Monet Parham-Lee is suing McDonalds because she cannot say "NO" to her six year old daughter Maya.
In a call with reporters, Monet Parham, a Sacramento mother of two, said she was bringing the case because of the constant requests for McDonald's Happy Meals.
"I don't think it's OK to entice children with Happy Meals with the promise of a toy," she said, adding that she tries to hold her daughters, 6 and 2, to monthly visits to the fast-food chain. But she said their requests increased this summer, thanks to the popularity of "Shrek Forever After." Collecting all of the toys offered in conjunction with the movie would require weekly visits, she said.
"Needless to say, my answer was no," she said. "And as usual, pouting ensued and a little bit of a disagreement between us. This doesn't stop with one request. It's truly a litany of requests."
Monet Parham is really Monet Parham-Lee. Monet Parham-Lee is the name that Monet Parham uses professionally. Monet Parham-Lee is represented in the suit by attorneys affiliated with the Center for Science in the Public Interest. Meaning Ralph Nader. Monet Parham-Lee is an employee of the California Department of Public Health. Monet Parham-Lee works in the "Cancer Prevention and Nutrition Section" of the California Department of Public Health.
Meaning that Monet Parham-Lee is tasked, professionally, by the State of California with ensuring that Californians eat their vegetables. The power that the State of California grants Monet Parham-Lee evidently is not enough. Monet Parham-Lee is taking the law into her own hands, to ensure that not only her own children eat their vegetables, but that everyone else is forced to make their children eat vegetables. Because without toys, Happy Meals become Unhappy Meals.
And Unhappy Meals mean vegetables.
CSPI director of litigation Stephen Gardner said that the group knows McDonald's isn't the only fast-food chain that sells meals with toys, but targeted McDonald's because it is the biggest. He added that the group has had conversations with other chains, including Burger King, which it has not threatened to sue.
"We're not trying to force McDonald's to sell apples and sprouts," Gardner said. "We're just trying to stop McDonalds from marketing to 3-year-olds."
This is a class action, allegedly, but Monet Parham-Lee is not the mother of every three year old in California. Still, she claims standing to bring suit on behalf of all three year olds, and their parents. Thus bringing the idea of a "Nanny State" to its logical extreme.
This is also a tort action. Monet Parham-Lee is suing because, we're led to believe, her six year old daughter Maya harasses her on a daily basis for plastic Shreks. Monet Parham-Lee, evidently, is suing for negligent or intentional infliction of emotional distress. Her emotional distress is caused by the fact that her six year old daughter, Maya, will not stop hectoring her about these plastic Shreks.
I have a suggestion for Monet Parham-Lee. I have several suggestions in fact:
- Tell your six year old daughter Maya to shut the fuck up. And eat her damned vegetables.
- Buy the damned Happy Meal on the way home from work, then throw out the hamburger and fries. Give Maya the plastic Shrek. A Happy Meal costs two dollars or something. You don't have two dollars? You're an overpaid state employee in a state that's going bankrupt because of people like you. You can afford it.
- If you want to see emotional distress, wait until your six year old daughter Maya is old enough to Google herself. And her mom. So you can explain to her what the word "fuck" means. Because this post is NEVER GOING TO GO AWAY.
Of course this suit isn't being filed because Maya Parham-Lee eats too many damned Happy Meals. Or because she can't get her plastic Shrek. Or because Monet Parham-Lee is so damned weak that she's suffered ACTIONABLE EMOTIONAL DISTRESS from telling her daughter, six year old Maya, "No."
Maya Parham-Lee, the six year old daughter of Monet Parham-Lee, has probably never eaten a Happy Meal in her life. I'll bet she's eaten thousands of Unhappy Meals: wheat germ, carrots, whey, lentils, spirulina, oats, and raw, uncooked hay.
All of it steamed or boiled. Except for the raw hay.
It's been filed because Monet Parham-Lee, and the Center for Science in the Public Interest, want to control what everyone eats. But they lack the persuasive skills to convince California voters to ban cheeseburgers, french fries, lard, sugar, alcohol, caffeine, and all of the other things that make a meal truly Happy.
None of the stories I've seen on this mentions "Sacramento mother of two" Monet Parham-Lee's employment. I'm guessing that Monet Parham-Lee, and her lawyers, didn't feel the need to mention it. But it's material to the story. In fact, it's the most material part of the story.
"GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE IN CHARGE OF VEGETABLE EATING SUES TO STOP MEAT!" lacks a certain punch. It would be like printing a story to the effect that cows are demanding Americans eat mor chik'n.
And Monet Parham-Lee will never collect a penny unless McDonald's caves to a baseless suit. Which I sincerely hope it won't. Because I'd love to give Monet Parham-Lee's six year old daughter Maya something else to read about in a year or so.
"SACRAMENTO MOTHER OF TWO ORDERED TO PAY LEGAL FEES AS SANCTION FOR FRIVOLOUS LAWSUIT!" Now that has a ring to it.
Last 5 posts by Patrick Non-White
- Do Judges Have Inherent Dignity? - July 7th, 2015
- Adam Steinbaugh - June 23rd, 2015
- Media Coverage Of The Reason Debacle - June 11th, 2015
- Just A Couple Of Questions About Lynch Mobs - April 23rd, 2015
- With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility For Chip McGee's Feelz. And For Wombats. - January 30th, 2015