(FranchisePick.Com) I’m a compassionate person. I really am. So why do I feel like callously making fun of this brave handicapped woman?
The Chicago Sun Times reports that Dawn Larson, a woman whose birth defect left her with tiny hands about six inches from her shoulders, is suing McDonald’s Corporation because she grossed-out the drive-thru window staff so bad they handed the food to her son (who has one full-sized arm).
According to the Sun Times:
On Nov. 3, Larson pulled up to the speaker at a McDonald’s in Rockford and ordered food for her and her boys totaling $23.59. She drove to the first window and passed them her credit card, gripped with the toes of her left foot. The cashier took the card, processed her payment and handed the card back to her.
Imagine working the drive-thru window for minimum wage (or close to it). You’re already suffering from depression brought on by one-too-many McNuggets, by the likelihood you’ll soon be replaced by a call center in India, by wearing a paper hat and by having paychecks signed by Mayor McCheese. Just when you thought it couldn’t get worse, there’s a bare foot outside your window waving a credit card between it’s toes. You have to take it and handle it.
According to a lawsuit Larson filed against the restaurant’s owner last week in Winnebago County, when Larson pulled up to the second window to get her food, an employee said “with a tone of disgust and repulsion,” “What’s the matter with you? . . . You ain’t got no arms. … Let me see your arms,” and drew back the bags of food from Larson’s outstretched foot. After making more allegedly rude statements, the employee closed the window and went to consult a manager, the suit states.
Some might think this is a bit exaggerated for monetary effect, but as one who has been to Rockford, I can attest to the authenticity of the dialect. It rings pretty true with my experience with a certain segment of the fast food workforce as well.
The manager appeared at the window and likewise stared in disgust at Larson while her children watched from their seats in the car, the suit states. Larson suggested that they hand the bags to her son, who has one full-size arm. He reached over and took them.
Larson later called a manager at McDonald’s to complain and was told “corrective action has been taken” against the employees, the suit says. McDonald’s sent her $10 in gift certificates.
This is a terrible situation for a handicapped woman to have endured, especially in front of her children. Why am I not feeling sorry for a woman who had to drink her baby bottle with her feet, who can ride a regular 10-speed bike, and who managed to raise four boys and “never dropped one of them”?
WHAT DO YOU THINK? IS THIS DISCRIMINATION? SHOULD MCDONALD’S HAVE TO PAY? LEAVE A COMMENT & BE HEARD!
______________________________________________________
NEED MORE LINKS?
FranBest.Com: The relentless search for the best in franchising
TopNewFranchises.Com: America’s Next Top… Franchise
Franchise Marketing: Telling the truth is good business. Seriously.
Hi Dawn! I’m so glad you took the time to say your piece. But I don’t think you owe Sean an apology. He can spout his discriminatory rhetoric on the internet, and then hide behind his right to freedom of speech. Why can’t you call him out on all of the BS he’s been spewing about you and your case, without even knowing or caring to know then details about. I gave up on trying to reason with this punk a while ago. Of course he’s going to take the corporation’s side, look at the website he’s writing about it on!
And Dawn, while I have your attention, I have a couple questions for you…
What ever happened with your lawsuit? Did you win? Or are you allowed to talk about it?
And also, did you type your comments with your feet? Just wondering….
Reply
Dawn Larson wrote: You have my picture up with all your nasty quotes like TOE JAM and MCDONALDS DOESNT LIKE IT WHEN YOU WOLF DOWN THEIR BURGERS WITH YOUR FEET! That is very unfair and offensive. That is where I think you are going to far.
You are right. I am sorry that I offended you. I guess I didn’t think about the person in a national news story actually reading my humble little blog… or caring what I had to say.
I apologize sincerely. And, as I said before, I am in awe of your accomplishments, your spirit, and your ability to overcome more adversity than few will ever know.
That said, if I hadn’t used the provocative (if crass) style I did, I doubt we’d still be generating comments on it 2 years later. So, being a bit offensive helped get your story out… and continues to get it out.
My style was not so much an attack on you as on these pious phonies who read these stories and pretend to agree but never really spent the time to actually think, or care, about the issue. I might not agree with you, but I actually am engaging in discussion not just saying “poor women! bad McDonald’s!” then eating there anyway.
Dawn Larson wrote: I would love nothing more to tell you all the facts but can not at the moment. I can tell tell you though that what I am after is equal rights for all handicapped people!
Guess what… that’s not what your lawyer is after. Your lawyer is after monetary damages… that’s all. That’s what they do; that’s their job. Yet that’s not what your goal is, so ultimately you will not be successful, even if you win.
The first instance where your lawyer’s interest deviated from yours was with who you sued. You didn’t sue the person or persons who were to blame – you sued the entity with the money. You wanted to make a statement but you won’t because McDs’ll pay your settlement from insurance and eventually pass it on to the consumer.
The next instance where your lawyer’s interest deviates from yours is that she’ll tell you not to discuss the case or it could be detrimental in court. So, here you are suing so you can publicize this injustice, only you’re not allowed to discuss it because it might weaken the monetary settlement. See the problem?
The final instance will be when your attorney explains that a gag order and nondisclosure are a requirement of the settlement. What do you think McDonald’s will be willing to pay a large sum of money for? Your silence. Do you really think they are going to pay without requiring you to never speak publicly about it again?
Do you see the conflict? I was wrong about your motives, I’ll admit. After reading your comments I see it’s not about the money for you. But the lawsuit IS about the money, and that’s your lawyer’s priority – or else she wouldn’t do it on contingency. You might have gone into it thinking you were championing the cause, but in the end, IMHO, you’re just angling going to be offered hush money and meanwhile a couple of insensitive idiots are off somewhere else without being held accountable for their despicable attitudes and behavior.
Please invite your attorney to come correct me if I’m wrong. I’ll apologize to her if I am… but I don’t think so.
Reply
i think you guys are taking it out of context to the matter at hand. basically Mcdonalds employees messed up they made fun of the handicapped because they were shocked at what they saw and as usual with how teens are and even adults in rural areas they dont give a flyin f*ck about other people then themselves. yes the mcdonalds corp is to blame because they employed the people who are selfless idiots who would rather pick on the people less then them so they feel alright about themselves later on. Ive worked with the mcdonalds corp before and ive seen how it goes down its dirtier then a homeless person and they are just lookin for a paycheck. honestly the lady should have said i have no arms and use my feet for a way to get around and the employee should have responded as an adult and just took the payment gave the food and held the comments for their own time. you people bring up justice files on discrimination like its a big f*ckin deal but seriously people do this stuff because they know they can get away with a pretty check and a fairy tale ending. like the lady and the hot coffee(dumbass on her part) and the wendys chili. they all do it life goes on.
Reply
To Kris
Why do you make your wrong assumptions? You are so far off its funny! And YES discrimination is a BIG deal! Thats why we have laws. Would YOU like to be denied something that you paid for because of your ill attitude or the way YOU look?
Reply
To BC:
And Dawn, while I have your attention, I have a couple questions for you…
What ever happened with your lawsuit? Did you win? Or are you allowed to talk about it?
And also, did you type your comments with your feet? Just wondering…. you asked….
The lawsuit is still moving forward, very slowly though! And yes I am typing this with my toes. I just want to thank you very much for your support!
Reply
For practical purposes, people don’t sue McDonald’s they sue McDonald’s insurance company. Dawn’s lawyers would not sue the individuals responsible for their atrocious and reprehensible actions because they do not have business insurance that would pay a settlement or judgement. If Dawn wins a settlement, which she likely will (but not for $4M), it will most likely be covered by their insurance. That’s why her premise of teaching McDonald’s a lesson, in my opinion, is flawed.
Here’s a better solution: McDonald’s should hire Dawn Larson as an internal speaker and spokesperson. Pay her, say, $150K per year to speak to McDonald’s employees and educate them about what it’s like to live, work and shop with a disability. She could change attitudes toward disabled customers and coworkers, sensitize people, instruct them and inspire them. She could appear in company training videos and speak at regional meetings and the national convention.
Rather than paying a settlement, hire Dawn’s attorney to consult on the disability laws and legal issues facing McDonald’s franchisees and their employees.
Motivate McDonald’s to improve by turning negative press into a positive Internet-based PR campaign. In fact, I know just the guy to promote the project…
Reply
So Sean what do ya think this guy would say about the new Burger King commercial? Talk about CO ignorance! Perfect example!
Reply
Sean:
I never seen the little people one. Im talking about the little hands one. Im not thinking of suing them, but must admit it sickened me! Its WRONG! Whats next a legless vet rolling across the street to buy a big hot an juicy pound of sizzling Mc Rotten ? Its sick and morely WRONG! And YES I would love nothing more than to really speak my mind on this nonsense! This is supposed to be a free country, ya know, like having rights? But it all seems to be a joke! We as Americans are the most discriminating people there is! And not just about race either! The rules are NOT fare and equal! Some one needs to say some thing!
Reply
Actually, the one I was thinking of was the Jack in the Box commercial that uses little people to promote their mini sirloin burgers. I could understand outrage from little people on that:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xXkmvrT_e8
I understand how you’d be upset with the Burger King commercial, though I don’t think they were trying to refer to actual people with disabilities. But I understand your point and am sorry thay you have to be subjected to messages like this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEyOOfdozsM
If you want to get your message out, I’ll be happy to help you. Email me at seankelly[at sign]ideafarm.net.
Reply
JURY TRIAL IS SET FOR JULY 12th!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Reply
TRIAL DATE: JULY 12
Reply
1. The employee at the window represents The Mc Donald’s Corporation. They are the public face for the corporation.
2. All people disabled or able are due a certain amount of respect and politeness. When you are wearing your employer’s uniform you are the company and you owe it to your employer to be professional and courteous while on their clock.
3. The McDonald’s Corporation is legally responsible for all actions by their employees while they are on the clock and on the employer’s property.
4. This employee failed the Disabilities Sensitivity training that McDonald’s is required to provide all employees. All business are supposed to provide not only gender bias/harassment sensitivity training but also disability sensitivity training.
5. Just because a person is disabled doesn’t give you the right to be an inconsiderate twit.
6. Good business practices dictate that such rude and invasive and insensitive comments don’t belong in the work place.
7. Most likely the individual employees, the store manager, store owner and McDonald’s Inc are all named in the lawsuit.
8. This is designed for small businesses but big businesses make the same mistakes. Read and become educated: http://www.ada.gov/smbustxt.htm
Even Walmart found out they too must follow the ADA.
http://www.ada.gov/walmart.htm
9. Not only were they insensitive regarding her disability but that of her son as well. If they were as insensitive to her, how many other people with disabilities were they insensitive to? Didn’t your mother ever teach you not to stare, not to make fun of other people and to keep quiet if you couldn’t say something nice?
Didn’t your business classes teach you that for every 1 complaint that someone voices there are 100 complaints you didn’t hear about and think about the fact that we as a society are much more likely to tell people when a company does something wrong than when a company does something right. How many people do you think read this article and other articles about McDonald’s mistreatment of people with disabilities? How much do you think McDonald’s has to spend to overcome the bad pr that comes with stories of this type?
10. Most likely she will receive very little money, most of the funds that McDonalds pays out will go to the Department of Justice and for the enforcement of any settlemnent agreement which could include the development of a disabilities sensitivity training program that would be given to all employees who have contact with the public and for the implementation of the program.
Maybe like Walmart they will have to fund a Public Service Announcement regarding the rights of people with disabilities to public access.
11. Maybe the reason you are upset that she is standing up for her civil rights is because you are insensitive and don’t want to act like a decent human being and by belittling her and making fun of her you make yourself feel better about your own poor self image and inadequacies.
Reply
You’re missing the point in oh so many ways, Nike. Rudeness to those with disabilities is a societal problem, not a corporate one. McDonald’s bends over backwards to employ handicapped workers and to treat them – like all their customers – with respect. I’m not saying it’s out of the goodness of their heart. They want the revenue from sales to the disabled as well.
Think about it: McDonald’s serves on 47 million people PER DAY. They employ 1.5 million workers. It’s the parents job, the church’s job, the school’s job to keep kids from turning out insensitive morons. Do you really think its their fault that parents, schools, church’s have flooded the workforce with idiots?
1) “The employee at the window represents…” America. We as a society have failed to teach our children to treat people with disabilities with respect. You are a member of society, Nike. Dawn should sue you. After all, McDonald’s has done a lot more than you have to try to get people to treat people with disabilities with respect.
2,3) “All people disabled or able are due a certain amount of respect and politeness” I agree. What should the penalty be for rudeness? $4M every time someone gets mistreated? I hope you’re ready to grill your own burgers.
4,5,6) Agreed
7) You’re hereby invited to actually read the article you are making pronouncements on. That’s the point – They’re NOT being sued personally… just the deep-pocketed corporation. I guess attorneys aren’t too interested in settlements from drive thru workers – they’d rather sue someone with money – even if they’re not to blame.
8) “Read and become educated” You first. (See #7)
9) “Didn’t your mother ever teach you not to stare, not to make fun of other people and to keep quiet if you couldn’t say something nice?” Why would she? Isn’t that McDonald’s responsibility?
10) “most of the funds that McDonalds pays out will go to the Department of Justice” This is a civil lawsuit… what would the DOJ have to do with it? (Refer to #7 & #8)
11) “Maybe the reason you are upset that she is standing up for her civil rights…” No, I get more upset by the lazy people who read stories like this and accept the easy answers and refuse to think about the actual situation. I get more upset by people who think that they can sue their way to morality when all they are going to accomplish is making the downpayment on some attorney’s summer house.
McDonald’s gets sued weekly. It’s a cost of doing business to them. So some attorney pushes for $4M, maybe they settle for $1.5M. The attorney gets, what, half? Dawn gets the other half, less expenses, for three years of anguish and frustration? Great. What’s changed? Did the ignoramus who actually did it learn anything? No, she’s over abusing people at Taco Bell.
I’d bet that all the pious people like Nike are still going to McDonald’s every week to hand over their money… they’re just paying an extra 50 cents so McD’s can pay off this week’s frivolous lawsuit.
Reply
Dawn:
I tried to email you but it came back with the message “User mailbox exceeds allowed size:”
Can you email me at seankelly[at]ideafarm.net? Or let me know if I can resend?
Thanks,
Sean
Reply
Dawn:
I assume you’re referring to the Burger King commercial with little people as actors? I only saw it once. I was pretty shocked by it. I thought it was really repulsive and demeaning.
I would not be critical of a lawsuit against them for demeaning little people. Right now several fast food chains are going out of their way to cause controversy so that they can get attention and be talked about – even if it’s negative. I think BK was intentionally trying to be offensive to create buzz. But I thought it was really in bad taste and, worse, sends a message to Burger King employees that it’s OK to laugh at little people’s expense – and maybe even the disabled.
If you look at McDonald’s advertising, it is much more about building a family-oriented brand that shows respect for customers. I don’t believe they would have resorted to this kind of low-life gimmickry and attack on a minority group just to get attention.
Dawn, by the way, what did you think about my settlement idea?
Reply