Question

What were the legal issues in this case? What did the court decide in Dietz case?

Answer 1

Case summary-

Appellant-plaintiff Melissa Dittoe Dietz (Dietz) appeals from the dismissal of her suit against appellee-defendant Finlay Fine Jewelry Corp. (Finlay) and, alternatively, the grant of summary judgment in favor of Finlay on Dietz's claims for invasion of privacy, false imprisonment, defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and intentional interference with an employment relationship.

Legal issues –

Dietz raises the following issues:

1. Whether the trial court erred when it dismissed her complaint against Finlay for lack of subject matter jurisdiction,?

2. Whether the trial court erred when it granted summary judgment in favor of Finlay and Ayres on her claims for,

a) Invasion of privacy, where the security manager allegedly disclosed information about Dietz's credit history to one or two other employees;?

b) False imprisonment, where Dietz was detained and questioned about an unauthorized discount and allegedly was further questioned about missing jewelry;

c) Defamation, where the security manager allegedly accused Dietz of having a drug or alcohol problem and suggested that she stole jewelry.

d) Intentional infliction of emotional distress, where the security manager questioned Dietz in a gruff and intimidating manner;?

e) Intentional interference with the employment relationship, where Dietz was discharged after admitting she had given an unauthorized discount to a customer.?

Opinion of the court- In an order dated October 3, 2000, the trial court granted Finlay's motion to dismiss, finding that the Worker's Compensation Board had exclusive subject matter jurisdiction, and in the alternative, granted Finlay's motion for summary judgment on all counts.?The trial court granted Ayres' motion on August 22, 2000. The trial court properly entered summary judgment in favor of Finlay and Ayres on Dietz's claims for invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and intentional interference with an employment relationship.