UPDATED: McDonald's Finally Responds to Nigel Haskett and It's Not Pretty

UPDATE: Mr. Haskett's story has finally hit the national mainstream media.

Nigel Haskett is the McDonald's worker who heroically came to the aid of a patron who was being violently assaulted. He was shot multiple times in the process and McDonald's is actively opposing his workers compensation claim for medical expenses.

Background is here: http://anti-union.blogspot.com/2009/02/mcdonalds-hero-getting-screwed-by...

A Brandworkers e-mail action is here: http://citizenspeak.org/node/1492

The Huffington Post has posted an e-mail message that McDonald's sent out to a concerned citizen regarding its conduct toward Mr. Haskett. It is McDonald's first statement on the matter. Below is McDonald's e-mail with Brandworkers comments in bold:
----

Thank you for taking the time to contact McDonald's to let us know your thoughts on this unfortunate incident.

Unfortunate? A 22-year old has undergone three surgeries and lives with a bullet fragment in his back because he had the heart and the courage to help out a women being violently assaulted. And the most McDonald's can muster is "unfortunate"?

Most important to note, McDonald's cleverly points to an "incident" rather than its pre-meditated corporate decision to deny workers compensation benefits that are owed due to that incident.

This restaurant is an independently owned McDonald's and an insurance claim is still pending.

McDonald's is wrongfully trying to hide behind its franchisee-store owner. The franchisee paid insurance premiums to the McDonald's workers compensation system so that McDonald's would pay out claims when they arose. Therefore, the ball is in McDonald's court and it's completely disingenuous to hide behind its franchisee.

As such, it is not appropriate for us to comment on it, however, the owner/operator, Ray Nosler, has shared the following statement publicly about this case:

McDonald's workers compensation agent argued that Mr. Haskett's claim should be denied in its entirety. If McDonald's is willing to make that argument against this hero, why doesn't it have the guts to comment on its decision? Now the multibillion dollar fast food giant continues to hide for cover behind its local franchisee.

February 24, 2009
My highest priority is the safety and security of my customers and employees.

I stand behind Nigel Haskett. I believe he acted as a Good Samaritan. Concerning the critical matter of his medical expenses, it is important to note that the Arkansas Worker's Compensation Commission ultimately decides the outcome of his claim. As part of this process, Nigel's case will be presented to a Worker's Compensation judge, who will review all of the facts and decide on the case's merits.

To say not to worry it's merely up to the judge now is downright offensive. The only reason Mr. Haskett must engage in the time, expense, and emotional heartache of litigation regarding a traumatic event in his life is because McDonald's has opposed his workers compensation claim. This is an open and shut matter and McDonald's legal arguments to the contrary are frivolous. FYI, whether or not McDonald's has a policy against helping a customer being attacked is legally irrelevant to this type of workers compensation claim.

McDonald's supports Nigel's claim, and fully anticipates the judge in this process will find in Nigel's favor. As a safeguard, if for some reason his claim is denied, and other insurance options are unavailable, I intend to cover the cost of his medical expenses.

Have you read 1984 by George Orwell? McDonald's, we are told, supports Nigel's claims by opposing Nigel's claims. And McDonald's fully anticipates that its frivolous legal arguments will fail but it continues to refuse to just settle the case!

The franchisee goes on to say he "intend[s]" to cover the costs if "other insurance options are unavailable." An intent to do something is not the same as pledging to do something or entering into a contract to do something. And what insurance is he talking about? Mr. Haskett certainly didn't have health benefits from McDonald's. So we suppose the store owner is referring to taxpayer-supported benefits. Well here's some news for the local store owner: It's not your responsibility to pay and it's certainly not the taxpayers'; it's the obligation of McDonald's to pay because you paid it insurance premiums to cover workplace injuries.

I'm doing this because it's the right thing to do for Nigel.

No sir, then you would have stepped up way back in August 2008 when Nigel Haskett was injured. You are "doing this" because of the growing public outcry and because you are being used as a pawn by the McDonald's corporation that is hiding behind you for public relations purposes.

Ray Nosler, McDonald's Owner/Operator

Kayla
McDonald's Customer Response Center

ref#:5808350