 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Palacio v. Longs Drug Stores California11/7/2003
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
A jury awarded six plaintiffs $50,000 each in compensatory damages for their former employer's intentional infliction of emotional distress in detaining and interrogating them for suspected theft. However, the jury also concluded that the employer's detention and interrogation did not constitute false imprisonment, specifically finding that the employer did not "intentionally exercise force or the express or implied threat of force, menace, fraud or deceit, or unreasonable duress to restrain, detain or confine" plaintiffs. The employer appeals, contending that investigation of employee theft is a normal part of the employment relationship and thus civil suit damages are barred by the workers' compensation exclusivity provisions. (Labor Code, §§ 3600, 3602.) We agree, and reverse the judgment.
In a separate appeal, the employer challenges the amount of attorney fees and costs awarded to it for prevailing on wage claims and other causes of action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1032; Labor Code § 218.5.) Having consolidated the appeals for purposes of argument and decision, we affirm the attorney fee award on the wage claims, and remand for a recalculation of costs.
I. FACTS
Appellant Longs Drug Stores (Longs) detained and interrogated several of its employees for suspected theft. The interrogations lasted from about 30 to 60 minutes. The method of interrogation followed a similar pattern in each instance, with the most detailed description provided by plaintiff Marlena Palacio.
Palacio testified that she was summoned to an office at the back of the store where she worked. Two female loss prevention officers were waiting for her, and one of the loss prevention officers, Balinda Davis, motioned for Palacio to have a seat. Palacio sat down and Davis told her that the store had been suffering some losses and that they were there to ask a few questions. Davis sat down across from Palacio about an arm's length away, and the other agent sat at a desk taking notes. Palacio signed a form consenting to the interview and acknowledging that Palacio could leave the interview at any time.
Davis asked Palacio if Palacio let friends use her employee discount card in making purchases, and Palacio denied doing so. Davis sat back, waited, and then repeated the same question over and over. Davis said "You're not being truthful." Davis raised her voice, was upset, and had an "abusive" tone. Palacio also characterized Davis's tone of voice as "stern" and "threatening," but stated that Davis was not "yelling." At some point in the interrogation, Davis told Palacio that the company had surveillance cameras that watch the employees' "every movement." Davis also showed Palacio a manila folder and said that Davis had "evidence" in that folder against Palacio. Palacio felt "intimidated," "uneasy," "scared," and "extremely uncomfortable."
Davis asked other questions, including whether Palacio had stolen anything, or if co-workers had ever "under rang" Palacio, and Palacio said no. Davis again accused Palacio of being untruthful. Davis asked Palacio to guess how much money Palacio had lost the company. Palacio initially denied losing the company any money, but then said 50 cents and eventually said $5 because Davis was "hammering" at her and Palacio "just wanted to be able to go home." Davis told Palacio to "start naming name
Page 1 2 3 4 5 California Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|