Lopez v. Winchell's Donut House

Facts

Lopez worked as a clerk in a Winchell's donut shop in Woodridge for about three years. At 4:30 p.m. on April 9, 1981, James Cesario telephoned her at home and asked her to come to the shop. She walked there, arriving 10 minutes later. Cesario asked her to go with him to the baking room, where Ralph Bell was also present. She said the men closed the door and locked it with a small latch. They told her they had proof that spotters had bought two dozen donuts from her and that her register had not shown the sale. They refused her request to see the proof. She was too upset to answer their questions about how long the shorting of the cash drawer had gone on. In her deposition (sworn pretrial questioning), she testified that no one told her she had to answer or lose her job, that no one threatened her, that she never feared for her safety, that she never refused to answer, and that she was never stopped from leaving. She stayed, she said, to protect her reputation, and she got up, left and went home when she first decided to. She said she felt intimidated by Cesario sitting next to her with a yellow pad and pencil, Bell's repeated statement that his briefcase held proof of her guilt, and his raised voice. In an affidavit she said she left when she began to shake and felt ill.

Issues

1. Did Lopez's sworn testimony and affidavit raise a genuine issue of material fact that she was falsely imprisoned in the baking room, so that summary judgment for her employer was improper?
2. Is a plaintiff falsely imprisoned when she feels compelled to stay and answer accusations in order to protect her reputation, but no one uses force, threats or asserted authority to keep her there?

Holding

Summary judgment for the employer was proper. Lopez's own sworn testimony showed she went to the baking room voluntarily, stayed to protect her reputation and was never prevented from leaving, and the record held no evidence that she yielded to a threat or to physical force. Feeling compelled to protect her reputation is not restraint against her will, so no genuine issue of material fact existed.