Legal Cases on Emotional Distress and False Imprisonment in Business Environments, Summaries of Business Finance

Download Legal Cases on Emotional Distress and False Imprisonment in Business Environments and more Summaries Business Finance in PDF only on Docsity!

lOMoARcPSD|

R. W. Emerson,

Business law

BLAW 280 Mon 7pm-9: 45pm Brief: Durham v. McDonald’s Restaurants of Oklahoma, Inc. Facts and Procedural History: After being denied to take his prescription anti- seizure medication, Durham was called a “fucking retard” by this manager at McDonald’s. When Durham took his case up with Federal Court claiming his rights were violated under the ADA he was denied and told that he did not fall under the “disabled” category. The Federal Court also sided with McDonald’s that the managers’ conduct was not “extreme and outrageous” nor was it “severe,” which was a required element to the claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Durham appealed to the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals, which affirmed. This led him to appeal to the Supreme Court of Oklahoma. Issue: Whether McDonald’s managers conduct could be deemed as “extreme and outrageous” by the average reasonable person, sufficient for intentional infliction of emotional distress? Whether Durham’s emotional distress would be regarded as sufficiently “severe” enough for intentional infliction of emotional distress? Rule: The IIED tort requires that before a plaintiff is awarded damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress, the plaintiff must have faced extreme and outrageous conduct that no reasonable person could be expected to endure. Also the defendants conduct must be “extreme and outrageous” that the average reasonable person would find it to be “beyond all possible bounds of decency,” and utterly intolerable in a civilized community. Application: In this case, the plaintiff, a 16-year-old former employee of McDonald’s Restaurants of Oklahoma Inc. was denied a request he made to take his prescription anti- seizure medication. During his third, and last, attempt not only was he denied to take his prescription medication, but was also publically berated, and called a “fucking retard.” At the time of the multiple refusals the plaintiff received from the defendant, Durham claimed that he began to fear “he might die [or] he could bite off his tongue or fall and hurt himself.” He also stated that after this incident he became more “withdrawn” and “recluse,” and that this experience instilled a fear in him that he would encounter the same problem at future jobs, therefore hindering his growth as a young adult. His mother also claims that Durham became “depressed and introverted,” and as a result he had to be homeschooled. Durham, himself, also believes that a school friend who worked at the McDonalds with him, and was present when this incident occurred, told his peers at school what had happened. He alleges that this caused his peers to begin calling him a “fucking retard,” and saying “I hear you can’t even keep a job at McDonalds because you’re a fucking retard.”

Facts and Procedural History: Pope, the plaintiff, walked into a Shop and Save store to purchase her daily needs. Russell the manager of the store saw Pope walking through the isles with only a few things in her cart. Then he noticed the plaintiff’s hand going "underneath and back into the flannel shirt." He claims that he saw her move her hand down her pants, and watched her arms come back out. As he observed further he noticed protruding from the left area of Popes back around the belt area. After Pope had purchased her items Russell stopped her before she could leave. He checked her receipt and item and saw that everything added up, but when he asked her to lift her outer shirt, Pope refused and believed that she was being accused for shoplifting because she was African American. Russell informed her that he had called the police and that she should not leave, and for the 5-10 minutes it took the police to arrive Pope did not ask to leave nor made an attempt. She also stated that she, herself, decided to wait for the officer to arrive. Milkent, the officer, then asked her to lift her outer shit, and based on his observations he confirmed that he could not be sure whether Pope was concealing any items. Pope was never charged with shoplifting, but claims to now suffer from panic attacks, and lack of sleep. Pope filed a motion to summary judgment, and all defendants moved for summary judgment. Issue: Did the store manager of Shop and Save, Russell, constitute false imprisonment towards, the plaintiff, Pope by confining her for an unreasonable amount of time, manner, and under reasonable suspicions which he had no conditional privilege over? Rule: The False Imprisonment tort requires that the plaintiff have been subjected to intentional confinement for an appreciable amount of time. The confinement must have been "complete," which means that the average reasonable person would not have been expected to have found a means of escape, and the plaintiff must also have been fully aware of their confinement. The plaintiff must have been confined for an unreasonable amount of time, in an unreasonable manner, and under unreasonable suspicion. Application: In this case Pope, the plaintiff, walked into a Shop and Save store to purchase her daily needs. While shopping she purchased a slice of cake and coffee from the bakery counter to enjoy while shopping. Russell the manager of the store saw Pope walking through the isles with only a few things in her cart. He then noticed the plaintiff’s hand going "underneath and back into the flannel shirt." He claims that he saw her move her hand down her pants, and watched her arms come back out. As he observed further he noticed protruding from the left area of Popes back around the belt area. Russell's does admit that in the position that Pope was in, he could not see whether Pope had actually concealed any items. After Pope had purchased her items Russell stopped her before she could leave. He checked her receipt and item and saw that everything added up, but when he asked her to lift her outer shirt, Pope refused and believed that she was being accused for shoplifting because she was African American. Russell informed her that he had called the police and that she should not leave, and for the 5-10 minutes it took the police to arrive Pope did not ask to leave nor made an attempt. She also stated that she, herself, decided to wait for the officer to arrive. When officer Milkent arrived he informed Pope that she could leave whenever she pleased, he then asked her to lift her outer shit, and based on his observations he confirmed that he could not be sure whether Pope was concealing any items. Pope testifies that

during the time she was lifting her shirt the officer proceeded to poke her pants area two to three times. The exchange between the officer and Pope took approximately 10 minutes. Pope was never charged with shoplifting, but claims to now suffer from panic attacks, and lack of sleep. Pope testified that she was falsely imprisoned by Russell, the manager of Shop and Save. However, under the Pennsylvania Retail Theft Immunity Act, Russell’s’ actions were justified due to the fact that he detained the plaintiff for a reasonable time period. Conclusion: Judging from the rules of False Imprisonment, Pope was not confined in an unreasonable manner, nor was she kept for an unreasonable amount of time. She was also not held on unreasonable suspicion, and was fully aware of, and told about the fact that she was allowed to leave whenever she wanted to. Therefore, Popes claim for False Imprisonment failed. PC#2: Wishnatksky v. Huey Issue: