## Facts

- Jovita (Esther) Lopez worked about three years as a clerk at a Winchell’s donut shop in Woodridge, Illinois.
- Store supervisors Ralph Bell and James Cesario suspected Lopez of taking cash by failing to ring up certain sales.
- Cesario called Lopez at home and asked her to come to the shop without stating a reason.
- Lopez came to the shop and voluntarily accompanied Cesario to a back room to discuss the suspected theft.
- In the room, Lopez was asked to sit; the door was closed and latched/locked.
- Bell and Cesario accused Lopez of retail theft and claimed they had “proof.”
- In deposition, Lopez testified she was not threatened, was not told she could not leave, did not fear for her safety, and did not ask to leave during questioning.
- When she began shaking and felt ill, Lopez stood up and left the room without opposition.
- Lopez sued for false imprisonment (and separately for defamation, which was not resolved in this appeal); the trial court granted summary judgment to Winchell’s on the false-imprisonment count.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence, including Lopez’s deposition testimony, created a genuine issue of material fact that Winchell’s unlawfully restrained Lopez’s liberty during the back-room interview.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed summary judgment for Winchell’s on the false-imprisonment claim.
- Lopez’s testimony showed no restraint by physical force or by express or implied threats.
- Any compulsion Lopez felt to remain and answer questions amounted to moral pressure, which does not establish false imprisonment.
- Because Lopez’s own account negated an essential element of the tort, Winchell’s was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

## Legal Principles

- False imprisonment requires unlawful restraint of a person’s freedom of movement.
- Restraint may be accomplished by actual force or by words alone, but only if they amount to an express or implied threat that overcomes the plaintiff’s will to leave.
- Moral, psychological, reputational, or economic pressure—without force or threats—does not constitute unlawful confinement.
- Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidentiary record shows no genuine dispute of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

## Conclusion

The court held that an employer’s closed-door interview about suspected theft did not constitute false imprisonment where the employee voluntarily participated, was not threatened or physically prevented from leaving, and in fact left without resistance; perceived moral pressure to stay and clear one’s name was insufficient to prove unlawful restraint.


Lopez v. Winchell’s Donut House, 126 Ill. App. 3d 46, 466 N.E.2d 1309 (Ill. App. Ct. 1984)