Court Dismisses Employee's Malicious Prosecution and False Arrest Claims
Florida employers who are concerned about reporting to the police employees whom they suspect of stealing will be encouraged by a recent decision by U.S. District Judge Jose Martinez, Molina v. Jiffy Lube Int'l, Inc., Case No. 07-22644-CIV-MARTINEZ-BROWN (S.D. Fla., October 8, 2008).
The case involved missing bank deposits. Jiffy Lube conducted an internal investigation, then gave the information gathered during its investigation to a local police detective. That information included the names of the three employees who had access to the missing deposits. One of those employees was the plaintiff, Molina. The detective conducted his own investigation, which included interviewing the employees with Jiffy Lube's cooperation. The detective's investigation led to Molina's arrest. The State Attorney's office conducted its own investigation, then filed charges of grand theft against Molina. The criminal charges were later dropped. Molina then filed suit against Jiffy Lube for malicious prosecution and false arrest.
In dismissing the claims on Jiffy Lube's motion for summary judgment, Judge Martinez noted several points of law that should give comfort to Florida employers in similar situations. Among them:
- An employer will not be held liable for malicious prosecution action if it simply gives a statement of fact to the authorities -- assuming the employer does not know it to be false -- and leaves the decision to prosecute solely in the hands of the authorities.
- To prevail in a malicious prosecution action, the burden is on the plaintiff to establish a
lack of probable cause to initiate the criminal proceedings. However, the evidence need not be so strong that it unquestionably proves that the plaintiff is guilty. The employer does not have to be certain of the outcome of the criminal proceeding to have probable cause for initiating it. - In a false arrest claim, an employer will not be held liable where it neither detained the plaintiff nor instigated the plaintiff's arrest by law enforcement officers. If the employer makes an honest, good faith mistake in reporting an incident, the mere fact that its communication to an officer may have caused the plaintiff's arrest does not make the employer liable when it did not in fact request any detention.
- An honest, good faith mistake in reporting an incident may extend even to identifying the plaintiff as a suspect, if the employer acts reasonably in doing so.
Congratulations to my colleagues Robin Symons and Jackie De Leon on their hard-earned victory.
Yet another case where a corrupt judge wrongly interpreted and misapplied the law with a bias against the little guy and favoring business interests.
I would love to see that judge in prison. And you know what happens to judges who go to prison.