I didn't say employees had no rights, I said these specific employees would have no rights to sue McDonalds, that is a major distinction. The legal arguments a

I didn't say employees had no rights, I said these specific employees would have no rights to sue McDonalds, that is a major distinction. The legal arguments are simple, presumably if there are employees who burned themselves, they would have: a.) likely set the coffee temp themselves (above the recommended temp); b.) at least been aware of the temp and risk; and c.) presumably have some responsibility for spilling the coffee on themselves. These facts would remove intentional/reckless/gross negligence on the part of McDonalds. And I already know the counter arguments; However, if I'm actually wrong feel free to show me an a single case of a McDonalds employee suing McDonald's in civil court outside of workers compensation laws as the result of scalding coffee.