Rougeau v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.
274 So. 2d 454 (1973)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A claim for false imprisonment requires total restraint against the plaintiff's will, which is not met if the plaintiff gives implied consent by failing to object or express a desire to leave. A claim for defamation requires proof of publication, meaning the defamatory statement was communicated to a third party.
Facts:
- Deryl D. Rougeau was employed as a guard-fireman at a plant owned by Firestone Tire and Rubber Company.
- Two lawnmowers belonging to Firestone were reported stolen during Rougeau's work shift.
- Firestone's security manager, E. E. Drummond, conducted an investigation by interviewing 19 employees individually in a private office.
- Rougeau signed a statement denying involvement and initially consented to a search of his home and a polygraph test, but later withdrew consent on advice of his attorney.
- After returning to the plant from Rougeau's home, Drummond asked Rougeau to wait in the guardhouse.
- Two other guards were instructed to keep Rougeau in the guardhouse, but he was not physically restrained.
- Rougeau remained in the guardhouse for approximately 30 minutes and never expressed a desire to leave or objected to staying.
- Rougeau was permitted to leave after he reported that he was feeling ill, and was subsequently discharged from his employment.
Procedural Posture:
- Deryl D. Rougeau sued his former employer, Firestone Tire and Rubber Company, in a Louisiana district court (trial court) for defamation and false imprisonment.
- Following a trial on the merits, the trial judge rendered judgment in favor of the defendant, Firestone, and denied recovery to Rougeau.
- Rougeau, as plaintiff-appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.
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 commit false imprisonment by having an employee wait in a guardhouse for 30 minutes during a workplace investigation if the employee never objects, or defamation if allegedly slanderous statements made during the investigation are not proven to have been published to a third party?
Opinions:
Majority - Savoy, J.
No. An employer's actions do not constitute false imprisonment where the employee is not totally restrained and gives implied consent by failing to object to the confinement. Similarly, an employer's actions do not constitute defamation where the plaintiff fails to prove the essential element of publication to a third party. For the false imprisonment claim, the court found Rougeau was not totally restrained and, more importantly, never communicated that he did not want to stay in the guardhouse. This failure to object constituted implied consent to remain, which negates a claim for false imprisonment. For the defamation claim, the court affirmed the trial judge's factual finding that there was no proof of publication. The interviews were conducted privately, and the trial court found credible the investigator's denial of making defamatory statements to other employees. Without evidence that defamatory words were communicated to someone other than Rougeau, an essential element of the cause of action is missing.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the application of false imprisonment and defamation torts within the context of internal corporate investigations. It establishes that for a false imprisonment claim to succeed in this setting, the employee must clearly communicate a lack of consent to confinement; passivity or silence can be interpreted as implied consent. For defamation, the ruling reinforces the critical nature of the 'publication' element, granting employers a degree of latitude to conduct private, one-on-one interviews without actionable claims, so long as accusations are not communicated to third parties. The decision supports an employer's right to reasonably investigate suspected employee misconduct.
