Perspective people.
When I worked for Best Buy they made it clear you do not interefere with a criminal, you could even be fired, adn should attempt to stop a shoplifter or robber and get injured the company won't pay. It's in the contract, and I'm BETTING McD's has the same.
So no, as much as it might seem assholish to say this, he has no case other then emotional appeal. They can't pay this guy, or allow such behavior.
Why?
It would endanger other employees, some of whom might get really hurt or killed trying to stop a roober, and conversely, they might be liable for injury TO a robber by an employee.
So no, this guy should lose his case outright.
In this case, though, there was no robbery. It was a person being beaten. McDonald's may have a clause stating that its employees should not interfere with someone being assaulted within the restaurant, I don't know, but if they do I imagine it's going to come under some heavy fire. Here is a relevant piece of the article:
Haskett's Lawyer said:
"McDonald's position now is that during thirty-minute orientation Mr. Haskett and the other individuals going through the orientation were supposedly told that in the event of a robbery or anything like a robbery . . . not to be a hero and simply call 911. Mr. Haskett denies that anything like that was even mentioned during orientation or at any time during his employment with McDonald's."
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."
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.