Columbia Sussex Corp., Inc. v. Hay
7 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2424, 1981 Ky. App. LEXIS 312, 627 S.W.2d 270 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The threat of terminating an at-will employee is insufficient to establish the element of involuntary restraint required for a false imprisonment claim. An employer has a qualified privilege to make defamatory statements during an internal investigation, but a jury must be properly instructed that this privilege can be defeated by a showing of abuse, such as over-publication or malice.
Facts:
- A robbery occurred at the Best Western Hotel, which was managed by Mrs. Hay and owned by Columbia Sussex Corporation.
- The robber appeared to have inside knowledge of a special cash register alarm, leading company president William J. Yung to suspect employee involvement.
- Yung informed Hay that she and her employees would be required to take lie detector tests.
- In the potential presence of others, Yung stated to Hay that one of the employees was responsible for the robbery.
- General Manager David Diehl later reiterated to Hay, in front of other workers, that management believed an employee was involved.
- Diehl informed Hay that any employee who refused to take the polygraph test would be terminated.
- Hay and her subordinates submitted to the polygraph tests; Hay signed a consent form stating her participation was not under coercion or duress.
- A few days later, Hay was discharged for allegedly firing another employee in an unprofessional manner.
Procedural Posture:
- Mrs. Hay sued Columbia Sussex Corporation, William J. Yung, and David Diehl for slander and false imprisonment in the Boone Circuit Court (trial court).
- Following a trial, the jury returned a verdict for Mrs. Hay on both claims, awarding her compensatory and punitive damages.
- The defendants, Columbia Sussex, Yung, and Diehl, appealed the jury's verdict and the resulting judgment to the Kentucky Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does threatening an at-will employee with termination to compel submission to a polygraph test constitute the involuntary restraint necessary for a false imprisonment claim?
Opinions:
Majority - White, Judge
No. The threat of losing one's at-will employment is considered moral or economic pressure, not a threat of force against a person or property, and is therefore insufficient to establish the involuntary confinement required for false imprisonment. The court reasoned that false imprisonment requires restraint against the plaintiff's will accomplished by force or threats of force. Citing Prosser, the court distinguished this from "moral pressure," such as a person remaining to clear their name of suspicion. Because at-will employment is not a vested property right, the threat of its loss does not rise to the level of a threat against person or property necessary to sustain the claim. Furthermore, Hay's signing of a release stating her consent was voluntary created a presumption that she failed to overcome with unsubstantiated testimony. On the separate slander issue, the court found the trial court committed reversible error by failing to properly instruct the jury on the employer's qualified privilege to make defamatory statements during an internal investigation and the ways in which that privilege could be defeated by abuse.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the distinction between economic coercion and the tort of false imprisonment within the at-will employment context. By holding that the threat of job loss does not constitute unlawful restraint, the court protects an employer's ability to conduct internal investigations using the leverage of continued employment. The case also reinforces the importance of the qualified privilege defense in defamation claims arising from such investigations. It clarifies that while the privilege exists as a matter of law, the factual question of whether it was abused through excessive publication or malice must be properly presented to the jury, placing a procedural burden on trial courts and a practical one on employers to conduct investigations discreetly.
