Employment Law

Dietz v. Finley Fine Jewelry

In the case of Dietz v. Finley Fine Jewelry, Melissa Dietz works for Finlay Jewelry store, in September 1998, a customer wanted to purchase a diamond ring that was on sale. Dietz mistakenly charged the ring to the wrong account; she voided the transaction and sought assistance to complete the sale. The transaction was taking too long and the customer grew irate, to keep the customer satisfied, Dietz gave the customer an extra ten percent discount. After a security manager reported to unauthorized discount to his supervisor, Dietz was called back to an interview room and was interrogated and accused of wrongdoing.

The legal issue in the case is whether or not the decision that was made by the court to disapprove Deitz' accusation against Finlay for interrogations that was not skillfully conducted (Walsh, 2010, p. 569). The court favored Finlay on the grounds of invasion of privacy, along with defamation and false imprisonment (Walsh, 2010, p.571). Dietz claimed she had emotional distress because she was ordered to court because she acted out based on lack of knowledge (Walsh, 2010, p. 570). The privacy tort claim was rejected because she failed to provide sufficient evidence to support her clams (Walsh, 2010, p. 570).

The basis of her false imprisonment claim violated the company's policy for the benefit of customer satisfaction. She was pushed into making a decision that favored the customer. She was allowed to go on trial on them in order to get sufficient information that would support her in court, however, Dietz is unlikely to prevail in trail because some of her claims are invalid in the court.

In conclusion, I think the employer could have handled the situation a little better. The employer did not have to file a case against Dietz for violating the company's policy but the employer could have deducted an equal amount of money from her pay check that she used to compensate the customer.