The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016
I should know, I tried to crack into the franchise restaraunt insurance market. It was one of my focus groups for about 1 year. Never got a McDs, but I got a few DQs, and Subways.
"Loyalty only matters when there's a hundred reasons not to be-" Gen. Mattis
I don't see how. Policy is in place for a reason. And a company as big as McDonalds opens themselves up to all kinds of exposure if they start selectively discarding policy.They could still encourage their employees not to be heroes, yet honor his claim.
I would tend to agree. Still doesn't shore up the case for discarding corporate policy though.I doubt anyone else would be discouraged from following the policy, as most people aren't thinking about workers' comp when they make these kind of decisions.
There is a case to be made for his claim being honored as a "good samaritan" act that was done in the best interest of the company. However, simply being injured on the job does not entitle you to workers comp benefits. If you are:Besides, I don't see why they would not be legally obligated to honor this claim. He was injured on the job.
- engaging in behavior that is not a part of your job duties,
- and, you are doing so of your own accord with no directive from your employer,
- and this behavior is specifically forbidden by company policy,
- and, you are injured as a result of this behavior...
The company has a very solid defense with which to challenge your claim.
It's not for me to say whether or not Haskett is telling the truth in this case; there's no way for me to know. I imagine that you will maintain that he is lying, so let's assume that he was in fact told that he should not be a hero "in the event of a robbery or anything like a robbery."Originally Posted by Haskett's Lawyer
Careful words. If he was told only that he should not interfere with a robbery, that clearly does not cover this event, as it was not a robbery. Case closed. If it were McDonald's policy to tell employees that they should not interfere with the physical assault of another person on the premises even if they feel like they could prevent or put an end to the assault, then that's that. Case closed. But McDonald's would never have such a policy, because it would be a PR disaster. Accordingly, that haven't claimed that Heskett was told that during orientation. In consequence, it appears that they've chosen to employ a seemingly innocuous phrase that they hoped might be ambiguous enough to cover an action that they were not willing to explicitly prohibit. Pretty shady. Will it hold up in court? I suspect it won't, but we'll see.
If we're talking about a company's money, and the company that employs me is asking me to allow their money to be taken in the event of a robbery, which nearly all retail companies do, that's different - it's their money. That's a smart policy. In the event of an assault on a person on the premises, I would argue that expecting me to not attempt to stop violence against another person if I feel I can do so is an unreasonable request. Why? Because that's what we've been taught decent human beings do. If you feel you have the power to stop senseless violence against another person, you do so. As the article states, the courts have come to the same conclusion a number of times.
I'm not sure what I would do in such a situation, as I've never been in one like that, but if I felt like I could stop a victimization and accordingly chose to interfere in an attempt to keep another human being from sustaining harm, I would be stunned to learn that I could be disciplined or fired for such an action, and I would be very surprised that my worker's comp policy does not cover me for acting in a way that is widely thought of as honorable and entirely reasonable behavior, unless that policy specifically stated as much. And if it did, I would probably not be working for that company.
One human being taking a bullet for another... such bravery is uncommon these days. I don't really care what McDonalds does... I don't need further proof to know its status quo. What I would care about is if a corporation were telling employees not to do this sort of thing. Of course it shouldn't be EXPECTED that someone take a bullet like this, but there shouldn't be a corporate policy against such a human act.
What is wrong with the world, seriously.
First, I love what the employee did. No question he has an exceptionally good heart.
However, having said that, reading the description of what he did looks like he was outside the scope of his employment. It would be one thing if he took the woman and locked himself in a bathroom with her to PREVENT the guy from continuing to attack her. But he physically assaulted the guy. To me, he went overboard, IMHO (that's what I would argue if representing McDonald's ). I can't blame McDonalds for rejecting the workers comp claim.
Again, I think what the employee did was truly exceptional, but he could have protected this woman in a better manner than he did.