Crowe v. J. C. Penney, Inc.
340 S.E.2d 192, 177 Ga.App. 586, 1986 Ga. App. LEXIS 1476 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer's interrogation of an employee suspected of theft does not constitute intentional infliction of emotional distress if the conduct is not so outrageous as to exceed the bounds tolerated by society. Such a detention is not false imprisonment if based on probable cause and the employee consents to or does not object to the questioning, falling within the shopkeeper's privilege.
Facts:
- J. C. Penney, Inc. received reports from two of Mary Louise Crowe's co-workers alleging she was stealing store goods by concealing them under her clothing.
- On March 7, 1983, Crowe was summoned to the security office, where she consented to be interviewed regarding the accusations.
- Two security officers questioned Crowe for approximately three hours, from 8:12 a.m. to 11:20 a.m., with several intermittent breaks.
- Crowe alleged the officers yelled, called her a liar, and told her she could not leave the room until they were finished.
- Crowe admitted that she never asked to stop the interview and, in fact, preferred to continue in order to clear up the matter.
- After the interview, Crowe returned to work for two weeks before taking a leave of absence for anxiety, for which her request for sick pay was denied based on company policy regarding employee misconduct.
- J. C. Penney, Inc. terminated Crowe's employment after she failed to report for work following the expiration of her two-month leave of absence.
Procedural Posture:
- Mary Louise Crowe filed a lawsuit against J. C. Penney, Inc. in a Georgia trial court, asserting claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, and sick pay benefits.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, J. C. Penney, Inc., on all claims.
- Crowe, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the Court of Appeals of Georgia.
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 an employer's three-hour, intermittent interrogation of an employee suspected of theft constitute intentional infliction of emotional distress and false imprisonment when the employer had probable cause from co-worker reports and the employee consented to the interview?
Opinions:
Majority - Deen, Presiding Judge
No. The employer's actions did not constitute intentional infliction of emotional distress or false imprisonment. To establish intentional infliction of emotional distress, the defendant's conduct must be so terrifying or insulting as to naturally humiliate, embarrass, or frighten the plaintiff. Here, the court found the interrogation, even accepting Crowe's version of events, did not exceed the bounds usually tolerated by society. Regarding false imprisonment, Georgia's shopkeeper's privilege statute (OCGA § 51-7-60) allows an employer to reasonably detain and investigate an employee suspected of theft. The reports from co-workers established probable cause, and Crowe's consent to the interview and her stated desire to continue it until the matter was resolved defeated her claim of unlawful detention. Therefore, the employer's conduct was privileged and reasonable as a matter of law.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high threshold for proving intentional infliction of emotional distress in the employment context, clarifying that aggressive questioning during a theft investigation is not, by itself, sufficiently outrageous. It also affirms the broad protection afforded to employers under Georgia's shopkeeper's privilege, highlighting that an employee's consent or failure to object to an interrogation can be fatal to a subsequent false imprisonment claim. The case serves as a key example of how courts balance an employer's right to protect its property against an employee's right to be free from emotional distress and unlawful restraint.
