Did anyone else see this?

[cl1067]

I saw this story on CNN's website this morning:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/09/16/disney.molest.ap/index.html

To me it was apalling they would let this guy back to work as a character after he had been accused of fondling a guest!

 

[B'rer Karen]

Originally posted by cl1067
I saw this story on CNN's website this morning:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/09/16/disney.molest.ap/index.html

To me it was apalling they would let this guy back to work as a character after he had been accused of fondling a guest!

He was aquited, meaning he was not guilty. What would you have them do? I don't know if he was actually guilty or not, but I would hate to think that someone could make a false accusation against someone and that they'd forever lose their job over it. Disney has no legal ground to not give him his job back, as far as I know.

 

[Nickunited]

That was the case where they had the Tigger outfit in court - right. I mean can you imagine being a Juror and all of a sudden Tigger hops into the room - How can you be fair?

 

[dischick4778]

I don't know the whole story, none of us do really. So it wouldn't be fair to pass judgement. I'm sure Disney isn't enjoying the bad publicity though.

 

[Hippychickali]

Legally, they had no choice but to let him come back to work. You can't fire someone for being found "not guilty" in a case. That would be unconstitutional. It seems to me though that Disney didn't like the bad press (obviously) and decided to "frame" him. I mean, I don't think he would be so dumb as to commit a crime in light of what just happened. The whole thing is a little suspicious on Disney's part to me.

Ali

 

[kandmwedding]

I have to agree with B'rer karen and Hippychickali on this one. This guy was acquitted of the charges (and having read the articles on the subject I can understand why) and therefore should be able to go back to work. I also find it a little sketchy that two employees are now saying he shoved them... haven't we all seen Goofy act up with other CMs before??

 

[cl1067]

I agree with all of you that we don't know the whole story and that Disney probably could not legally fire him based on the facts surrounding it. However, in my opinion if there was even a suspicision of him fondling someone (which there is because someone did accuse him of it), he should have been put in a different position within Disney. Can you imagine if it was your child?

It is Disney's responsibility to make WDW a safe place for everyone. Can you imagine the lawsuit that would happen if he had been found guilty or did it again? I think this may have more to do with Disney's position than anything.

 

[B'rer Karen]

I understand where you're coming from, but I still disagree. Anyone can make an accusation without any facts to back them up. The accused person has rights too. I know I wouldn't appreciate if a stranger came in to my place of business and accused me of stealing from the company, and even though I wasn't found guilty they moved me into a different position. I've done nothing wrong, why should I be "punished"?

 

[Leota]

I think, since he was acquitted, Disney had no legal right to remove him from his position or to fire him. I also think Goofy's role is to be clumsy & playful, so this sounds a bit fishy to me....

BUT.......

I'm glad I don't see the CM's out of their Fur - He's a scary looking character!

 

[inaminute]

He was proven not guilty. There was absolutely no proof that he did anything wrong--the prosecution couldn't even prove that he was the person who was in the costume at the time of the "incident." On the other hand, his accuser was proven to be a liar. She'd done this very thing previously and settled out of court.

There was no reason for Disney to not hire him back--even if they didnt' want to.

How convenient for Disney that there has been another incident so soon. They put the guy in a Goofy costume. What else is he supposed to do but act "Goofy?" So, he goofs around with a couple of employees. The employees he's playing with shove back--it's all in good fun, after all. Unfortunately for Goofy, the employees he shoved thought it was a friend in the costume. They didn't even think to file a complaint until much later when they discovered who was actually in the costume.

He really should find another career with another company. This one isn't working out well.

 

[kandmwedding]

I agree wholeheartedly with B'rer Karen again!!! False accusations are made all the time, and someone should not be punished once they've been acquitted. I can speak from experience in saying that someone (outside of the family) accused my parents of abusing my older brother. It was a totally baseless accusation made by someone who'd only met my brother once, and took a comment he made the wrong way. I'm glad it was investigated, because that hopefully means that other true accusations are investigated as well. But to say that my parents, because they were accused, shouldn't be around children is totally off base. I know that wasn't said here, but that's what's implied when you say this guy shouldn't be around kids because he was accused. Just my two cents...

 

[emma'sdad]

This is a casey of bad reporting. The accused is a member of a Union. There is a contract between Disney and that Union. That contract would set forth the conditions of termination from employement. Obviously we do not know the terms of the contract, but it is safe to say that the employee's job is somewhat protected. Disney cannot fire any Union employee unless the reasons for termination state so. Do not blame Disney for this.

You should also not blame the Union. If it were not for a Union, Disney certainly could have fired the employee. The results of the criminal trial would be immaterial. Florida, like most states, is an "at will" employment state. This means you work "at the will" of the employer. An employer can fire a worker for any reason that does not violate public policy, such as you can't fire someone for being pro one candidate in an election. The limitations on the power of employers are acutally very few. This is why Unions exist.

 

[WDSearcher]

Originally posted by Nickunited
That was the case where they had the Tigger outfit in court - right. I mean can you imagine being a Juror and all of a sudden Tigger hops into the room - How can you be fair?

Tigger did not "hop into the room." The costume was used to demonstrate how difficult it is to move, see and feel in it. They did not do a meet & greet. And the jurors ARE adults, for goodness sake! One would hope that they already knew that there's a person inside the costume.

 

[Hippychickali]

Originally posted by WDSearcher
Tigger did not "hop into the room." The costume was used to demonstrate how difficult it is to move, see and feel in it. They did not do a meet & greet. And the jurors ARE adults, for goodness sake! One would hope that they already knew that there's a person inside the costume.

Give me a break! The OP was obviously joking and knows all of what you just said. He/she was just playing on a funny mental image and it was funny until you sucked all the "fun" out of it.

Ali

 

[WDSearcher]

Originally posted by Hippychickali
Give me a break! The OP was obviously joking and knows all of what you just said. He/she was just playing on a funny mental image and it was funny until you sucked all the "fun" out of it.

Ali

That obviously wasn't as clear to me as it was to you. I didn't read it as a joke.

 

[caribbeanme]

Originally posted by Hippychickali
Give me a break! The OP was obviously joking and knows all of what you just said. He/she was just playing on a funny mental image and it was funny until you sucked all the "fun" out of it.

Ali

Actually, I didn't think the poster was trying to be funny, either. If I'm not mistaken, part of the argument for NOT using the costume was that it would be prejudicial because it was iconic and people would have a hard time thinking the worst of someone who was in that costume (or would assume that Disney would have never let this happen). Agreed that people are adults, but I would have had an "awww" moment myself had I been in the courtroom and seen Tigger walk in. Tigger as molester...NEVER!!

It's so hard to read someone's tone...I tell ya, I'm glad people use those smilies, because tone can definitely be misrepresented.

 

[Nickunited]

I was actually trying to create a funny image in our heads.


I know the story of the case as I know all the details as to why and how the suit was used in trial.

But when I first heard it, I just had this image in my head of sitting their in a court room and tigger hopping in.

I know that was not how it happened, but that is the image that came into my head! I am a clown around type!

Sorry if you all took it the wrong way. Its cool! You are right - I should have used a smile or something

Thats better!!!! = )

Nickunited

 

[caribbeanme]

Originally posted by Nickunited
But when I first heard it, I just had this image in my head of sitting their in a court room and tigger hopping in.

I would have loved to see that!

Thanks for clarifying!! I was sympathetic with that previous poster who also thought you weren't kidding cuz when I read your post I thought you were serious, and, moreover, it really wasn't that far fetched of a comment. I actually wasn't at all offended by it, or anything-- some people (prosecutors in that case, for example) probably agreed with the central gist of it.

I kinda feel like I go out on a limb on boards when I post replies cuz it's hard to tell what someone means unless you "know" them from previous posts, or they use smilies, etc.

Now I'll know that I should take your messages with a grain...no..TRUCKLOAD of salt

Disneyday for everyone,

 

[WDWalways]

I didn't read every post yet so I don't know if anyone already mentioned this but the whole thing including trial was on Inside Edition which I saw & still have on my Tivo because I found it so unbelievable - the lawyer wore the Tigger suit to show how hard it is to see anyone you are taking a photo with etc. The 2 people (mother & 13 yr old daughter) who accused the cast member showed the photo they took with him as Tigger & his hands/arms were over their shoulders & the mother had a big smile (the daughters face was blurred out) & it looked like any other photo you would see from WDW with a character - they said he had his arms around their waists with his hands resting right on the side of their breasts & it is so clear from seeing the photo that that was not the case unless it happened after photo was taken & that doesn't make sense. Also, the accused's lawyer works at MK part time as Tigger & Goofy himself which says alot to me about Disney (logically, a lawyer is normally paid very well & for him to work p/t as a character, well, it must be that much fun.)
I think they were after money but that is my opinion.

 

[kathylovesdisneyworl]

Originally posted by Hippychickali
Give me a break! The OP was obviously joking and knows all of what you just said. He/she was just playing on a funny mental image and it was funny until you sucked all the "fun" out of it.

Ali

Have to agree, didn't see anywhere in the original post where this was supposed to be a joke.

So I see now it was just a joke.