word incorrectly... Why can't I?"