## Facts

- Linda Lee worked part-time as a medical assistant in Dr. Cesar Morales’s medical office while attending college.
- After $5 went missing from the office, Morales summoned Lee to his private office around 6:00 p.m.; a coworker and Morales’s son were present.
- Morales accused Lee of taking the money; she denied it.
- Lee testified Morales became enraged, yelled, cursed, and threatened her; he told her “don’t leave” and said if she left he would call the police.
- Lee testified she was frightened and believed Morales might hit her.
- Lee also testified that Morales then told her to “get the hell out of here,” and she left the private office.
- Lee remained on the premises in the waiting room to receive her paycheck; a coworker described her as shaking and crying.
- Lee and her mother described resulting emotional and physical symptoms and an inability to work for months.
- Lee sued for false imprisonment; a jury awarded $10,000 actual and $10,000 exemplary damages; after a $5,000 remittitur, the trial court denied a new trial.
- Morales appealed, challenging the legal sufficiency of the evidence on false imprisonment.

## Issues

1. Whether legally sufficient evidence showed a willful detention of Lee, without consent and without legal authority, as required for civil false imprisonment under Texas law.
2. Whether an employer’s order “don’t leave,” coupled with a threat to call police, constitutes constructive restraint absent force, blocking exits, or other restraining conduct.

## Decision

- The court of appeals reversed the judgment and rendered that Lee take nothing.
- The court held there was no evidence of a willful detention sufficient to support false imprisonment.
- The court treated Morales’s statements as threats of future action that did not, by themselves, restrain Lee’s freedom of movement.
- The court emphasized that Lee was not physically restrained, was not blocked from leaving, and in fact was told to leave and did so; her remaining on the premises was to wait for her paycheck.
- A dissent would have affirmed, concluding the jury could infer constructive restraint from Morales’s command and threat in light of his anger and Lee’s fear.

## Legal Principles

- Civil false imprisonment requires: (1) willful detention, (2) without authority of law, and (3) against the plaintiff’s consent.
- Detention requires actual restraint or constructive restraint that objectively limits freedom of movement.
- Threats of future action (including threats to call police or seek arrest), without more, ordinarily do not constitute false imprisonment.
- Emotional distress and subjective fear, standing alone, do not establish detention absent evidence that the defendant’s conduct restrained the plaintiff’s liberty.

## Conclusion

The court held that an angry confrontation involving an instruction not to leave and a threat to call police did not amount to false imprisonment where there was no objective restraint on movement and the employee was permitted to leave, requiring reversal and rendition of a take-nothing judgment.


Morales v. Lee, 668 S.W.2d 867 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1984)