Facts

Plaintiff Joaquin Robles was an auto parts sales manager at Defendant AutoZone's store in Chula Vista. Robles, who is a 25-year-old father of two, made nine dollars per hour. In 2002, Robles was terminated for stealing $820 intended for a bank deposit. Robles confessed in writing that he stole the deposit following a three hour interrogation led by Defendant Octavio Jara, an AutoZone Regional Loss Prevention Manager. Robles also signed a promissory note in which he committed to paying back the stolen money from his paycheck. Thereafter, Robles discovered that the $820 deposit was found by the bank. AutoZone was informed of the mistake. Robles filed a lawsuit against AutoZone and Jara, alleging false imprisonment, wrongful termination and coerced confession.

In 2002, a jury ruled in favor of Robles and awarded him $73,150 for lost earnings and emotional distress, as well as $5,000 in punitive damages against Jara, but not AutoZone. The judge claimed that agency liability was lacking because Jara did not have managerial authority. Robles appealed the punitive damages ruling.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
The plaintiff contended that Jara coerced him into giving a false confession by using various psychological tactics provided in AutoZone's investigative interviewing manual. Specifically, the plaintiff claimed that Jara informed him that he could keep his job if he confessed to stealing, otherwise he would go to jail.

The plaintiff's counsel further contended that AutoZone had a widespread policy that authorized subjecting its employees to such interrogation tactics. The plaintiff's counsel provided evidence that AutoZone makes up to $900,000 per year in pay backs related to employee theft. The plaintiff dispelled the defense's argument that the money found by the bank was not the money stolen by the plaintiff by claiming it could not have been a coincidence that the same amount of money was later recovered. In addition, there had never been any other similar instances. Due to a poor job reference from AutoZone, the plaintiff was only able to obtain employment as a janitor.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
The defense contended that the plaintiff did indeed steal the money and the money recovered by the bank was not the money stolen by the plaintiff. The defense further claimed that AutoZone's manual did not authorize threats of arrest as part of its interrogation policy.

Settlement Discussions

The plaintiff demanded $40,000.

Damages

The plaintiff sought punitive damages from AutoZone for authorizing the investigation against him.

Result

$7,500,000. The jury ruled that AutoZone authorized Jara's actions despite the fact that Jara was not in a managerial position.

Deliberation

1.25 days

Poll

10-2

Length

eight days