## Facts

- Firestone reported two lawnmowers stolen from its Lake Charles plant during a shift when Deryl D. Rougeau worked as a guard-fireman.
- Firestone assigned its corporate security manager to investigate; he interviewed about nineteen employees and obtained signed statements.
- The investigator concluded that multiple interviews suggested Rougeau’s direct or indirect involvement in the thefts.
- Rougeau was interviewed, signed a statement denying theft, and initially signed consents for a home search and a polygraph.
- On advice of counsel, Rougeau withdrew those consents before any search or polygraph occurred.
- After interviews, management directed Rougeau to accompany them to the plant guardhouse and remain there while the investigation continued; two guards were present.
- Rougeau remained in the guardhouse about thirty minutes and left when he became ill.
- Firestone discharged Rougeau for actions contrary to the company’s interests and for refusing to discuss work-related matters with management.
- Rougeau unsuccessfully pursued a union grievance through arbitration and filed an NLRB charge that was dismissed.
- Rougeau then sued Firestone in tort for defamation and false imprisonment based on the investigation and guardhouse incident.

## Issues

1. Whether Rougeau proved defamation, including actionable publication of a false, defamatory statement, and whether internal investigative communications were privileged.
2. Whether Rougeau proved false imprisonment by showing intentional confinement against his will within a bounded area without legal justification.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed judgment for Firestone on both claims.
- On defamation, Rougeau failed to prove actionable publication, and any investigative communications among interested personnel were privileged absent malice or abuse.
- On false imprisonment, Rougeau was not totally restrained; he did not clearly object, was free to leave, and in fact left when ill.

## Legal Principles

- Defamation requires, at minimum, a defamatory statement and publication to a third person; internal communications limited to persons with a legitimate business interest may fail the publication element.
- Communications made in the course of an employer’s investigation of suspected employee misconduct are privileged (at least qualified), and liability requires proof of malice or abuse of the privilege.
- False imprisonment is the intentional confinement of another within a specific area against the person’s will; it requires actual restraint (physical or equivalent coercion) rather than mere questioning or a request to wait.
- Where the plaintiff does not communicate refusal to remain and is permitted to leave, the element of nonconsensual confinement is not established.

## Conclusion

The court held that an employer’s private investigation into workplace theft, including limited internal communications and a short period of waiting in a guardhouse without total restraint, did not support tort liability for defamation or false imprisonment on the record presented.


Rougeau v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 274 So. 2d 454 (La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1973)