Woman Asked To Remove American Flag

SUMG · May 27, 2009

http://cbs11tv.com/local/patriotism.at.office.2.1020415.html

KingDL1 · May 27, 2009

http://cbs11tv.com/local/patriotism.at.office.2.1020415.html

This is unbelievable got to love where the left wings are taking this country.

keith · May 27, 2009

I don't know what to say...since when is the American flag offensive in THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?

"McLucas said the supervisor who complained has been in the United States for 14 years and is formerly from Africa."

I suppose if the person who complained had a flag from their former country in his/her office, they would be allowed to keep it as a symbol of their cultural heritage?

Everything has been turned upsidedown.

Keith

oldguystudent · May 27, 2009

Hmmm. So you can burn the flag but not display it. I can't quite grasp the difference there.

emmitt01 · May 27, 2009

One person takes their "right" not to be offended by an American flag far, far, far, far too far...and this is "evidence" that the big bad left wing is taking this country into ruin?

Someone please, pretty please, connect these dots so that I don't see it as yet another grasp for non-existent straws on this forum.

hickoryhouse · May 27, 2009

I don't view this as a left right thing, I view this as a PC thing. This is evidence that the PC crowd is harming the country. Displaying a US flag in the US should not, is not and IMO will never be offensive. The entire issue here IMO is a inane as the lady suing McDonald's for hot coffee.

meangreendork · May 27, 2009

This is unbelievable got to love where the left wings are taking this country.

"McLucas said the supervisor who complained has been in the United States for 14 years and is formerly from Africa."

I think I fail to see the link here. I would think the supervisor would've integrated into US culture by now, but who knows? I think it's a political correctness issue and not a political leaning issue. There are PC people on both sides of the aisle. It's the US, display the flag. Heck, the supervisor should feel free to display the flag of his nation of origin as well. I'd be kinda mad at the supervisor for this too, with whatever his shoddy reasoning is.

emmitt01 · May 27, 2009

A few quotes I found interesting:

"I just wonder if all those young men and women over there are really doing this for nothing."

Hasn't this question been asked for the past 7 or so years? Guess it really matters in what context, and from what ideological stance, you're asking it, huh?

"The disagreement was over the size of the flag and not what it symbolized. We have invited the employee to put the flag back up."

Really? Is it possible that this is a lot of bluster over nothing? Could it have truly been a size issue which this woman took personally?

And just as casual observations I have a few things that annoyed me in this story. They said that the higher ups at her hospital explained that the flag outside would suffice. That flag, from my perspective, had was a little tattered...I take that as a big no no. Also, she says when her flag was taken down it was left on the floor. Again, major no no in my opinion. What do I know though, I'm amongst the "left" who are ruining this country.

May 27, 2009

This is unbelievable got to love where the left wings are taking this country.

Come on.. Liberals!?1 This was one person, from Africa, who had power in the situation. It wasn't come liberal agenda.

I had flags in the ground outside my house. I put some in front of my neighbors house too. The house up the street had a HUGE flag hanging in their entry, and someone stole it in the middle of the night. Damn liberals. Stealing flags.

Baby Arm! · May 27, 2009

Could it have truly been a size issue which this woman took personally?

I've always said women were too concerned with size :lol:

KingDL1 · May 27, 2009

Clearly guys this is the direction the left wing is taking us and this is an extreme case, but who do you think the PC crowd is made of?

oldguystudent · May 27, 2009

Clearly guys this is the direction the left wing is taking us and this is an extreme case, but who do you think the PC crowd is made of?

There's PC on both sides. It's just the left's version that got the label. Pardon me while I go hunt down some illegals who are murdering their unborn babies before I lunch on some freedom fries.

meangreendork · May 27, 2009

Clearly guys this is the direction the left wing is taking us and this is an extreme case, but who do you think the PC crowd is made of?

Besides, political correctness all depends on the statement and people in a particular situation. I mean, I could be a fiscally conservative African American, but I'm not going to take to being called "Negro" all that well.

Heck, this guy may just not like the people of the country he lives in. Occam's Razor, right here.

Edited May 27, 2009 by meangreendork

UNTflyer · May 27, 2009

One person takes their "right" not to be offended by an American flag far, far, far, far too far...and this is "evidence" that the big bad left wing is taking this country into ruin?
Someone please, pretty please, connect these dots so that I don't see it as yet another grasp for non-existent straws on this forum.

I think the point is that for two generations we have been beaten down with PC silliness about being sensitive to someone else's feelings. It's gotten to the point that any expression of individuality in the workplace, including conformist jingoism, is frowned upon.

I personally don't blame it on "the left", I blame it on Baby Boomers (for no logical reason).

If you want to fly your flag in your office, cube, personal workspace, by all means go ahead. Come and take my flag, and we're going to have a discussion.

Edited May 27, 2009 by UNTflyer

Mean Green 93-98 · May 27, 2009

They may not be exactly synonymous, but P.C. is pretty closely aligned with the left. I think you would have a hard time finding a conservative anywhere who would object to the American flag being displayed anywhere in America.

KingDL1 · May 27, 2009

Besides, political correctness all depends on the statement and people in a particular situation. I mean, I could be a fiscally conservative African American, but I'm not going to take to being called "Negro" all that well.
Heck, this guy may just not like the people of the country he lives in. Occam's Razor, right here.

You can play games with it all you like but the PC crowd is still liberal left to deny this is just to fool yourself. ACLU and several liberal leaders have done all they can to make sure the PC police prevail.

meangreendork · May 27, 2009

They may not be exactly synonymous, but P.C. is pretty closely aligned with the left. I think you would have a hard time finding a conservative anywhere who would object to the American flag being displayed anywhere in America.

Not synonymous, but I agree - you won't often find a Republican who won't fly the flag. You will find some ultra-leftists who won't, and I don't understand that. Even my liberal side doesn't understand that, because national pride is something that everyone on every side should have.

Mean Green 93-98 · May 27, 2009

. . . national pride is something that everyone on every side should have.

Well said, my friend.

Smitty · May 27, 2009

The entire issue here IMO is a inane as the lady suing McDonald's for hot coffee.

Actually, there were some interesting facts behind that lawsuit.

First, the woman wasn't just burned. She suffered third-degree burns, was in the hospital for a week, had to have skin grafts, and underwent two more years of treatment.

But what stunned the jury was McDonald's admitting that they knew their coffee was dangerously hot and that they were well aware of the risks of heating their coffee that much and of keeping it so hot (180-190 degrees.) An expert testified that at that temperature, the coffee could cause third degree burns in three seconds.

There had several hundred cases of burns involving McDonald's coffee - including third degree burns - in the years before the incident, and McDonald's said they had no plans to change their procedures. McDonald's officials testified that they knew their coffee caused serious burns but they refused to do anything about it. Jurors, who said they entered the case thinking this case was no big deal, said they were shocked by McDonald's callousness.

McDonald's had settled many cases like this one - they had settled one case for $500,000 and this Plaintiff had originally asked for just $20,000 to cover her medical expenses - but for some reason McDonald's refused to settle and took this one to trial. And they got burned. The jury awarded the Plaintiff $200,000 for her damages. Then they found McDonald's was willfully and maliciously endangering their customers and so hit them with punitive damages of $2.7 million. I think the judge later reduced the punitive damages to under $500,000, even though he agreed with the jury's verdict.

I'm not saying the verdict was correct or that people should sue over spilled hot coffee. There is a reasonable expectation that hot coffee could burn you. But apparently McDonald's callous attitude - we make it really dangerous, we know it's really dangerous, and we don't care - was over the top.

UNTflyer · May 27, 2009

I tried to sue McDonald's when I spilled a milkshake in my lap.

DeepGreen · May 27, 2009

I tried to sue McDonald's when I spilled a milkshake in my lap.

I take offense to your avatar. I'm calling my lawyer!

Just kidding. :lol:

UNT90 · May 27, 2009

Actually, there were some interesting facts behind that lawsuit.
First, the woman wasn't just burned. She suffered third-degree burns, was in the hospital for a week, had to have skin grafts, and underwent two more years of treatment.
But what stunned the jury was McDonald's admitting that they knew their coffee was dangerously hot and that they were well aware of the risks of heating their coffee that much and of keeping it so hot (180-190 degrees.) An expert testified that at that temperature, the coffee could cause third degree burns in three seconds.
There had several hundred cases of burns involving McDonald's coffee - including third degree burns - in the years before the incident, and McDonald's said they had no plans to change their procedures. McDonald's officials testified that they knew their coffee caused serious burns but they refused to do anything about it. Jurors, who said they entered the case thinking this case was no big deal, said they were shocked by McDonald's callousness.
McDonald's had settled many cases like this one - they had settled one case for $500,000 and this Plaintiff had originally asked for just $20,000 to cover her medical expenses - but for some reason McDonald's refused to settle and took this one to trial. And they got burned. The jury awarded the Plaintiff $200,000 for her damages. Then they found McDonald's was willfully and maliciously endangering their customers and so hit them with punitive damages of $2.7 million. I think the judge later reduced the punitive damages to under $500,000, even though he agreed with the jury's verdict.
I'm not saying the verdict was correct or that people should sue over spilled hot coffee. There is a reasonable expectation that hot coffee could burn you. But apparently McDonald's callous attitude - we make it really dangerous, we know it's really dangerous, and we don't care - was over the top.

One other fact. The jury's award in this case was 10% of the profit that McDonalds made on the sale of coffee in ONE DAY. Funny how it's easy to comment on stuff when we don't know any facts or details of which we speak.

Oh wait, we do that all the time around here.

May 27, 2009

Actually, there were some interesting facts behind that lawsuit.
First, the woman wasn't just burned. She suffered third-degree burns, was in the hospital for a week, had to have skin grafts, and underwent two more years of treatment.
But what stunned the jury was McDonald's admitting that they knew their coffee was dangerously hot and that they were well aware of the risks of heating their coffee that much and of keeping it so hot (180-190 degrees.) An expert testified that at that temperature, the coffee could cause third degree burns in three seconds.
There had several hundred cases of burns involving McDonald's coffee - including third degree burns - in the years before the incident, and McDonald's said they had no plans to change their procedures. McDonald's officials testified that they knew their coffee caused serious burns but they refused to do anything about it. Jurors, who said they entered the case thinking this case was no big deal, said they were shocked by McDonald's callousness.
McDonald's had settled many cases like this one - they had settled one case for $500,000 and this Plaintiff had originally asked for just $20,000 to cover her medical expenses - but for some reason McDonald's refused to settle and took this one to trial. And they got burned. The jury awarded the Plaintiff $200,000 for her damages. Then they found McDonald's was willfully and maliciously endangering their customers and so hit them with punitive damages of $2.7 million. I think the judge later reduced the punitive damages to under $500,000, even though he agreed with the jury's verdict.
I'm not saying the verdict was correct or that people should sue over spilled hot coffee. There is a reasonable expectation that hot coffee could burn you. But apparently McDonald's callous attitude - we make it really dangerous, we know it's really dangerous, and we don't care - was over the top.

Ok, I'll bite. I completely agree with the lawsuit and the ruling. It is a shame that it is singled out as the very reason of caps on punitive damages.

LongJim · May 27, 2009

Ok, I'll bite. I completely agree with the lawsuit and the ruling. It is a shame that it is singled out as the very reason of caps on punitive damages.

I do, too. I originally thought it was frivolous, but after seeing the aftermath--it was definitely a horrible injury, and deserved a high compensation.

Baby Arm! · May 27, 2009

Actually, there were some interesting facts behind that lawsuit.
First, the woman wasn't just burned. She suffered third-degree burns, was in the hospital for a week, had to have skin grafts, and underwent two more years of treatment.
But what stunned the jury was McDonald's admitting that they knew their coffee was dangerously hot and that they were well aware of the risks of heating their coffee that much and of keeping it so hot (180-190 degrees.) An expert testified that at that temperature, the coffee could cause third degree burns in three seconds.
There had several hundred cases of burns involving McDonald's coffee - including third degree burns - in the years before the incident, and McDonald's said they had no plans to change their procedures. McDonald's officials testified that they knew their coffee caused serious burns but they refused to do anything about it. Jurors, who said they entered the case thinking this case was no big deal, said they were shocked by McDonald's callousness.
McDonald's had settled many cases like this one - they had settled one case for $500,000 and this Plaintiff had originally asked for just $20,000 to cover her medical expenses - but for some reason McDonald's refused to settle and took this one to trial. And they got burned. The jury awarded the Plaintiff $200,000 for her damages. Then they found McDonald's was willfully and maliciously endangering their customers and so hit them with punitive damages of $2.7 million. I think the judge later reduced the punitive damages to under $500,000, even though he agreed with the jury's verdict.
I'm not saying the verdict was correct or that people should sue over spilled hot coffee. There is a reasonable expectation that hot coffee could burn you. But apparently McDonald's callous attitude - we make it really dangerous, we know it's really dangerous, and we don't care - was over the top.

Another fact that is never mentioned about that case. The only reason McDonald's said they kept the coffee that hot was because it made a fresh pot last longer. They would rather have risked burning someone than spend a few cents brewing a couple of fresh pots throughout the day.