Faniel v. Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co.
1979 D.C. App. LEXIS 413, 404 A.2d 147 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a claim of false imprisonment to succeed, the restraint of a person's liberty must be against their will, accomplished through force, threat of force, or an assertion of authority. Submission to an employer's direction based solely on a fear of adverse employment consequences, such as job loss, does not constitute the involuntary confinement required for false imprisonment.
Facts:
- Essie Faniel, an employee of American Telephone and Telegraph Company (AT&T), was questioned at work by a security supervisor, Mr. Aussem, about an unauthorized telephone extension at her home.
- After being questioned, Faniel admitted to having the unauthorized phone and signed a written statement to that effect.
- Aussem then informed Faniel that it was necessary to go to her home to recover the equipment.
- Faniel did not object, testifying later that she "just assumed that I had to go" and did not want to lose her job.
- During the car ride to her home with Aussem and her supervisor, Faniel's request to call her husband was denied.
- The group made a brief, unannounced stop at a C&P facility to pick up another security officer before proceeding to her home.
- At her home, they were met by her husband, retrieved the unauthorized telephone, and left.
- Faniel later testified that she went with her supervisors of her "own free will" but was afraid she would be disciplined if she did not.
Procedural Posture:
- Essie Faniel sued her employer, American Telephone and Telegraph Company (AT&T), and its subsidiary in the trial court for false imprisonment.
- A jury returned a verdict in favor of Faniel and awarded her $7,000 in damages.
- The defendants (appellees) filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (n.o.v.), asking the judge to set aside the jury's verdict.
- The trial court granted the defendants' motion for judgment n.o.v.
- Faniel (appellant) appealed the trial court's order to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, seeking to have the jury verdict reinstated.
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 false imprisonment occur when an employee accompanies her supervisors to retrieve company property based on a subjective fear of losing her job, but without being subjected to force, threats of force, or an assertion of legal authority?
Opinions:
Majority - Gallagher, Associate Judge
No. False imprisonment does not occur when an individual voluntarily submits to a confinement that is not induced by force, threat of force, or an assertion of legal authority. The essential elements of false imprisonment are the detention of one against his will and the unlawfulness of that restraint. A plaintiff's submission to the mere verbal direction of another, even when motivated by a powerful incentive like the fear of losing one's job, does not render the behavior involuntary. In this case, Faniel's own testimony revealed she accompanied her supervisors of her own free will, albeit with apprehension about potential discipline. There was no evidence that she yielded to any threat, express or implied, or to physical force. Absent proof of duress or force legally sufficient to vitiate her apparent consent, a claim for false imprisonment cannot be sustained.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the high threshold for proving involuntary confinement in false imprisonment cases, especially within an employer-employee relationship. It establishes that the inherent economic pressure an employer holds over an employee, such as the threat of termination, is not legally equivalent to the force or duress required to negate consent. The ruling protects an employer's ability to conduct internal investigations concerning company policy violations without facing liability for false imprisonment, provided they do not use physical force, threats, or assertions of legal authority. Consequently, it makes it more difficult for employee-plaintiffs to succeed on such claims unless they can demonstrate coercion beyond the typical pressures of the workplace.
Unlock the full brief for Faniel v. Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co.