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

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

rawstory.com

Fast food giant McDonald's has denied workers compensation benefits to a minimum wage employee who was shot when he ejected a customer who had been beating a woman inside the restaurant.

A representative of the administrator for McDonald's workers compensation plan explained that "we have denied this claim in its entirety as it is our opinion that Mr. Haskett's injuries did not arise out of or within the course and scope of his employment."

Nigel Haskett, then aged 21, was working at a McDonald's in Little Rock, Arkansas last summer when he saw a patron, later identified as Perry Kennon, smacking a woman in the face. A surveillance video of the incident, which had been posted to YouTube, was taken down after McDonald's charged copyright infringement, but according to written descriptions of the video, Haskett tackled Kennon, threw him out, and then stood by the door to prevent him from reentering.

Kennon went to his car, returned with a gun, and shot Haskett multiple times. Haskett staggered back into the restaurant and collapsed

(visit the link for the full news article)



Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Submit General News

I find this totally unacceptable.

Those damn insurance companies. I mean one would think in this day and age that this was going to be all over the web making McDonald look like the cold, heartless bastards that they are.

What is it cost a huge company like this more...

Paying the claim and making this guy the hero that his obviously is...

Or the huge negative PR that will surly come out of this.

I guess the little guy is going to get screwed again.

rawstory.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

If anything, I'd expect mcdonalds to give the guy some kind of award, and spin it like "that's the kind of person that works for us, and we're proud."

Disgusting. This news makes me not want to give McDonald's any of my money.

Absolutely astounding. I hereby will not ever buy anything from Mc Donalds until they do the right thing with this hero. Let me guess, they are the Official suppliers to the Black House?

Looks like we have a McDonalds boycott on our hands. People are not going to take this well. They're already fed up with insurance companies and their fraudulent schemes.

Originally posted by Blueracer
Disgusting. This news makes me not want to give McDonald's any of my money.

You should have stopped giving them your money when you realized they weren't giving you real food.

Supposedly there is a video of this out there.

Actually it's below the article but I can't seem to pull it up for you guys.

Can anyone grab it??

This guy surly fits into the "good Samaritan" law...end of story!!!!

I gave up mcdonalds just after the SUPER SIZE ME documentary came out. I have never looked back. On a side note this particular chain has many fingers n many pies and is well worth researching.

Conspiracy after conspiracy.

This employee was not acting on his job requirements when he was shot, and therefor his own choice to act is his own responsibility.

I have disliked McD's and many fast food places for years, so I am not defending them.

This employee thought he was being a hero.... He probably should have called 9-1-1 if he was concerned.

For all we know, this man that shot him is usually abusive, to a woman that still chooses to be with him. Sorry to have a different opinion on this one, but it's a common story. This was between a woman that should have pressed charges and left a loser... not a min wage worker needing to take laws and matters into his own hands.

Seriously, I am surprised McDonald's is not being sued. Employees like this are a liability.

Once again we have a big corporation showing it's true colors. McDonalds does not care about it's employees it's all about the money, and they are "Lovin it".

I'm sure this will come back to nip them in the ass tho, so I wouldnt rule out McDonalds changing their mind based on damage control.

reply to post by king9072


Gee. You are so clever.

Mod Note: One Line and Short Posts – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 23-2-2009 by DontTreadOnMe]

Originally posted by Blueracer
reply to post by king9072

 

Gee. You are so clever.

Haha I know right. Did you see what I did there?


Mod Note: One Line and Short Posts – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 23-2-2009 by DontTreadOnMe]

reply to post by LostNemesis


I'm not from the States, so I wouldn't know - but where I hail from it is illegal not to intervene when a crime is being committed. Do you not have the same legislation?

Originally posted by thesearch
reply to post by LostNemesis

 

I'm not from the States, so I wouldn't know - but where I hail from it is illegal not to intervene when a crime is being committed. Do you not have the same legislation?

I don't think there is any law that says you have to intervene. If there was countless people would be breaking the law because 99% of people in America just turn away when a crime is being committed.

Mc no trade union burger
Mc no minimum wage burger
Mc no real meat burger
Mc ???? burger
anyone want to add... lmao

reply to post by thesearch


As far as I know, Domestic Abuse is not actually against the law, unless charges are pressed by the victim.


And yeah, in psychology class, my teacher calls it the 'bystander effect' when somebody is being attacked or stolen from in front of MANY people and they all just watch thinking someone else will do something.
Dunno if that is as common in England as it is here.

Why should McDonalds pay compensation? They ought to give him an award, possibly a promotion and higher wages.

But "compensation" implies that McDonalds was at fault. It was not. He just happened to be working in one of their branches when he intervened. What if the man had been working in a small bookstore and been shot? Would you expect the owner of the small bookstore to pony up the compensation? All of you are too eager to jump and slam the corporations just because they are the big, easy target. Liberals will never understand this concept, but just because they can afford to pay doesnt mean they should be forced to do so.

How about we blame and penalise the person who committed the crime, rather than the faceless corporation.

Logic and law dictates that the only person who should have to pay compensation is the gunman.

Originally posted by thesearch
reply to post by LostNemesis

 

I'm not from the States, so I wouldn't know - but where I hail from it is illegal not to intervene when a crime is being committed. Do you not have the same legislation?

I think this is a law in at least some states in the US? This was the topic of the final episode in the sit-com Sienfield. Jerry, Elaine, George and Kramer were arested after watching a mugging. I don't recall where they were, but know it was somewhere outside of New York?

TooManyHumans...Um, I was not speaking to you. So your post doesn't make sense to me.

[edit on 2/23/2009 by Blueracer]

[edit on 2/23/2009 by Blueracer]



Mod Note: One Line and Short Posts – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 23-2-2009 by DontTreadOnMe]