Lexplug logoLexplug

Dupler v. Seubert

Supreme Court of Wisconsin
69 Wis. 2d 373, 230 N.W.2d 626 (1975)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

False imprisonment occurs when an individual is intentionally confined against their will through an unlawful and unconsented restraint, which can be accomplished by an implied threat of physical force reasonably inferred from conduct, tone of voice, or intimidating circumstances.


Facts:

  • Ethel M. Dupler, a long-time employee of the Wisconsin Telephone Company, was called into a meeting at 4:30 PM on April 23, 1971, with her supervisors, Keith Peterson and Helen Seubert.
  • Inside Peterson's office with the door closed, Seubert informed Dupler she was being terminated and given the option to resign or be fired.
  • At approximately 5:00 PM, Dupler stated she felt sick, expressed her desire to leave, and attempted to get up.
  • Peterson commanded Dupler in a 'loud harsh voice' to sit down.
  • When Dupler again tried to leave because she felt she was going to vomit, Seubert stood up and physically blocked the doorway.
  • After being allowed to leave to vomit, Dupler returned for her purse; Seubert again closed the door and Peterson loudly ordered her to sit down because he was 'not through' with her.
  • The supervisors continued to try to convince Dupler to resign, restraining her in the office until approximately 6:00 PM.
  • Dupler testified she did not leave because Seubert had blocked the door, tempers were raised, and she was 'just plain scared' as it was 'two against one'.

Procedural Posture:

  • Ethel M. Dupler sued her former supervisors, Keith Peterson and Helen Seubert, and their employer, Wisconsin Telephone Company, for false imprisonment in a Wisconsin trial court.
  • A jury returned a verdict finding that Peterson and Seubert had falsely imprisoned Dupler and awarded her $7,500 in compensatory damages.
  • The defendants filed post-verdict motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, alternatively, for a new trial.
  • The trial court, finding the damages excessive, issued an order giving Dupler the option of accepting a reduced award (remittitur) of $500 or facing a new trial on the issue of damages.
  • Dupler did not accept the reduced amount, and the trial court entered a judgment for $500.
  • Dupler, as plaintiff-appellant, appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Locked

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 compelling a recently terminated employee to remain in an office against her expressed will, through the use of loud commands and by physically obstructing the exit, constitute false imprisonment?


Opinions:

Majority - Wilkie, C. J.

Yes. Compelling a recently terminated employee to remain in an office against her expressed will, through the use of loud commands and by physically obstructing the exit, constitutes false imprisonment. The court adopted the Restatement (Second) of Torts definition, which defines false imprisonment as the intentional confinement of another within boundaries fixed by the actor, where the other is conscious of the confinement. The restraint need not be through physical barriers; it is sufficient if the plaintiff submits to an apprehension of force reasonably understood from the defendant's conduct and tone of voice. Here, the jury was entitled to believe Dupler’s testimony that Peterson’s loud commands, Seubert's act of blocking the door, and the intimidating atmosphere made her 'just plain scared to make an effort' to leave. This conduct created an implied threat of physical restraint, satisfying the elements of false imprisonment. The court distinguished this case from Weiler v. Herzfeld-Phillipson Co., where the detained employee was still being compensated, whereas Dupler was confined after her employment—and compensation—had ended.



Analysis:

This decision clarifies that the element of 'confinement' in false imprisonment does not require physical force or express threats of it. The ruling establishes that psychological coercion, created through intimidating conduct, a commanding tone of voice, and the positioning of individuals to block an exit, can constitute a sufficient threat of force to support a false imprisonment claim. This is particularly significant in the employment context, as it limits an employer's ability to compel a terminated employee to remain for post-termination discussions. The case solidifies the principle that whether a reasonable apprehension of force existed is a question of fact for the jury, based on the totality of the circumstances.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Dupler v. Seubert (1975)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"