wrongful termination

[Mr.D]

He includes all of the standard old, long debunked conspiracy theories in his complaint - which he couldn't really avoid because he wrote them in his letter to NIST under his UL credentials from UL email, etc.,

Has anyone considered the idea that Kevin Ryan is actually not interested in winning an employment suit against UL, but attempting to get UL to claim they fired him because of the veracity of the conspiracy theories in his letter?

In this admittedly way-out-there scenario, his laywers then get to make the claims of the conspiracy theorists a trial issue and thereby "put the Official Theory on trial."

Yes, this idea is probably more suited for an episode of "Law and Order" or "Boston Legal," but if one really believed the CTs, is this a strategy an actual lawyer could get behind? Is it ethical to take on a case you're not interested in winnning in order to establish legal precident for an entirely separate case?

 

[The Almond]

Has anyone considered the idea that Kevin Ryan is actually not interested in winning an employment suit against UL, but attempting to get UL to claim they fired him because of the veracity of the conspiracy theories in his letter?

Good point. If you engage in ultra-cynicism, then the court trial would be a win-win for the CTs.

A loss for Ryan means that the system is corrupt and the judges are all in on it.

A win, however unlikely, for Ryan means that the CTs can claim that their conspiracy beliefs have been proven true in a court of law, despite the fact that the case had nothing to do with the conspiracy theory.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I just want to know how anyone can claim that his firing was wrongful. But then again Mcdonalds did lose because they had sold hot coffee.

ETA - Now this is an interesting website about the Mcdonalds coffee caper.
http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm

Their facts are out of date, as starbucks serves coffee as hot as it is possible to be with out a pressure vessel or explosion. So their primary fact that mcdonnalds sells coffee hotter than others is not at all true.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Not to derail the thread, but...frankly, so what? So McDonalds had their coffee hotter than other places?

Yes, you see McDonald's has special pressure vessels and hypermagnetic fields to increase the boiling point of water in the area around their restaurants.

Few people know that.

 

[Loss Leader]

Not to derail the thread, but...frankly, so what? So McDonalds had their coffee hotter than other places?

They were serving their coffee at 190 degrees, a full 60 to 70 degrees hotter than anyone else.

How does that make a difference?

Well, it's a 70 degree difference. It's the difference between a freezing 22 degree winter morning and a beautiful 92 degree summer day.

It's also the difference between first and third degree burns.

It's also the difference between how every other competitor was serving their coffee and how McDonalds was.

And it makes a difference that McDonalds had been warned about the problem before because other people had been injured by their coffee.

If, by 70 years of age, you haven't learned not to hold hot coffee between your legs, you probably deserve what's coming to you.

By 70 years of age, you should have learned the temperature at which coffee is generally served. You should have learned to rely on restaurants to serve coffee at a temperature that doesn't cause third degree burns.

Also, something most people don't know is that the woman was parked at the time of the accident. The car wasn't moving.

I'm only in my mid 20's, and I've already learned this

Have you? If you are in a friend's bathroom and turn on the water to wash your hands, do you bring a thermometer to test the temperature? Probably not. Probably if you suspect it's hot, you swipe your hand under very fast to test it. You do this because you have learned to rely on your friends to keep their water heaters set at a safe temperature. The hottest the water could be is 130 degrees - hot enough to cause first degree burns if you left your hand under. But why don't you suspect that the water could be 190 degrees? That even swiping your hand under very fast could cause serious burns? Your friend could have set his hot water heater to 190 degrees if he wanted to. He didn't because it is unreasonably dangerous.

The McDonalds case is no different.

There were probably dozens of times where I could have burned myself pretty badly with a Tim Hortons coffee, but that's why I don't take any stupid risks.

No, there weren't. Tim Hortons serves its coffee at 130 degrees, some 60 degrees less than McDonalds did.

Or, assuming she was senile, it should be her grandson being liable for allowing her to have a hot beverage inside his vehicle.

The woman didn't pour the coffee on herself. Some splashed up on her thighs while she tried to add creamer and sugar and such.

Either way, I don't see that McDonalds did anything wrong.

Luckily for the millions of McDonalds customers who were saved from potential harm by this lawsuit, you weren't on the jury.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Actually, there really is more to the McD's coffee story than you know and despite the bad press that it got (bad in the sense of derision resulting from it), it also received the worse form of "bad press" - which is the kind of press that fails to report the actual facts and just goes for the sensationalism. Had they reported the actual facts of the case, I think that people would realize that it was a proper decision in the circumstances and would realize that there was good reason for it to be made.

What you don't know is that McD's did, in fact, know that their coffee was so fricking hot that it had caused serious injuries to others before this particular case, and they still failed to deal with the problem despite several incidents and actual knowledge of those incidents and injuries.

How do they get it hotter than starbucks which serves it as hot as the laws of physics permit?

Sorry, but they really should have dealt with it. There is no rational excuse for continuing to serve coffee at temperatures that cause 3rd degree burns after you've been made well aware of those injuries and the potential for more.

The burns where caused in large part by her choice of clothing. It is kind of like the guy in the polyester suit complaining about the burns he got from the road flare. Why didn't she sue the maker of the sweat pants, for making absorbant pants that would hold hot water to her skin for longer.

 

[ponderingturtle]

They were serving their coffee at 190 degrees, a full 60 to 70 degrees hotter than anyone else.

This is just wrong. Starbucks serves it at least that hot, and people complain it is not hot enough.

Well, it's a 70 degree difference. It's the difference between a freezing 22 degree winter morning and a beautiful 92 degree summer day.

Based off of an incorrect statement so this is irrelevent.

It's also the difference between first and third degree burns.

Also say not wearing sweatpants and wearing slacks might have made the difference between first and third degree burns.

It's also the difference between how every other competitor was serving their coffee and how McDonalds was.

Wrong.

By 70 years of age, you should have learned the temperature at which coffee is generally served. You should have learned to rely on restaurants to serve coffee at a temperature that doesn't cause third degree burns.

Than stay away from coffee houses, their steam coffee is even hotter, and thus a massive public health hazard.

No, there weren't. Tim Hortons serves its coffee at 130 degrees, some 60 degrees less than McDonalds did.

Evidence?

 

[ponderingturtle]

I found where the 70 degree's hotter thing came from, people where comparing it to cheap at home coffee brewers, that at the time did not get all that hot. Now more of them keep the coffee at a proper temp of about 180.

Link

 

[Skibum]

I found where the 70 degree's hotter thing came from, people where comparing it to cheap at home coffee brewers, that at the time did not get all that hot. Now more of them keep the coffee at a proper temp of about 180.

Link

Probably.

My grandma used a coffee perculator her whole life, the coffee she served was always just under the boiling point.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Probably.

My grandma used a coffee perculator her whole life, the coffee she served was always just under the boiling point.

That is the temp that is recommended.

Now maybe at the time colder coffee was being served by many places, but by modern standards the coffee is not that hot at all. For example I would not be surprised if the coffee in many restaurants was colder, because of limits on maintaining the temp and such, and just not using very good coffee makers.

But saying that no one else serves coffee that hot is just wrong as starbucks shows by serving even hotter coffee. And they still get complaints that it should be hotter, not sure how those complaining think you should prevent the steam explosions though.

 

[Loss Leader]

There really is nothing to debate regarding the McDonalds coffee case. A jury heard all of the evidence, was explained the law and returned a verdict. I am sure McDonalds hired extremely competent attorneys who worked hard to persuade the jury not to award any damages. They failed.

Here is a good fact sheet about the case.

The bottom line is that the United States has privatized some of its safety enforcement duties. The government allows private citizens to bring product liability actions against companies who may be harming the public. In this way, the government saves the money of having to have public officials constantly monitoring every possible problem that a product might cause. In return, private citizens may collect money in addition to their actual damages in order to compensate them for the important public function they serve.

As the jury made this award after trial, as the basic award was undisturbed on appeal, and as the tort system is of general benefit to the public, there is no value to second-guessing the verdict by individuals who do not have all the facts.

 

[~enigma~]

My very first thread hijacked right from under my nose

 

[ponderingturtle]

There really is nothing to debate regarding the McDonalds coffee case. A jury heard all of the evidence, was explained the law and returned a verdict. I am sure McDonalds hired extremely competent attorneys who worked hard to persuade the jury not to award any damages. They failed.

Here is a good fact sheet about the case.

McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultant's advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees Fahrenheit to maintain optimum taste. He admitted that he had not evaluated the safety ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is generally 135 to 140 degrees

Note you are comparing the Mcdonalds coffee to coffee made in old home drip coffee makers. And that is supposted to be the industry standard?

What about similar law suits that got thrown out Link

And now with coffee sleaves and such, coffee is being served as hot or hotter than it was in this case all over the country by many establishments.

The bottom line is that the United States has privatized some of its safety enforcement duties. The government allows private citizens to bring product liability actions against companies who may be harming the public. In this way, the government saves the money of having to have public officials constantly monitoring every possible problem that a product might cause. In return, private citizens may collect money in addition to their actual damages in order to compensate them for the important public function they serve.

The point is that people keep lying and saying that McDonnalds coffee was hotter than others. Well that might be true because there was alot of bad coffee being made at the wrong temperatures and served cold. That is now much less the case, as what coffee people want is getting much more toward the very hot end.

As the jury made this award after trial, as the basic award was undisturbed on appeal, and as the tort system is of general benefit to the public, there is no value to second-guessing the verdict by individuals who do not have all the facts.

And there is no point in presenting blatantly false information about the standard temp coffee is served at, but you still cite such information in your defense of this case. And in the intervening years the industry standard has moved to hotter and hotter coffee. You should bring a class action lawsuit against Starbucks for serving such a danger to the comunity.

 

[ponderingturtle]

My very first thread hijacked right from under my nose

Hey this is the conspiracy theory forum, why shouldn't lies about coffee temp be dealt with, with lies about how the world trade center fell faster than free fall(I want to see the rockets behind that claim)

 

[A W Smith]

then start a starbucks/mcdonalds/coffee thread.

On the wrongful termination suit PDF file. doesn't the text select work when the PDF is saved locally?

 

[~enigma~]

then start a starbucks/mcdonalds/coffee thread.

On the wrongful termination suit PDF file. doesn't the text select work when the PDF is saved locally?

You forgot to say...."Let's Roll." Not sure about that but as soon as LashL sends me the email, I'll zip them and post them as attachments (here - not in the humor section).

 

[Minadin]

Either one might be appropriate. You might consider both.

 

[ConspiRaider]

My very first thread hijacked right from under my nose

I hear ya. How frustrating. Who cares about the Mickey D's Coffee Case? I sure as hell don't...

 

[LashL]

I've sent the pdf files to ~enigma~ for posting when he gets the opportunity.

All I've sent are
1) Ryan's complaint;
2) UL's motion to dismiss;
3) UL's brief on the motion to dismiss; and
4) PACER case history

because the rest of the documents, while of passing interest to lawyers perhaps, are not likely to be interesting to anyone else

Ryan's complaint is not particularly well drafted and doesn't state very clearly the basis for the claims it makes, but essentially it says that

- in 2003, Ryan told people at UL all of the usual tinhat conspiracy theories;

- UL did not act upon his woo in the manner that he wanted them to;

- so Ryan wrote to NIST to repeat the tinhat conspiracy theories, and to accuse NIST of doing a crappy job in its investigation and report, to accuse NIST of failing to "identify the truth about what really happened", and suggesting that "criminal elements within the U.S. government" may have planted explosives in the buildings, etc. etc.;

- Ryan admits that he sent the letter from UL, using UL email address, using his UL title, but says that he was stating his own opinion, not UL's, and says that UL allowed him to use UL email for personal email, and that the email program "automatically added the UL title of Mr. Ryan to his email";

- Ryan also wrote to some tinhat troofer organization and they posted his letter on the internet;

- UL fired Ryan as a result, saying that it was because he misrepresented UL by writing as though it was UL's opinion and not his personal opinion;

- UL used this as a pretext to fire him "in retaliation for Mr. Ryan exercising his rights and acting to fulfill his duties under the U.S. constitution, the constitution of Indiana, and under federal and state laws";

- UL wrongly terminated his employment because (by writing to NIST), he exercised his right under the U.S constitution and the state constitution to "petition his government for redress of grievances and to reform his government", and because he was exercising his first amendment rights in his letter to NIST and in his communications with tinhat groups, etal.;

- UL wrongly terminated his employment because (by writing to NIST, etc.), he was exercising his right to "report safety hazards and to disclose material facts in a government investigatino of a (sic) occupational and public safety related incident";

- UL wrongly terminated his employment because he was exercising his right under federal, Indiana and NY laws, "to report potential felonies and terrorist activity";

- UL wrongly terminated his employment because he was defending the constitution and seeking to petition his government for redress of grievances and seeking to "reform" the government "in the face of actions by persons seeking to subvert" the gov't and alter the democratic nature of our society;

Therefore, he seeks:
- back pay from November 2004
- $200,000 in front pay or, alternatively, reinstatement to his job;
- $unquantified for cost of relocation and job search;
- $unquantified lost value of medical insurance, retirement plan, benefits;
- $unquantified damages for emotional distress and damage to his reputation;
- $unquantified punitive damages.

UL brought a motion to dismiss the complaint. Its brief is self-explanatory and nicely set out, and essentially says that the complaint discloses no viable claim and should therefore be dismissed.

In a nutshell, it says

- that Ryan's complaint discloses no statutory basis for any of the claims made by Ryan;

- that UL is not a government entity, (thus the first amendment and related claims are not sustainable);

- that Ryan has not pleaded the requisite elements to make out any of his claims;

- that UL was entitled to fire him for his sending the letter to NIST "containing many false or unsubstantiated assertions" and "baseless assertions" and "incredible and unsupported claims" because he misrepresented his opinions as that of the company; and

- Ryan was an "at will" employee; and

- Ryan cannot, in the circumstances, bring his dismissal within the narrow exception to "at will" termination, namely "public policy exception"

Cheers,
Lash

 

[LashL]

You forgot to say...."Let's Roll." Not sure about that but as soon as LashL sends me the email, I'll zip them and post them as attachments (here - not in the humor section).

Sent