Level 3 Sex Offender Sues McDonalds and Mother

[momof3littlelilos]

What?
Level 3 sex offender is fired by McDonald's after a local mother sees him on a website and calls his employer to inform them of his status. The guy is suing the mother who turned him in, and McDonald's.
How crazy is that?
(BTW - I didn't know what the levels referred to - my local news says that level 3 is the most likely to re-offend.)
Honestly - I want to know that the person cleaning tables by the playspace isn't criminally dangerous...but I'm funny that way. Kudos to the mom who took the time to turn this guy in.

http://www.lowellsun.com/todaysheadlines/ci_8782361

Tewksbury man takes on restaurant owner, mother who exposed his past
By Lisa Redmond and Alexandra Mayer-Hohdahl , Sun Staff
Article Last Updated: 04/02/2008 12:18:33 PM EDT


TEWKSBURY -- In what may be a precedent-setting case for sex offenders across the state, a Level 3 sex offender living in Tewksbury is suing McDonald's and a local mother, claiming the restaurant fired him unfairly after she exposed his past.

To read the legal complaint Click Here

"This case is interesting because it puts on trial two sets of personal freedoms: personal privacy versus the rights of a community to be notified of sex offenders in their midst," Boston attorney William Korman, who is representing convicted sex offender Scott Gagnon, said yesterday.

"Andrea Quinn (the Tewksbury mother) thinks she did the right thing, and Scott Gagnon has the right to work and live in peace," he said. "I'm unaware of any other cases like this."

In the civil lawsuit filed Monday in Middlesex Superior Court, Gagnon alleges wrongful termination by the restaurant's owners, The Napoli Group LLC, and accuses Quinn of invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The lawsuit gives a preliminary figure of $85,000 in lost wages.

The Napoli Group, a Windham, N.H.,-based corporation that owns dozens of McDonald's across New England, yesterday declined to comment on the lawsuit.

"The safety and well-being of our customers and employees is a top priority," said company spokesman Glen Gracia. "We take these matters seriously. Because this is a pending legal matter, it would be inappropriate to further comment or speculate."
Quinn, meanwhile, said she is shocked by the lawsuit.

"I think it's ridiculous," she said yesterday. "I never approached (Gagnon) and I didn't picket the McDonald's. All I did was call them to ask if he worked there and if they knew that he was a Level 3 sex offender. It was McDonald's choice to fire him, not mine. I don't regret what I did."

Quinn, 44, said she is ready to face down Gagnon in court.

"He's making me another victim of his -- that's what this is turning into," she said. "I'm not going to allow it. I have a right, as a parent, to protect my children and my community."

The Sun broke the news of Gagnon's firing in a March 20 front-page story.

Gagnon, 50, previously spent nearly three decades in prison after he was convicted of rape, assault with intent to commit rape, and rape of a child with force when he was in his early 20s. He was jailed in 1980 and spent time in treatment at the Bridgewater Correctional Complex.

A 1994 Appeals Court decision alleged that he, at some point, also "admitted to approximately 20 additional rapes of women," but he was never charged with those crimes.

Gagnon was released from Bridgewater in February 2007 after having been held for 25 years on the criminal charges and more than one year as a "sexually dangerous person" -- a designation that can keep an inmate locked up for life.

Gagnon said he was released last year when independent and state doctors "cleared" him, while prosecutors did not contest his release.

Gagnon didn't return a message seeking comment last night.

"They said I was no longer a danger to society," he said in an interview last month. "They said I'm not dangerous, so who is McDonald's to say that I am?"

"This lawsuit isn't about the sentence Scott Gagnon received," Korman said yesterday. "It's about his rights. He did everything right and still this happened to him."

Gagnon told The Sun that McDonald's knew of his past, which he did not attempt to hide, and hired him anyway about six months ago. It was the only job he was offered since his release, his attorney said. Gagnon was paid $8.50 per hour to work the grill.

But when Quinn discovered where he was working through the Sex Offender Registry Board's Web site, she called the McDonald's and started spreading the word through friends and acquaintances.

Dan Frazier, vice president for the local restaurant, said in an earlier statement that it is company policy "not to hire registered sex offenders" and that Gagnon was promptly fired when his criminal past came to light.

But Korman argued that Gagnon's firing was "wrongful and was in direct breach of the background-check policy" outlined in the McDonald's employee handbook. In the handbook, it indicates that background checks will only be used to make decisions regarding an individual's eligibility for hire or promotion, Korman said.

Gagnon was hired even after admitting his Level 3 sex offender status, the level considered most likely to reoffend.

Korman alleges Quinn then violated the Sex Offender Registry Board's rules by using the Sex Offender Registry information to harass Gagnon.

"They didn't know each other, but she called his employer to complain so he'd be fired," Korman said. "That's harassment."

Although she denied that she asked for Gagnon to be axed, Quinn maintains that there are more appropriate places where Gagnon could have worked, such as a warehouse where he wouldn't be around children.

Korman alleges Quinn broke the law by using the sex-offender information the way she did. He said Gagnon considered filing criminal charges against her, but decided against it.

"As upset as Scott is about this, he said he wouldn't wish the criminal-justice system on anyone," Korman said.

Lisa Redmond can be reached at lredmond@lowellsun.com. Alexandra Mayer-Hohdahl's can be reached at amayer-hohdhal@lowellsun.com.

 

[4cruisin]

Good for her. I read this last night and I agree 100% that he should not be working at a McDonalds where children congregate.

The SORB does say that the information cannot be used to discriminate against an offender so I wonder if the ACLU will step in to assist the ex-employee.

Personally, I think they should take most sex offenders, put them in jail and throw away the key. They cannot be rehabilitated.

 

[wvrevy]

He's got no case against the woman that called in about him, but he may very well have one against McDonalds if he can prove that they knew about his history before hiring him. Why on earth would they do that if it is against company policy?

 

[StrollPatrolMom]

OMG

My roomate from college's mom owns that McDonalds...

and uh, the guy can go pound sand.

 

[StrollPatrolMom]

Personally, I think they should take most sex offenders, put them in jail and throw away the key. They cannot be rehabilitated.

I propose sex offender island...leave them al there, airlift in food...

voila. I cannot for life of me understand why they release these people

 

[poohandwendy]

He's got no case against the woman that called in about him, but he may very well have one against McDonalds if he can prove that they knew about his history before hiring him. Why on earth would they do that if it is against company policy?

I agree with this. He does have a valid case against McDonalds, if he can prove they knew he was a sex offender and hired him anyway.

 

[momof3littlelilos]

I propose sex offender island...leave them al there, airlift in food...
voila. I cannot for life of me understand why they release these people

But only if it becomes a reality tv series with the advertising profits covering the food and airlift expenses.

 

[Keggy]

I agree with this. He does have a valid case against McDonalds, if he can prove they knew he was a sex offender and hired him anyway.

I agree as well. If a background check was required for the position, then McDonald's should have done that prior to hiring him. If it is not required, then he shouldn't have been fired.



I like the island idea - but not a nice island in the caribbean... unless it is hot as hades and there is no shade.

 

[4cruisin]

There is a case in southern MA where a convicted sex offender raped a 6 yo boy in the local library. The man is a convicted s.o. Why do they let these people out? It keeps happening over and over and over again.

Eventually, someone may realize that there is no hope for these people and they need to stay locked up.

I would be p.o'd if I frequented that McDonalds with my children and the company knew they had a level 3 offender working there.

 

[freckles and boo]

The guy is a piece of crap and should be working in a more appropriate environment, but he also has rights. Considering he was following the letter of the law he probably has a case against the restaurant and the mother. If you don't like the laws, work to change them.

 

[4cruisin]

The guy is a piece of crap and should be working in a more appropriate environment, but he also has rights.

The guy should still be in jail. I know that the letter of the law does give him rights but honestly, he lost all rights forever in my eyes when he chose to rape a child.

 

[poohandwendy]

The guy should still be in jail. I know that the letter of the law does give him rights but honestly, he lost all rights forever in my eyes when he chose to rape a child.

But he really didn't lose all of his rights, in the eyes of the law. And that is what is important and that is what needs to respected.

I agree with freckles, work to change the laws if you disagree with them.

I agree that child sex offenders should be forever locked up, but the only way that can happen is if we stop locking up people who commit lesser offenses. (which I am all for). We simply do not have room in our prisons for the prisoners we have incarcerated. It takes more prisons, which takes more tax dollars. Just food for thought.

 

[agnes!]

IMO, the mother who informed McDonald's did nothing wrong. The information is a matter of public record.
Now,
*if* that McDonald's did do a background check and
*if* management did indeed know about the Level 3 sex offense and
*if* they hired him anyway and
*then* fired him when a customer told them she knew?
Then that is a different matter entirely.

I think it depends on if anyone at Napoli corporate or at the individual McDonald's knew about the Level 3 convictions when the felon was hired. It also depends on who this woman called. *If* the local manager knew, but didn't tell corporate and she called corporate to inform them...then that local manager is in a lot of hot water.

agnes!

 

[Mayl]

I have to move past the point regarding if he should or should not have been allowed out of jail.

As it stands, he was released. He has rights to make a living. One can argue he should get help, so that he won't turn back to crime, drugs, etc etc.

Assuming he did disclose his history and his employee hired him, he should be protected by law.

Listen, I think the problem stems back to if a sex offender should be released, the how, the when and the big if. But he was and he as the right to be gainfully employeed. He stated nobody else would hire him. You sure wish he could be working in a lumber yard or something like that, but no luck.

I could see him getting a big lawsuit and winning out of this. Again, assuming the fact that McDonalds had full disclosure of his criminal record and chose to hire him. That mom calling should have ZERO impact on his employement after the fact. They allowed it to be and they don't get a "do over"

 

[momof3littlelilos]

I could see him getting a big lawsuit and winning out of this. Again, assuming the fact that McDonalds had full disclosure of his criminal record and chose to hire him. That mom calling should have ZERO impact on his employement after the fact. They allowed it to be and they don't get a "do over"

If someone at McDonald's knew, they screwed up.
I don't know if this makes sense but I think if you're McDonald's looking at 2 potential lawsuits (or publicity nightmares) Handling a lawsuit for firing a sex offender is better than handling the publicity if anyone did picket or called a news station while you still have a sex offender in your employ...or worst case, having your employee attack someone and then being sued by the victim. I think they had no choice but to go for the "do over."

I hope he doesn't make any money off of this.

 

[wvjules]

Wow this is a tough one. The man did his time and has been released. He's registered with the sex offenders' website. He got a job and then got fired. I do consider what the mother did as harassment. If I called someone's employer and said "Hey did you know Joe Bloe is a crack head" and they in turn fired him, that is a direct result of my actions.

I do not consider myself soft on crime by any means but at what point do convicts just get to be regular people working regular jobs?

 

[StrollPatrolMom]

I agree as well. If a background check was required for the position, then McDonald's should have done that prior to hiring him. If it is not required, then he shouldn't have been fired.



I like the island idea - but not a nice island in the caribbean... unless it is hot as hades and there is no shade.

MA is an at-will employment state...so they can fire him if he looked at someone the wrong way. It doesn't matter under what circumstances he was hired to begin with.

He has no case.

And no...can we find a cold dark island off of Alaska somewhere?

 

[Keggy]

Well, does anyone know McDonald's corporate policy? Do they require background checks and what is allowable for them to hire and what isn't?

 

[Nikel]

The guy should still be in jail. I know that the letter of the law does give him rights but honestly, he lost all rights forever in my eyes when he chose to rape a child.

But your eyes don't matter. The laws do. Where or not anything thinks he should have been released, he was. He does have rights. Individuals do not and should not have the right to choose to deny someone else their legally given rights.

 

[StrollPatrolMom]

Wow this is a tough one. The man did his time and has been released. He's registered with the sex offenders' website. He got a job and then got fired. I do consider what the mother did as harassment. If I called someone's employer and said "Hey did you know Joe Bloe is a crack head" and they in turn fired him, that is a direct result of my actions.

I do not consider myself soft on crime by any means but at what point do convicts just get to be regular people working regular jobs?

when the convict didn't molest children.