McDonald's: No workers comp for employee shot protecting patron

IMHO, I am not sure if McDonald's owes him workers' comp, because I don't have all the facts in this case. McDonald's image, however, will become a bit tarnished over this incident.

One thing for sure, though, the employee who got shot defending the victim of a beating inside the restaurant is definitely a hero.

What do you think? Does the McDonald's employee deserve workers' comp? Explain why or why not.

Article is here.

McDonalds is going to get told whether or not to pay out the workers comp. Workers comp is heavily regulated by the states, even though its sold through the private sector. Hopefully, the kid will win the lawsuit here.

If this McDonald's is corporate, I would imagine they have their own "insurance" company and self insure and thus it is actually McDonalds denying the claim, rather than a third party insurance company.

WI Crippler said:

McDonalds is going to get told whether or not to pay out the workers comp. Workers comp is heavily regulated by the states, even though its sold through the private sector. Hopefully, the kid will win the lawsuit here.

If this McDonald's is corporate, I would imagine they have their own "insurance" company and self insure and thus it is actually McDonalds denying the claim, rather than a third party insurance company.

Click to expand...

McDonald's will end up losing this lawsuit. It's nasty corporate greed at its finest.

McDonald's prices will be going up to cover the cost of the lawsuit and the damages McDumbasses will be paying out.

Wow. McDonald's is quite an asshole.

I don't know how Arkansas laws work, but if this had happened in Ohio I think he would almost certainly be entitled to worker's comp.

Kandahar said:

Wow. McDonald's is quite an asshole.

I don't know how Arkansas laws work, but if this had happened in Ohio I think he would almost certainly be entitled to worker's comp.

Click to expand...

There are only 2 states in the US where employers can opt out of workers' comp. Texas is one of them. Not sure what the other one is.

I voted yes but feel there should have been a "yes, but..." choice.

I think what we have here is what you would consider a typical response by the corporation when faced with $300 thousand dollars in medical bills. Let's face it, their attorneys are doing their jobs. And certainly that job is distasteful and I don't agree with what they are doing, but this isn't surprising. We've all heard stories about convenient store clerks who fight off robbery suspects only to be fired because they violated corporate policy relating to what they are supposed to do in a robbery. This is no different. And this young mans injuries are precisely why those corporate policies exist. Can you image any company that said "hey, if someone is wielding a gun, take 'em out if you get a chance." Or "protect our property at all costs." Can you imagine the liability involved? It's why they specifically say "don't be a hero, the money isn't worth your life, give it up, we have insurance."

The obvious difference here is this man was defending a woman who was being battered. This man was doing the right thing and I'm glad he did. I'm sorry he got shot and hope the coward thug that did it spends the rest of his life in jail. But seriously, I can see why McDonalds is denying the claim. If McDonalds were to set a precedent and honor this man's claim, it really puts them in a trick bag. They can't go back on their own policy, a policy designed to protect their employees and limit corporate liability.

What I think McDonald's should do is deny his claim, but hold a company wide fund raiser to help this hero employee pay his medical bills and recover from his injuries. Maybe a good Samaritan award is in order.

Lerxst said:

I voted yes but feel there should have been a "yes, but..." choice.

I think what we have here is what you would consider a typical response by the corporation when faced with $300 thousand dollars in medical bills. Let's face it, their attorneys are doing their jobs. And certainly that job is distasteful and I don't agree with what they are doing, but this isn't surprising. We've all heard stories about convenient store clerks who fight off robbery suspects only to be fired because they violated corporate policy relating to what they are supposed to do in a robbery. This is no different. And this young mans injuries are precisely why those corporate policies exist. Can you image any company that said "hey, if someone is wielding a gun, take 'em out if you get a chance." Or "protect our property at all costs." Can you imagine the liability involved? It's why they specifically say "don't be a hero, the money isn't worth your life, give it up, we have insurance."

The obvious difference here is this man was defending a woman who was being battered. This man was doing the right thing and I'm glad he did. I'm sorry he got shot and hope the coward thug that did it spends the rest of his life in jail. But seriously, I can see why McDonalds is denying the claim. If McDonalds were to set a precedent and honor this man's claim, it really puts them in a trick bag. They can't go back on their own policy, a policy designed to protect their employees and limit corporate liability.

What I think McDonald's should do is deny his claim, but hold a company wide fund raiser to help this hero employee pay his medical bills and recover from his injuries. Maybe a good Samaritan award is in order.

Click to expand...

Fund raiser would have been nice, but McDonald's is a corporation. Fundraisers are only for the top brass, and they raise those funds by getting on their knees in front of Congress.

Lerxst said:

I voted yes but feel there should have been a "yes, but..." choice.

I think what we have here is what you would consider a typical response by the corporation when faced with $300 thousand dollars in medical bills. Let's face it, their attorneys are doing their jobs. And certainly that job is distasteful and I don't agree with what they are doing, but this isn't surprising. We've all heard stories about convenient store clerks who fight off robbery suspects only to be fired because they violated corporate policy relating to what they are supposed to do in a robbery. This is no different. And this young mans injuries are precisely why those corporate policies exist. Can you image any company that said "hey, if someone is wielding a gun, take 'em out if you get a chance." Or "protect our property at all costs." Can you imagine the liability involved? It's why they specifically say "don't be a hero, the money isn't worth your life, give it up, we have insurance."

The obvious difference here is this man was defending a woman who was being battered. This man was doing the right thing and I'm glad he did. I'm sorry he got shot and hope the coward thug that did it spends the rest of his life in jail. But seriously, I can see why McDonalds is denying the claim. If McDonalds were to set a precedent and honor this man's claim, it really puts them in a trick bag. They can't go back on their own policy, a policy designed to protect their employees and limit corporate liability.

What I think McDonald's should do is deny his claim, but hold a company wide fund raiser to help this hero employee pay his medical bills and recover from his injuries. Maybe a good Samaritan award is in order.

Click to expand...

I don't see why this would undermine their policy. They could still encourage their employees not to be heroes, yet honor his claim. 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.

Besides, I don't see why they would not be legally obligated to honor this claim. He was injured on the job.

danarhea said:

Fund raiser would have been nice, but McDonald's is a corporation. Fundraisers are only for the top brass, and they raise those funds by getting on their knees in front of Congress.

Click to expand...

I think most McDonalds are franchise owned.

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.

Kandahar said:

I don't see why this would undermine their policy. They could still encourage their employees not to be heroes, yet honor his claim. 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.

Besides, I don't see why they would not be legally obligated to honor this claim. He was injured on the job.

Click to expand...

Good point, and I think he will get his worker's comp because of my own experience. My first part time job was when I was 16 years old, and it was as a dishwasher at a Big Boy's Restaurant. One day, the dishwasher broke. I repaired it. It took me 2 hours, and I was not paid for those 2 hours because I was "not doing my job". My father filed a complaint with the Labor Relations Board in Michigan, and I was fired because of it. However, I was awarded those 2 hours plus unemployment for 13 weeks.

independent_thinker2002 said:

I think most McDonalds are franchise owned.

Click to expand...

Most of the franchised owned fast food restaraunts carry insurance via the corporation they are franchised with. It may vary between companies, but most franchise owners are usually free to purchase third party, private insurance, but they rarely do.

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.

Kandahar said:

I don't see why this would undermine their policy.

Click to expand...

It would absolutely undermine their policy because they are rewarding an employee who broke policy and got shot and nearly killed. Why would they even consider absorbing $300 thousand dollars in medical bills for an employee who broke policy? It opens the door by setting a precedent within the corporation. Corporations aren't in the business of doing the right thing, they are in business of maintaining the company bottom line.

They could still encourage their employees not to be heroes, yet honor his claim.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

I would tend to agree. Still doesn't shore up the case for discarding corporate policy though.

Besides, I don't see why they would not be legally obligated to honor this claim. He was injured on the job.

Click to expand...

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:

• 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.

MrVicchio said:

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.

Click to expand...

Well I wish we had more people like him in our world.

Lerxst said:

I voted yes but feel there should have been a "yes, but..." choice.

I think what we have here is what you would consider a typical response by the corporation when faced with $300 thousand dollars in medical bills. Let's face it, their attorneys are doing their jobs. And certainly that job is distasteful and I don't agree with what they are doing, but this isn't surprising. We've all heard stories about convenient store clerks who fight off robbery suspects only to be fired because they violated corporate policy relating to what they are supposed to do in a robbery. This is no different. And this young mans injuries are precisely why those corporate policies exist. Can you image any company that said "hey, if someone is wielding a gun, take 'em out if you get a chance." Or "protect our property at all costs." Can you imagine the liability involved? It's why they specifically say "don't be a hero, the money isn't worth your life, give it up, we have insurance."

The obvious difference here is this man was defending a woman who was being battered. This man was doing the right thing and I'm glad he did. I'm sorry he got shot and hope the coward thug that did it spends the rest of his life in jail. But seriously, I can see why McDonalds is denying the claim. If McDonalds were to set a precedent and honor this man's claim, it really puts them in a trick bag. They can't go back on their own policy, a policy designed to protect their employees and limit corporate liability.

What I think McDonald's should do is deny his claim, but hold a company wide fund raiser to help this hero employee pay his medical bills and recover from his injuries. Maybe a good Samaritan award is in order.

Click to expand...

Yes. You said it all.

MrVicchio said:

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.

Click to expand...

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."

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Orius said:

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.

Click to expand...

I think the issue here is more whether the employer is liable for the unjuries sustained when the emplyee undertook a "folly of his own" To which the answer would be "no". The emplyoee doe have a case for a suit in that the event ocurred in the workplace, it is prima facie evidence of a failure to provide a safe working environment.

independent_thinker2002 said:

I think most McDonalds are franchise owned.

Click to expand...

If this is the case, that franchise owner is about to find out how it feels to lose his business because of his ridiculous level of greed.

No more free cheeseburgers for his sorry ass.

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.

MrVicchio said:

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.

Click to expand...

This mentality is why the world is the way it is today. Where I live a few years back a woman was beaten in a hair salon by a maniac. If I remember correctly the hair salon folks all ran to a back room and locked themselves in. The woman managed to escape her attacker, flee the hair salon, and attempted to run into a pizza joint nearby. The pizza joint employees had already known what was happening and had locked their door. They refused to let her in - though they could have. So her attacker caught up to her and started beating her again.

McDonalds comes off as very crappy in this scenario.

aps said:

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.

Click to expand...

The man was injured in the performance of his duty. McDonald's is required to pay out for workplace injuries and they will be forced by a court of law to do so.

As a governing body I would severely fine the owner of the franchise for his excessive greed and failure to follow the law.

He can allow workman's comp or he gets fined $250,000 for refusing to do so. Simply put -- he takes care of his employee or his business goes bye-bye.

danarhea said:

Good point, and I think he will get his worker's comp because of my own experience. My first part time job was when I was 16 years old, and it was as a dishwasher at a Big Boy's Restaurant. One day, the dishwasher broke. I repaired it. It took me 2 hours, and I was not paid for those 2 hours because I was "not doing my job". My father filed a complaint with the Labor Relations Board in Michigan, and I was fired because of it. However, I was awarded those 2 hours plus unemployment for 13 weeks.

Click to expand...

I would have filed a multi-million dollar lawsuit against the company and the manager who fired you.

That sorry son of a bitch.

Vader said:

The man was injured in the performance of his duty. McDonald's is required to pay out for workplace injuries and they will be forced by a court of law to do so.

As a governing body I would severely fine the owner of the franchise for his excessive greed and failure to follow the law.

He can allow workman's comp or he gets fined $250,000 for refusing to do so. Simply put -- he takes care of his employee or his business goes bye-bye.

Click to expand...

At a minimum, I think it's arguable as to whether his beating that man was within the scope of his employment. This isn't some factual scenario that establishes undebatably that the guy was within the scope of his employment. To me, his physically assaulting the guy was beyond his employment. That is my legal opinion. I understand people wanting to have this guy get his medical expenses paid and if McDonald's supported the claim, I would be happy. But based on my reading of the facts, I believe he was outside the scope of his employment.

Legally, McDonald's is correct in denying it. But it would be wise to make an exception in this case because the bad press will cost them more in the long run.