T1B

Jury awards $1.7 million to spanked employee

FRESNO, California (AP) -- A jury awarded $1.7 million Friday to a woman who was spanked in front of her colleagues in what her employer called a camaraderie-building exercise.

The jury of six men and six women found that Janet Orlando, 53, was subjected to sexual harassment and sexual battery when she was paddled on the rear end two years ago at Alarm One Inc., a home security company in Fresno. The jury said Orlando did not suffer from sexual assault, as she had alleged.

Jurors awarded Orlando $10,000 for economic loss, $40,000 for future medical costs and $450,000 for emotional distress, pain and suffering. They awarded her an additional $1.2 million in punitive damages.

**********************************
A little Excessive??


So, you could have McDonald's give you hot coffee, spill it on your leg and make $2.7 million.

OR

you could have your employer paddle your ass for $1.7 Million.

It really is time to abolish the jury system in this type of case. People have lost thie fukking minds.

Was this woman paddled against her will? Seems to me she coulda said, thanks kids, but, I ain't playin' this little game.

The paddling was with a company's sign. Not like she was stripped down and paddled with the boss' crank. Besides- look at her... I highly doubt it was sexual in nature.

40K for "future medical costs" ??? What exactely were her injuries? A reddened ass? Only in Cali would you have some goofy shit like this going on at work and only in Cali could you participate in it and later cash in for 1.7 mill.

Say what you want about the verdict but the management at AlarmOne has to be pretty fucking stupid, Sucks for the idiots.

1.7 million says the manager with the bright idea in the first place, gets shit-canned. And rightfully so.

Husker4ever wrote:1.7 million says the manager with the bright idea in the first place, gets shit-canned. And rightfully so.

Ya think?

You take an underperforming employee and make her a fucking millionare because of some freakish spanking fetish that makes things 'ALL BETTER'


Using the competitors signage is some wierd shit.

Fucking Freaks, I can't imagine any job worth watching this shit actually happen without getting up in some dumbfucks face.

Husker4ever wrote:1.7 million says the manager with the bright idea in the first place, gets shit-canned. And rightfully so.

He didn't get shit canned!! He just got spanked !!

I would have taken the case, I mean come on? Why not.......

XXXL wrote:I would have taken the case, I mean come on? Why not.......

No doubt,
It's not your fault there's stupid fucks out there like the managers of this company.

BTW- Her attorney joked he was headed to Puerto Vajarta for a nice vacation......

I coulda sworn I saw this on The Office. If I didn't, I should have.

XXXL wrote:I would have taken the case, I mean come on? Why not.......

Agreed.

And Y2K has it right, there's absolutely no excuse for such a stupid move on the part of management. They then compounded their stupidity by taking this to trial. Trial here was a no-win situation for the company, they should have settled, and it likely would have been a lot cheaper than $1.7 million.

Having said all of that, this is not the final say in this case. The defendant likely will move for j.n.o.v. or a reduction, or appeal. To fail to do any of the above would probably constitute malpractice on the part of their attorneys. And while j.n.o.v. motions are rarely granted, this looks like a pretty good case for a reduction of damages.

As for the McDonald's case, since that was brought up as a comparison, I suspect most people here don't know the facts of that case. The Plaintiff was 81 years old, and suffered third-degree burns on her thighs. At trial, there was evidence introduced that McDonald's served their coffee 60 degrees hotter than the average of the restaurant industry. And the $2.7 million verdict? Subsequently reduced to $600,000.

smackaholic wrote:It really is time to abolish the jury system in this type of case. People have lost thie fukking minds.

The Seventh Amendment begs to differ.

Was this woman paddled against her will? Seems to me she coulda said, thanks kids, but, I ain't playin' this little game.

We don't know what the facts were, for certain. Would walking out on this be the de facto equivalent of quitting her job? If so, I don't think the law does, or for that matter should, impose that obligation upon her under the circumstances.

smackaholic wrote:It really is time to abolish the jury system in this type of case. People have lost thie fukking minds.

The great thing about the Constitution is that it can't be revoked just because somebody disagrees with a verdict.

Actually it's time to limit the amount attorneys can take from pain and suffering damages and eliminate punative damages from going to the plaintiff or his attorney altogether.

Fear not, your GOP heroes are on it.

http://santorumexposed.com/pages/issues ... actice.php

mvscal wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:Would walking out on this be the de facto equivalent of quitting her job?

Oh please...

Blatant bullshit like this is why every lawyer in this country should be tossed against the nearest wall and shot.

Time to start over.

Only if we take all the CEOs and shoot them as well.

Ken wrote:I coulda sworn I saw this on The Office. If I didn't, I should have.

I was thinking the same thing while reading this.

Too funny.

Should I return to the scene of the crime where the fat bitch got spanked?

mvscal wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:Would walking out on this be the de facto equivalent of quitting her job?

Oh please...

Blatant bullshit like this is why every lawyer in this country should be tossed against the nearest wall and shot.

Time to start over.

Then tell me, what would have happened if she had walked out on this?

Waiting with baited breath for your words of enlightenment.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

mvscal wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:Would walking out on this be the de facto equivalent of quitting her job?

Oh please...

Blatant bullshit like this is why every lawyer in this country should be tossed against the nearest wall and shot.

Time to start over.

Then tell me, what would have happened if she had walked out on this?

Waiting with baited breath for your words of enlightenment.

She would have been let go and then she would have filed a wrongful termination suit, which would have netted probably 1/100th of what she got for enduring the spanking ritual.

I'm with whoever said this company is getting what it deserves. Do they not have an HR department that might have advised against the spanking ritual as a motivational tool? Christ on a crutch some people are stupid.


WAR Getting what you deserve

mvscal wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:Then tell me, what would have happened if she had walked out on this?

Not a goddamn thing.

Nobody is going to force anybody to walk around in a bunny suit or get paddled in some silly team building exercise.

"Oh hey, you didn't take your spanking at the company picnic. I'm afraid we're going to have to let you go".

If you were talking about a solid, reputable company, then I'd agree mvscal. However, considering the fact they even thought that a "spanking exercise" would be no big deal tells us they don't have the best faculties for making sound judgements, thus making it not the least bit suprising they would try to fire anyone who didn't drop their drawers and "take one for the team".

mvscal wrote:

Roofer wrote:She would have been let go and then she would have filed a wrongful termination suit,

The fact that it would have been a slam dunk wrongful term suit is the very least of the reasons why you don't know what the fuck you're talking about when you say she would have been let go.

Dude they implemented a spanking exercise as part of their business conduct. They didn't settle this lawsuit out of court, which any dumbfuck hired to protect the company and it's assets would know to do. How can we say for sure these morons would know what a slamdunk wrongful termination suit is if it walked up and shook their hand?

Husker4ever wrote:40K for "future medical costs" ??? What exactely were her injuries? A reddened ass? Only in Cali would you have some goofy shit like this going on at work and only in Cali could you participate in it and later cash in for 1.7 mill.

...Only in Cali?? This happened in Fresneck did it not? There are a few cities in Cali that we long ago banished to a catagory of their own. Don't confuse these cities in any way with California.

Fresno...sorry y2k and Harsh
Bakersfield
Barstow
Baker
Modesto

:wink:

mvscal wrote:

Roofer wrote:

mvscal wrote: Not a goddamn thing.

Nobody is going to force anybody to walk around in a bunny suit or get paddled in some silly team building exercise.

"Oh hey, you didn't take your spanking at the company picnic. I'm afraid we're going to have to let you go".

If you were talking about a solid, reputable company, then I'd agree mvscal. However, considering the fact they even thought that a "spanking exercise" would be no big deal tells us they don't have the best faculties for making sound judgements, thus making it not the least bit suprising they would try to fire anyone who didn't drop their drawers and "take one for the team".

Stop trying make it sound like she got her bare ass whipped. Ever seen a yard sign before? Not exactly the most fearsome instrument of discipline devised.

This was just razzing between sales teams not some bondage and domination event.

That's all well and good, but Roofer is right: management at this company was none too bright. In fact, as I said in my first post on this subject, once confronted with the lawsuit, they should have settled rather than let this go to trial in the first place. The settlement would have been a helluva lot cheaper than this verdict, and they should have known that the trial would be embarrassing to the company in any event.

PSUFAN wrote:Should I return to the scene of the crime where the fat bitch got spanked?

I'd hit it.

Sin,

GPete

Us too.

Sin,

The rest of T1B

mvscal wrote:So what you're saying then is that the company should have recognized how absolutely fucked up and out of control our legal system is and capitulated to her idiotic lawsuit?

If it were an idiotic lawsuit, she wouldn't have won.

And the point I'm making is that a trial, for these people, would have been extremely embarrassing even if they won.

I know your ideology doesn't allow you to think along these lines, but let me toss out the caption of another lawsuit that isn't worlds apart, in that regard, from this one: Jones v. Clinton. That lawsuit was less meritorious than this one (remember, it was dismissed before it settled), yet it settled for precisely the reason I cited: that a trial was potentially embarrassing to the Defendant.

mvscal wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

mvscal wrote:So what you're saying then is that the company should have recognized how absolutely fucked up and out of control our legal system is and capitulated to her idiotic lawsuit?

If it were an idiotic lawsuit, she wouldn't have won.

I laughed.

Then you must be alone.

For all the criticism that verdict has received on this thread, virtually all of the criticism has gone to the amount of the verdict, rather than to the fact that the Plaintiff won in and of itself.

Hot Coffee? Rack it:
http://files.gtanet.com/gtasa/videos/hotcoffee.wmv

As for that broad who sued and won, as old, wrinkled and dessicated as she is, she should be happy someone swung near her crotchal region.

mvsecican, shouldn't part of you be joing in today's day of La Raza protests?

mvscal,

I know you're smart enough to admit any business conduct whereby management touches the posterior of an employee is just asking for a lawsuit to happen. I have no HR experience whatsoever other than that to which I've been indirectly exposed, and it's not difficult for me to see the "bad idea" tag this "company policy" has attached to it.

That's the basis of my argument. You make a bad decision, you should pay the consequences.

mvscal wrote:The basis of your "argument" is that the law is fucked up and the company should have taken that into consideration.

I could be wrong about this, and forgive me if I am, but what do you do when you get a jury summons? Just curious.

mvscal wrote:

Roofer wrote:That's the basis of my argument. You make a bad decision, you should pay the consequences.

The basis of your "argument" is that the law is fucked up and the company should have taken that into consideration.

Your angst is misdirected.

Ok, if you want to state your case that the law these days allows for some BS lawsuits to come about, fair enough, I can agree to that in part.

Bottom line is though, the law is the law, and one must understand the rules by which we are all asked to play by, and in this day and age, with what little is needed to bring about a harrassment case, the company simply should have known better.

If you think them allowing this to go to trial was their way of making a statement against how litigious our society has become, well all I can say is one must pick their fights wisely. This "fight" was destined to not go their way from Day 1.

And it's worth noting that with a grill like that, I surely would have suggested paddling her face instead of her ass in hopes of some type of improvement. But that's another argument for another thread.

mvscal wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:I could be wrong about this, and forgive me if I am, but what do you do when you get a jury summons? Just curious.

Toss it in the garbage.

Not sure what to make of this, could just be a funnay. If it's true, though, you would have no business complaining about the legal system, much like the person who doesn't bother voting shouldn't complain about government.

Roofer wrote:And it's worth noting that with a grill like that, I surely would have suggested paddling her face instead of her ass in hopes of some type of improvement. But that's another argument for another thread.

Although there seems to be something about her, that in a dimly lit bar, at last call, after a few too many, well . . .

In light of that, it's probably a good thing that I'm married, and those days are behind me.

But I'd just venture a guess that most of us, at least once in our lives, have done worse than that, especially when age is factored into the equation.

mvscal wrote:

Invictus wrote: mvsecican, shouldn't part of you be joing in today's day of La Raza protests?

Fuck that. We split a hundred years ago to get away from those assholes.



Shouldn't you be beating feet back to the Congo to chop up some pygmies for the stew pot?

Actually, if I come from anywhere, I'd probably say West Africa but I really can't trace my roots. YOU can, Sancho Panza, so get out and mata los gringoes!

Chop up pygmies? Why do that when there are perfectly good, full size white folks to eat and shrink their heads?

mvscal wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:If it's true, though, you would have no business complaining about the legal system,

Bullshit. My tax dollars support that fucking circus, do they not?

They also support the government, whether you vote or not. But should you complain about elected officials if you don't bother to vote?

mvscal wrote:

Roofer wrote:Bottom line is though, the law is the law,

Actually, the bottom line is that "the law" is whatever some dildo in a black robe says it is.

Yeah, I'm feelin ya mvscal (we'll wait for that to show up in a sig). I thought about that point after I fired off my last post. To your point, it's not about the law, but the interpretation of the law by whomever is in charge of handing down the verdict.

Interpretation is often determined by a thing called precedent, i.e. if a previous case with similar circumstances yields a certain verdict, then it is expected that future cases should receive similar verdict.

That said, we have plenty of precedent which tells us that harrassment suits that have been brought about because of simple comments or language have resulted in a verdict that hasn't gone the defendant's way, (if in the rare case they go to trial). That's not to say that there haven't been cases tossed out which sets precedent as well, but those were likely thrown out due to a lack of evidence, etc.

At the end of the day, precedent tells HR what will or won't get your company in trouble, whether we all agree or not on the right or wrong of the matter. HR needs to be aware of this (if not at least the company's legal representation needs to be) and they need to advise the company on what or what not to do.

If you ask me (and yes, I know, nobody is asking me), it seems to me that the powers that be at AlarmOne either had a level of arrogance about them that convinced them they wouldn't get in hot water over this (perhaps they prescreen employees by asking them "would you be offended by being spanked".....that's a joke...sorta kinda) or they are just plain stupid is as stupid does.

mvscal wrote:
You can't put this on the company.

Actually, you can and you must. It's their responsibility to protect themselves. It's their responsiblity to ask themselves "if I do this, does it in any way put me at jeopardy"? To not think things through like that, especially since the conduct can be considered atypical business conduct, is just plain, well, as you put it, ignorant.

I don't doubt for a second that you have this lady pegged accurately. Does it suck? Yeah, pretty much. Is it the way things work these days? Seems to be that way, thus the company should know better.

mvscal wrote:

Roofer wrote: since the conduct can be considered atypical business conduct,

Except that it isn't. Corporations do goofy shit like this all the time.

I worked for Boeing (McDonnell Douglas first) for 13 years and never once encountered nor heard of any activity, motiviational in intent, where physical contact was involved. Do corporations do team building "fluff and stuff" type things? You betcha. Is spanking common among them? I'd have to say no.

At least we agree on the 2X4 to the dome thing though. Can't argue that.

mvscal wrote:You didn't work sales either, I take it.

Neither have you. Or so you say, anyway.