520 Case 11 • Red Lobster

Jean Larimer’s Testimony. Larimer, who su-

pervised 100 full- and part-time employees, testified
that she had dismissed Campbell after one of the
two customers complained angrily to her and her
supervisor. “She [the guest] felt violated,” declared
the manager, “because her card was taken from the
box and her complaint about the food was ig-
nored.” Larimer drew the panel’s attention to the
company rule book, pointing out that Campbell had
violated the policy that forbade removal of com-
pany property.
Mary Campbell’s Testimony. Campbell testi-
fied that the female customer had requested that her
prime rib be cooked “well done” and then subse-
quently complained that it was fatty and under-
cooked. The waitress told the panel that she had
politely suggested that “prime rib always has fat on
it,” but arranged to have the meat cooked some
EXHIBIT 1: The Restaurant Scene Becomes the Testing Ground for the
Validity of Peer Review
more. However, the woman still seemed unhappy;
she poured some steak sauce over the meat, but then
pushed away her plate without eating all the food.
When the customer remained displeased, Campbell offered her a free dessert. But the
guests decided to leave, paid the bill, filled out the guest comment card, and dropped it
in the guest comment box.
Admitting she was consumed by curiosity, Campbell asked Eve Taunton, the
restaurant’s hostess, for the key to the box. After removing and reading the card, she
pocketed it. Her intent, she declared, was to show the card to Ms. Larimer, who had
been concerned earlier that the prime rib served at the restaurant was overcooked, not
undercooked. However, she forgot about the card and later, accidentally, threw it out.
Eve Taunton’s testimony. At the time of the firing, Taunton, a 17-year old student,
was working at Red Lobster for the summer. “I didn’t think it was a big deal to give her
[Campbell] the key,” she said. “A lot of people would come up to me to get it.”

The Panel Deliberates

Having heard the testimony, the members of the review panel had to decide whether
Ms. Larimer had been justified in firing Ms. Campbell. The panelists’ initial reactions to
the situation were split by rank, with the hourly workers supporting Campbell and the
managers supporting Larimer. But then the debate began in earnest in an effort to reach
consensus.

Study Questions
1. What are the marketing implications of this situation?
2. Evaluate the concept of peer review. What are its strengths and weaknesses? What
type of environment is required to make it work well?
3. Review the evidence. Do you believe the testimony presented?
4. What decision would you make and why?