## Facts

- Elaine Teichmiller was a registered nurse employed by Rogers Memorial Hospital, Inc. as an at-will employee.
- She began working for Rogers in 1994 and later transferred to Rogers’ Racine clinic, where her work included patient intake, multidisciplinary assessments, and completing patient charts and medical records.
- Teichmiller’s immediate supervisor was Christine Hansburg-Hotson. Hansburg-Hotson reported to Debbie Bergerson-Hawkins, and Bergerson-Hawkins reported to Sue Otto.
- Teichmiller believed Rogers was pressuring staff to “falsify” medical records by completing documentation after the fact but dating or presenting it as timely.
- Teichmiller quit her job, later claiming she felt she had only two options: falsify records or resign.
- After she decided to leave, Teichmiller attended a meeting about her departure with Hansburg-Hotson, Bergerson-Hawkins, and Otto.
- At the meeting, Teichmiller was presented with a form to sign and was told she needed to complete her charts before leaving.
- Teichmiller refused to sign and said she was acting on her attorney’s advice; she also said she planned to make a copy of the form.
- Teichmiller alleged Bergerson-Hawkins and Otto began yelling, accused her of stealing hospital property, and tried to take the form from her.
- Teichmiller asserted Bergerson-Hawkins positioned herself near the doorway on Teichmiller’s right while Otto stood on Teichmiller’s left; with a desk in front of Teichmiller and a chair behind her, Teichmiller felt she could not get out for three to four minutes.
- Bergerson-Hawkins and Otto did not touch Teichmiller and did not threaten physical contact; Teichmiller did not explicitly ask to leave during the encounter.
- Teichmiller was able to leave the room when Bergerson-Hawkins stepped aside.
- Teichmiller alleged Bergerson-Hawkins and Otto then followed her to the copier, stood on either side of her, and later stood outside the women’s restroom while she was inside.
- Teichmiller sued Rogers and certain supervisors, asserting wrongful discharge in violation of public policy (based on her claimed refusal to falsify records) and false imprisonment (based on the exit-meeting events).
- The circuit court granted summary judgment to the defendants, and Teichmiller appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Teichmiller produced sufficient evidence of an actual or constructive discharge to support a Wisconsin public-policy wrongful-discharge claim based on her asserted refusal to falsify medical records.
2. Whether the exit-meeting conduct and the immediate follow-up events could constitute false imprisonment where there was no physical restraint, no direct threat of force, and Teichmiller did not ask to leave.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of Wisconsin affirmed summary judgment for the defendants.
- On wrongful discharge, the court concluded Teichmiller did not establish that she was discharged (including constructively); on this record, her resignation was voluntary rather than compelled by objectively intolerable conditions created by the employer.
- On false imprisonment, the court concluded no reasonable jury could find the required “confinement” because Teichmiller was not physically restrained, was not threatened with physical force, the encounter was brief, and the circumstances did not show she was not free to leave.

## Legal Principles

- Wisconsin employment is presumptively at-will, and a wrongful-discharge claim based on public policy is a narrow exception requiring a termination that contravenes a well-defined public policy reflected in existing law.
- A public-policy wrongful-discharge claim requires proof of a discharge; a plaintiff who resigns must meet the constructive-discharge standard.
- Constructive discharge requires working conditions so intolerable that a reasonable person would feel forced to resign, typically based on conditions deliberately created by the employer to cause resignation.
- False imprisonment requires unlawful restraint of a person’s liberty—i.e., confinement against the person’s will—accomplished by physical barriers, physical force, or threats of force (including threats that would cause a reasonable person to believe leaving is not permitted).
- Feelings of intimidation, raised voices, and close positioning—without physical restraint, direct threats, or other objective facts showing the person is not free to leave—do not establish confinement as a matter of law.

## Conclusion

The Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment because Teichmiller’s evidence did not show she was fired or constructively discharged under Wisconsin’s narrow public-policy exception, and the exit-meeting encounter—though contentious—did not amount to objectively unlawful confinement required for false imprisonment.


Teichmiller v. Rogers Memorial Hospital, 597 N.W.2d 773 (1999)