4 ms·

Is this is someone who is either looking for an angle to litigate with a rich company or has completely unrealistic expectations or both? I feel like if you had

by S_A_P 5y ago

Is this is someone who is either looking for an angle to litigate with a rich company or has completely unrealistic expectations or both? I feel like if you had a real conversation with this person and got to the root of how they feel they would know their ask is unreasonable. I’m sure they may also feel like they have been dealt a bad hand and want to find a way to be compensated. While this route may make a few lawyers happy I really doubt that winning a lawsuit against Apple for not hiring a sign language interpreter will bring them any peace. What I have been noticing and I could be completely wrong and or biased here is that we have a large population of folks in the US that are struggling with mental health issues and that manifests in a lot of odd ways. This seems to be one of them.

licebmi__at__ 5y ago
Or maybe there could be more nuance to the case. What of he was hired for a different role and then suddenly he had to attend customers? What if the manager just didn’t like him and set him up for failure? Why would we put the wrong in him if the company hired him on the first place?
- Socketier 5y ago
  Exactly, it's similar to the media frenzy around the woman who got seriously burned by Mcdonalds coffee and sued them. The reaction was mostly incredulity and mocking her, but the reality was that the coffee was exceptionally hot for decontamination convenience (a corporate money saving measure) and the cup was insulated such that the average person wouldn't ever expect it to be so dangerous. Best to withold judgments until get more of the facts are revealed.
  - vlovich123 5y ago
    I thought it was made so they could offer “unlimited” coffee but making it so hot increased the drinking time so customers were far away before finishing?
    - Qub3d 5y ago
      In the trial, McDonald's claimed that they served the coffee at that temperature because commuters would buy the coffee, drive to their destination, and then drink it, so the coffee was served in a manner to make sure it wouldn't be cold by then. However, it came to light that their internal research found most people drink the coffee while driving. The primary reason has been speculated but of course never officially acknowledged as what you suggest.
  - opo 5y ago
    >... the reality was that the coffee was exceptionally hot for decontamination convenience It sounds like that might not be accurate: >...In 1994, a spokesman for the National Coffee Association said that the temperature of McDonald's coffee conformed to industry standards.[2] An "admittedly unscientific" survey by the Los Angeles Times that year found that coffee was served between 157 and 182 °F (69 and 83 °C), and that two coffee outlets tested, one Burger King and one Starbucks, served hotter coffee than McDonald's.[37] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restau...
    - Socketier 5y ago
      Thanks, I'll have a read! I'd like to note though that what ever the case, a beverage that she was expected to put to her lips managed to give her horrific burns. And there was, if I recall correctly, quite a few of the same case accident reports at Mcdonalds on record. She was the only one who ended up in high profile litigation though. I suppose my point is that she wasn't silly or unreasonable as the slow drip feed of facts led many people to conclude as they heard it.
- zepto 5y ago
  Without that nuance, the story makes no sense. We shouldn’t be blaming either the employee or Apple. The problem here is with the New York Times publishing this obviously bad reporting.

by S_A_P 5y ago

licebmi__at__ 5y ago

Or maybe there could be more nuance to the case. What of he was hired for a different role and then suddenly he had to attend customers? What if the manager just didn’t like him and set him up for failure? Why would we put the wrong in him if the company hired him on the first place?

Socketier 5y ago
Exactly, it's similar to the media frenzy around the woman who got seriously burned by Mcdonalds coffee and sued them. The reaction was mostly incredulity and mocking her, but the reality was that the coffee was exceptionally hot for decontamination convenience (a corporate money saving measure) and the cup was insulated such that the average person wouldn't ever expect it to be so dangerous. Best to withold judgments until get more of the facts are revealed.
- vlovich123 5y ago
  I thought it was made so they could offer “unlimited” coffee but making it so hot increased the drinking time so customers were far away before finishing?
  - Qub3d 5y ago
    In the trial, McDonald's claimed that they served the coffee at that temperature because commuters would buy the coffee, drive to their destination, and then drink it, so the coffee was served in a manner to make sure it wouldn't be cold by then. However, it came to light that their internal research found most people drink the coffee while driving. The primary reason has been speculated but of course never officially acknowledged as what you suggest.
- opo 5y ago
  >... the reality was that the coffee was exceptionally hot for decontamination convenience It sounds like that might not be accurate: >...In 1994, a spokesman for the National Coffee Association said that the temperature of McDonald's coffee conformed to industry standards.[2] An "admittedly unscientific" survey by the Los Angeles Times that year found that coffee was served between 157 and 182 °F (69 and 83 °C), and that two coffee outlets tested, one Burger King and one Starbucks, served hotter coffee than McDonald's.[37] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restau...
  - Socketier 5y ago
    Thanks, I'll have a read! I'd like to note though that what ever the case, a beverage that she was expected to put to her lips managed to give her horrific burns. And there was, if I recall correctly, quite a few of the same case accident reports at Mcdonalds on record. She was the only one who ended up in high profile litigation though. I suppose my point is that she wasn't silly or unreasonable as the slow drip feed of facts led many people to conclude as they heard it.
zepto 5y ago
Without that nuance, the story makes no sense. We shouldn’t be blaming either the employee or Apple. The problem here is with the New York Times publishing this obviously bad reporting.