Zippittelli v j c penney company inc

Penney and its employees to recover damages occasioned by the father's wrongful detention on suspicion of shoplifting. Harbour, trial judge, gave summary judgment to the defendants on all the pressed theories of liability.

Zippittelli v j c penney company inc

Supreme Court of California. Curran for Plaintiff and Appellant. Jacobs and Hugh G. Jacobs for Defendants and Respondents. Plaintiff Fidel Cervantez appeals from a judgment for defendants J.

Dahlke in an action for damages for false arrest and imprisonment, malicious prosecution, assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligence. The jury returned a general verdict in favor of defendants on the remaining causes of action.

He also contends that the court erred in granting the motion for nonsuit on the causes of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligence, that the court improperly instructed the jury in numerous particulars, that the court erred in refusing certain evidence, and that the evidence does not support the verdict.

On May 16,the day of the arrest giving rise to this lawsuit, defendant Dahlke, an off-duty police officer, was working as a security guard at the J.

Penney store in Huntington Beach. Dahlke, who was not wearing a uniform, noticed plaintiff and his companion, Alexander Garcia, walk into the store. Because of their behavior and appearance, Dahlke suspected they might be part of a Mexican-American theft ring that he had heard was operating in Orange County stores.

Dahlke testified that the two men seemed nervous and looked around as they entered the store but did not seem to be looking for anything in particular.

He also testified that plaintiff was wearing an open, long-sleeved, untucked shirt similar to the mode of dress of a narcotics addict.

Dahlke followed the two men through the store and observed them move from department to department picking up and replacing various items while looking from side to side and behind them in a nervous manner. He observed Garcia make a purchase in the camera department.

They ultimately arrived in the hardware department on the third floor where Dahlke observed plaintiff pick up and put down several items but retain what appeared to be a pair of pliers or wirecutters and hand them to Garcia.

¶2 This controversy arose when Rodney James Walters [Walters] was detained by Chris Emler [Emler] and Steve Anderson [Anderson], two employees of J.C. Penney Company, Inc. [J.C. Penney], on the suspicion that he had shoplifted a sweater from the store. WEEK 2 CASE STUDY ZIPPITTELLI v JC PENNEY CO 3 Answer 1 A reasonable person in from HRMG at grupobittia.com Find Study Resources. Main Menu; by School; by Subject; by Book. Case Study-Zippittelli v. J.C. Penney Company. 5 pages. Employ Law-Week 7 Case Study Webster University%(2). The plaintiff, who is 63 years old, brought this employment discrimination suit against her employer, J. C. Penney, after the company failed to promote her to the position of shift operations manager at the company's Moosic, Pennsylvania Customer Service Center.

Garcia took them along with the other items he had picked up into a small metal shed on display. Plaintiff helped Garcia slide the door almost shut and then paced nervously in front of the shed.

After the two men went to the escalator, Dahlke quickly checked the shed, found no merchandise and caught up with the pair while they were still on the escalator.

The surveillance continued until plaintiff and Garcia left the store.

PENNEY COMPANY INC v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD | FindLaw

Ruddy said he saw no receipts in the bag. Garcia did not testify.

Zippittelli v j c penney company inc

Theft charges were brought against plaintiff and Garcia. The allegedly stolen items, retained in the Penney security office for safekeeping, were either lost or destroyed prior to the criminal trial.

The theft charges against plaintiff were dismissed. Garcia was allowed to plead guilty to a lesser charge of trespass. Prior to trial in the present case the parties stipulated that at the time of the arrest Dahlke was a full-time employee of the City of Orange Police Department, was working within the scope of his employment as a security officer at the Penney store in the City of Huntington Beach and was being paid by Penney.

They further stipulated that plaintiff was arrested on the Penney premises by Dahlke and that Dahlke caused someone from the Huntington Beach Police Department to come to the store and take plaintiff into custody and book him.

Also introduced at this time was an agreement which had been executed by the chiefs of police of the cities of Orange County including the cities of Orange and Huntington Beach in which each consented pursuant to Penal Code section A peace officer may arrest a person without a warrant whenever he has probable cause to believe that the person has committed a misdemeanor in his presence.

A private citizen, however, may arrest another for a misdemeanor only when the offense has actually been committed or attempted in his presence. Corey 21 Cal. In Corey we held that an off-duty police officer who was acting within the scope of his employment as a private security guard was not engaged in the performance of his duties as a peace officer for purposes of application of the enhanced punishment provisions of Penal Code section for battery on a peace officer.

Our holding was based on a number of statutory provisions which, in our view, evinced a legislative policy against according peace officer status and protections to actions of off-duty police officers performed within the course and scope of their private employment as security guards. Its provisions reveal an intent of the Legislature to eliminate to the extent possible public confusion between private security guards and local law enforcement officers.

The PIAA provides that no person subject to its regulatory provisions may "use a title, or wear a uniform, or use an insignia, or use an identification card, or make any statement with the intent to give an impression that he is connected in any way with A police officer is thus prohibited from wearing his uniform or indicating in any way that he is a police officer when he is acting within the scope of his private employment as a security guard.

Our reasoning in Corey leads to a similar conclusion in this case. If what Dahlke was doing was not in violation of Penal Code section 70, it must be because he was performing private rather than official duties while he was acting within the course and scope of his private employment with J.

If Dahlke was performing only a private contractual duty at the time he arrested plaintiff, it logically follows that he was not acting pursuant to his official duties as a peace officer.

Since it would have been illegal for Dahlke to have been acting as a peace officer in the performance of official duties at the time he arrested plaintiff pursuant to his private employment, we conclude that Dahlke was acting as a private citizen when he arrested plaintiff. Derby Cal. Corey, supra, 21 Cal.¶2 This controversy arose when Rodney James Walters [Walters] was detained by Chris Emler [Emler] and Steve Anderson [Anderson], two employees of J.C.

Penney Company, Inc. [J.C. Penney], on the suspicion that he had shoplifted a sweater from the store.

Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Zippittelli v. J.C. Penney Company, Inc. The plaintiff, who is 63 years old, brought this employment discrimination suit against her employer, J.C. Penney, after the company failed to promote her to the position of shift operations manager at the company's Moosic, Pennsylvania Customer Service Center.

View Essay - Case Study-Zippittelli v. J.C. Penney Company from HRMG at Webster University. Case Study: Zippittelli v. J.C. Penney Company 1 Case Study: Zippittelli v. J.C. Penney Company Joshua%(2). J.C. Penney Corporation, Inc., is an American retail company that is founded by James Cash Penny in and its business is mainly in men, woman and kids clothing, jewelry, cosmetics, home needs like furnishings, cookware etc.

Penny called his first stores as “The Golden Rules” which was . Zippittelli v. J.C. Penney Company, Inc. 1 Zippittelli v. J.C. Penney Company Michelle White Professor Laura Hansen-Brown August 23, ZIPPITTELLI V. J.C. PENNEY COMPANY 2 Summary This was a case brought to action by Joanne Zippittelli against her employer, J.C.

Penney Company. Zippittelli testified that she was one of four women who applied.

FindACase™ | Zippittelli v. J.C. Penney Co.

C. Penney Company, Inc. Zippittelli v. J.C. Penney Company, Inc. The plaintiff, who is 63 years old, brought this employment discrimination suit against her employer, J.C. Penney, after the company failed to promote her to the position of shift operations manager at the company 's Moosic, Pennsylvania Customer Service Center.

Zippittelli V. J.C. Penney Company, Inc. Essay – Free Papers and Essays Examples