Skip to main content

McDONALD'S CORP. v. Ogborn

Ky. Ct. App.November 20, 2009No. 2008-CA-000024-MRCited 44 times
Plaintiff WinMcDonald's Corporation$6,411,312 awarded
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Citation
309 S.W.3d 274, 30 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 56, 2009 Ky. App. LEXIS 236, 107 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1516, 2009 WL 3877533
Judge(s)
Acree, Taylor, Thompson
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
jury verdict
Circuit
6th Circuit

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Harassment

Outcome

The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed the jury verdict awarding Ogborn $1,111,312 in compensatory damages and $5,000,000 in punitive damages against McDonald's for sexual harassment, false imprisonment, premises liability, and negligence. The court reduced Summers' punitive damages from $1,000,000 to $300,000 to comply with constitutional due process limits.

What This Ruling Means

**McDonald's Employee Wins $6.4 Million After Strip Search Incident** This case involved Louise Ogborn, a McDonald's employee who was subjected to a horrific prank call incident. A caller impersonating a police officer contacted the restaurant and convinced the manager to strip search Ogborn in a back office, falsely claiming she had stolen from a customer. The caller manipulated the situation for hours, leading to sexual assault and severe psychological trauma for Ogborn. The Kentucky Court of Appeals upheld a jury's decision to award Ogborn over $6.4 million in damages against McDonald's Corporation. The court found McDonald's liable for sexual harassment, false imprisonment, and negligence. Ogborn received $1.1 million in compensatory damages for her suffering and $5 million in punitive damages to punish McDonald's for its failures. This ruling matters because it holds employers accountable for protecting their workers from foreseeable dangers. The court recognized that McDonald's had received warnings about similar prank calls at other locations but failed to properly train managers or implement safeguards. This case reinforces that employers must take reasonable steps to ensure employee safety and can face significant financial consequences when they fail to do so.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse more:Harassment cases

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.