LOL another guest vs character misconduct

[GrumpyFan]

It sounds more like the lawyers are trying to portray a single person is a character for decades on end, like a single santa works for all of the malls in NJ.

That's not how I read it. Sounds to me like they're painting Disney as being lax on their hiring process and simply doing as little as possible in training and background searches and that they are more interested in their bottom line than guest safety.

The more I read on this case, the more it sounds like its about more than just a a simple groping. It looks like they intend to really go after Disney from multiple angles.

 

[flavious27]

That's not how I read it. Sounds to me like they're painting Disney as being lax on their hiring process and simply doing as little as possible in training and background searches and that they are more interested in their bottom line than guest safety.

The more I read on this case, the more it sounds like its about more than just a a simple groping. It looks like they intend to really go after Disney from multiple angles.

They could try that but their wording of complaints being filed after the tiger charges were announced just shoots them in the foot. Mentioning other frivolous complaints as a basis for a case should get the lawyer disbarred.

If they really want to show a pattern, they need to show actually conviction. Besides the 60 yo minnie, have there been other convictions?

 

[Tom]

It sounds more like the lawyers are trying to portray a single person is a character for decades on end, like a single santa works for all of the malls in NJ.

Excellent point. As far as I know, all of the accusations of "character groping" have been different CMs - never the same one more than once.

Furthermore, no matter how much of a perv the person in the costume is, I imagine they would all think twice about even trying to cop a feel, for fear of losing precious days of their lives sitting needlessly in a court room.

That's not how I read it. Sounds to me like they're painting Disney as being lax on their hiring process and simply doing as little as possible in training and background searches and that they are more interested in their bottom line than guest safety.

The more I read on this case, the more it sounds like its about more than just a a simple groping. It looks like they intend to really go after Disney from multiple angles.

The attorney is just throwing a handful of darts at a wall, hoping that one sticks. There's no intent to correct Disney, or set their morals straight. It's all about money.

 

[flavious27]

Excellent point. As far as I know, all of the accusations of "character groping" have been different CMs - never the same one more than once.

Furthermore, no matter how much of a perv the person in the costume is, I imagine they would all think twice about even trying to cop a feel, for fear of losing precious days of their lives sitting needlessly in a court room.



The attorney is just throwing a handful of darts at a wall, hoping that one sticks. There's no intent to correct Disney, or set their morals straight. It's all about money.

With the amount of cameras around meet and greets, no one is really going to chance something at wdw.

 

[Tom]

With the amount of cameras around meet and greets, no one is really going to chance something at wdw.

Right.

And as a side note, I guess I could actually testify on Disney's behalf. I have been in a full character costume a number of times (we rent them to entertain kids at our church's annual summer festival) - with the giant furry suit, mittens and "head".

I can attest that when in a suit like that, you have absolutely NO sense of your surroundings or where your hands are. I basically stood still and had my "attendants" escort the kids up to say hi, stand beside me, hug me (I think...just knew I felt movement), etc. I would hold my arms out, then pull them forward until I felt resistance (assuming that meant I'd reached their backs and it looked like my arms were then around them).

I never had to interact with a baby in someone's arms, but I can almost assuredly say that if I had been faced with that situation, I would have had NO idea if my mittens were pressing against a naughty part vs. the baby or an arm. In most of those costumes, you either look through the eyes (which are placed above a giant nose) or the mouth (so all you can see is feet). The same applies to most of Disney's costumes. You can either see the sky, or feet. To actually see something directly in front of you, you have to tilt your head in an awkward direction.

And again, since there is a 90% chance that Donald was actually a "Daisy", that just adds more fuel to the "bogus" fire, in my opinion.

Am I saying Donald didn't touch her ? No. But I'm saying it was likely not intentional, and does not represent a "continued" problem.

 

[Maerj]

Solution: Ban all people from Pennsylvania from going to WDW. Myself excluded of course either that or WDW can relocate me & My family to Florida. Problem solved.

 

[Neverland]

Dale gave me a surprise kiss on the cheek the day before yesterday WITHOUT my consent. Now I suffer from paranoia and nightmares about chipmunks eating my face. I'M SUING.

 

[stphnbogert]

When I met the Seven Dwarfs...Sneezy sneezed on me and I've had hay fever ever since.

 

[Tom]

I'm allergic to cats, dogs and rodents. I've had so many allergic reactions because certain Disney versions of those species have routinely put themselves in close proximity to me. I don't even know where to start my lawsuit!!!

 

[flavious27]

Right.

And as a side note, I guess I could actually testify on Disney's behalf. I have been in a full character costume a number of times (we rent them to entertain kids at our church's annual summer festival) - with the giant furry suit, mittens and "head".

I can attest that when in a suit like that, you have absolutely NO sense of your surroundings or where your hands are. I basically stood still and had my "attendants" escort the kids up to say hi, stand beside me, hug me (I think...just knew I felt movement), etc. I would hold my arms out, then pull them forward until I felt resistance (assuming that meant I'd reached their backs and it looked like my arms were then around them).

I never had to interact with a baby in someone's arms, but I can almost assuredly say that if I had been faced with that situation, I would have had NO idea if my mittens were pressing against a naughty part vs. the baby or an arm. In most of those costumes, you either look through the eyes (which are placed above a giant nose) or the mouth (so all you can see is feet). The same applies to most of Disney's costumes. You can either see the sky, or feet. To actually see something directly in front of you, you have to tilt your head in an awkward direction.

And again, since there is a 90% chance that Donald was actually a "Daisy", that just adds more fuel to the "bogus" fire, in my opinion.

Am I saying Donald didn't touch her ? No. But I'm saying it was likely not intentional, and does not represent a "continued" problem.

Knowing how the lawyers research this beforehand, they probably saw this and thought that every mascot has the same amount of mobility.

 

[Mikester71]

My husband was hugged from behind by a Brazilian tour group girl - he was wearing the same color green as the group and I guess she thought he was a friend of hers - it was the highlight of his trip! No lawsuits here!

:ROFLOL:giggity giggity!!! :ROFLOL:

 

[StageFrenzy]

Is it bad that i want to send her a box of Donald plushes and perhaps some pepto?

 

[Tom]

Knowing how the lawyers research this beforehand, they probably saw this and thought that every mascot has the same amount of mobility.

Mr Commerce Bank is displaying some extreme self control, that's for sure!

Is it bad that i want to send her a box of Donald plushes and perhaps some pepto?

:lol:

 

[Ilovewishes]

It doesn't only happen at Disney! I had my picture taken at Universal with Alex the lion and the penguins from Madagascar and as I began to walk away, Alex patted me on the bottom!

It did take me by surprise but mostly I found it hilarious. We still talk about it now, years later, and make jokes about keeping an eye out for my "boyfriend".

It never even occurred to me that I could be traumatised or that I could sue!

 

[jakeman]

It never even occurred to me that I could be traumatised or that I could sue!

Well, now you know.

And knowing is half the battle.

 

[fosse76]

Are you sure about this? I thought that since it is private property they can refuse entry to anybody at any time, regardless of whether you have valid admission. Also, I'm pretty sure they can remove you at any time and are not required to reimburse you.

yes and no. They MUST adhere to all non-discrimination laws, so they can't refuse entry based on gender, age, ethnicity, etc. They CAN set rules of of conduct and policies within the confines of the law, and they can refuse entry or remove guests who violate those policies. However they can't simply remove you for no reason. It's a place of public accomodation, and as long as you are following their policies, they don't have any legal grounds to remove you. Plus it's bad business. Banning is even more difficult, because it must have a basis in law (a violent person, someone who is tresspassing, anything the person does that is clearly a violation of the law or that injure others or damage proprty, etc.).

Of course, they CAN remove you for no reason at all...but that doesn't make it legal. Disney is a very public-conscious company. They aren't going to remove/ban you without a good reason.

 

[fosse76]

It doesn't matter whether this one is bogus or not....Disney still needs to step up its game and defend these types of accusations with their full arsenal. It will help deter ones that are indeed bogus from going anywhere.

No one's disagreeing with this (or at least I'm not). What's putting me off is the fact that everyone just blindly assumes that she is making it up and blindly defending Disney. Maybe Disney made a bad hiring choice. It happens to every company. But the law says Disney is responsible for the conduct of its employees, as it should be.

I'm still placing my bets on "bogus" for this one, regardless. Just my opinion...and I don't think they accept "opinions" on the stand except in the case of "expert witnesses".

I agree that it is most likely a bogus claim. But most posters in this thread automatically assumed she was lying, and that her claims are bogus. This is one of the reasons our legal system doesn't always work...people are quick to judge without knowing the facts. But that's not to say he medical trauma couldn't be real. S-e-x-ual trauma can be set off by a lot of things...for all we know she may have been an abused child, so even a hug might have set her off.

That's right. Make a knee jerk reaction and punish everyone because of the actions of a few bad apples. *sigh*

But that's what your advocating with the court system. While it could always use fine-tuning, a frivolous case is one where there was no act of malfeasance. If she wasn't groped or even touched, then it is frivolous. If she was, then the legitimacy of the case is determined by a jury and their judgment...and they are made up of people like you and me.

Even if this case IS legit, one instance doesn't warrant taking away the "liberty" of everyone who still wants to visit with characters, and understands that they aren't groping you when they bump into your naughty bits.

But that's the thing: you don't know that they aren't intentionally bumping into you. And you don't have any "liberty" or "right" to visit with the characters. You do have a right to walk through Disney without being molested by its employees.

You fix this by fixing the legal system...by discouraging people from bringing cases like this to court in the first place.

It does exist. It's called a jury judgment. And often times a company doesn't dispute the facts, but can have the case dismissed because the outcome was inevitable (the crowd example: yes Mr. Smith was constantly pushed and shoved by other guests at the parade, but there were thousands of people there and there was no way it could be prevented, and Mr. Smith knew when he entered the area that people might be bumping into him). Let the jury decide.

 

[fosse76]

One thing that's been proposed by many is a "loser pays" system where the plaintiff would have to pay the court costs and legal fees of the defendant if they lost. I think a variation of this might work in our system, but there doesn't seem to be much traction for it.

That doesn't work, simply because it discourages those with a legitimate complaint from filing. You can lose a case for almost any reason that has nothing to do with the facts. That's one of the problems with having a jury (how many black men and women have been convicted in our country based on false allegations). Even judges can be biased. I think the fairest way is that AFTER the jury awards the plaintiff actual and punitive damages, there should be another phase of the trial to determine how much of the punitive damages the plaintiff can receive (since actual damages cannot always be completely measured)...with the rest going to the state. There would still be the human bias, but it discourage less scrupulous lawyers from filing claims they know are not legitimate (since their "fee" would be based on that waraded to the plaintiff after that phase).

 

[Tom]

That doesn't work, simply because it discourages those with a legitimate complaint from filing. You can lose a case for almost any reason that has nothing to do with the facts. That's one of the problems with having a jury (how many black men and women have been convicted in our country based on false allegations). Even judges can be biased. I think the fairest way is that AFTER the jury awards the plaintiff actual and punitive damages, there should be another phase of the trial to determine how much of the punitive damages the plaintiff can receive (since actual damages cannot always be completely measured)...with the rest going to the state. There would still be the human bias, but it discourage less scrupulous lawyers from filing claims they know are not legitimate (since their "fee" would be based on that waraded to the plaintiff after that phase).

THIS....I agree with

My tax dollars need to be offset, and if the defendant is found to be innocent, they need to be compensated for their court/attorney costs by someone.

Nobody should ever have to pay to defend themselves when they were innocent.

 

[Pumbas Nakasak]

I must say Aerials clams are a distraction. maybe I should sue?