Louise Ogborn is suing McDonalds for $200 million in damages after being told to remove her clothing and be strip-searched by assistant managers on the basis of someone calling in and telling them they were a police officer.
It was related to the caller saying there were concerns about theft at the location. Calls to other McDonalds had been made in the past in a similar way.
Some of the behavior in the case is so strange that it boggles the mind. I'm not going to take sides on the issue, but it is one of the oddest things I've ever heard of in business.
For example, who would listen to someone on the phone telling someone to strip-search a worker without confirmation? All you'd have to do is call a trusted number to confirm.
Footage of Actual Event
Then you have the alleged victim simply going along with the search and doing whatever she was told to do. Not that many people would ever allow someone to do that to them in the workplace.
When one of the people involved was asked, "Didn't it ever dawn on you that this violated the sexual harassment policy?" The response was, "I was just minding my own business." That's a strange response to me.
Here's some of what actually happened:
Ogborn was told "to do exercises in the nude and perform oral sex on him (Walter Nix Jr). He also slapped her several times on her buttocks, at the direction of the caller, the records show."
When you listen to that, there's just something not right about it from all aspects of the event. What did this have to do with a strip-search? How would anybody obey something like that in response to someone saying they were a police officer on the telephone?
On the other hand, who would respond to someone on the phone telling them to do that to someone? It's just plain bizarre!
What about McDonalds? Their biggest error, from what I've read about it, was assuming their people were smart enough to not partake in these types of behaviors. Of course with the case going on for a month, it's hard to know if anything being said isn't completed orchestrated by lawyers on both sides of the law suit.
While most people would think people couldn't be this ignorant, we as managers have to assume they are. By that I mean we have to have an open communication policy in our businesses to counteract the majority of things that could happen. That seems to be the underlying attack on McDonalds in this case.
Another bad move by McDonalds was not following through on a suggestion from their global security director to place stickers on phones across the company warning of the possibilities of the hoax.
Their response was it wouldn't do any good because the stickers fall off almost immediately from the grease on workers' hands.
But why have a security director if you don't heed their advice? That's why you retain them in the first place because they think differently than we do.
These hoax calls should have signaled warning bells all over the company. There should have been immediate and aggressive action to let workers know about it. Although many did, not everybody was made aware. We have to learn to think defensively and act fast when these types of events take place.
This is really unfortunate for all parties involved. It's like there's blame to be placed everywhere, and other than the caller, everybody else is a victim of the unfortunate hoax.
The case is ready to go to jury.
Other Related Posts:
Sponsored link: The outsourcing every manager requires - Tampa Locksmith
» Don't Think Communication is Important? Look at Louise Ogborn Case against McDonalds from TheAlphaMarketer
In one of the strangest events I've ever heard in the business world, the case of Louise Ogborn against McDonalds (MCD) for $200 million underscores the tremendous need for communication in any business.Several years ago a phone call from someone... [Read More]
Tracked on: October 4, 2007 5:17 PM | Permalink to Trackback