## Facts

- Mary Lynn Johnson, a store manager, bought items at her store while holding a $25 Christmas wreath and left without paying for the wreath after telling the cashier there was nothing else to ring up.
- The cashier reported the incident; store management and security initiated an internal investigation.
- Two days later, the store director questioned Johnson in a back office; she admitted leaving without paying and said she had a lot on her mind.
- The director asked Johnson to stay off the sales floor while awaiting the district manager, suggesting she remain in the office or work on a volunteer project; Johnson stayed in the office.
- During this waiting period, Johnson left the office at least twice, including to use the restroom and to pay for the wreath.
- The district manager later interviewed Johnson with the director, suspended her for 30 days without pay, and transferred her to another store.
- Johnson sued the company and employees for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), false imprisonment, and defamation based on investigation-related statements.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants; the court of appeals reversed in part; the Texas Supreme Court granted review.

## Issues

1. Whether the employer’s investigation, questioning, suspension, and transfer of Johnson constituted “extreme and outrageous” conduct sufficient for IIED.
2. Whether directing Johnson to remain off the sales floor and wait in an office (or work on a project) while awaiting further questioning constituted false imprisonment.
3. Whether investigation-related communications about the incident were outside the employer’s qualified privilege, allowing a defamation claim.

## Decision

- Reversed the court of appeals and rendered judgment that Johnson take nothing.
- Held the complained-of conduct was not extreme and outrageous as a matter of law; IIED failed.
- Held there was no willful detention without consent and without authority of law; false imprisonment failed.
- Held the challenged statements were substantially true and/or protected by qualified privilege, with no evidence of malice or abuse sufficient to defeat the privilege; defamation failed.

## Legal Principles

- IIED requires conduct so extreme and outrageous that it exceeds all bounds of decency; ordinary workplace investigations and discipline generally do not meet this standard.
- False imprisonment requires a willful detention, without consent, and without authority of law; discouraging an employee’s movement or requesting the employee wait, without restraint or threats, is insufficient.
- Employer communications made in good faith during an internal investigation and shared only with persons having a corresponding interest or duty are protected by a qualified privilege.
- A plaintiff must produce evidence of malice or abuse of the privilege (such as excessive publication) to overcome the qualified privilege in a defamation claim.
- Truth or substantial truth defeats defamation liability.

## Conclusion

The Texas Supreme Court held that an employer’s internal investigation and related employment actions after suspected employee theft did not support claims for IIED or false imprisonment and that internal investigation communications were privileged absent evidence of malice or abuse, requiring judgment for defendants.


Randall's Food Mkts., Inc. v. Johnson, 891 S.W.2d 640 (Tex. 1995)