Dietz V. Finlay Fine Jewelry Case

To: Professor Brian Butcher Esq.
From: Jessica Grimes
Subject: Case 4
Date: 04/30/2017

Business Brief
With Dietz v. Finlay Fine Jewelry case we see Dietz was working with a customer and became confused with the transaction. Dietz employee gave the irate customer an unauthorized ten percent discount for their troubles (Walsh, 2013). This transaction was soon brought to the attention of the head of security of Finlay Fine Jewelry, Dietz was asked to go to an interview with some other associates (Walsh, 2013).
Legal Issues with the Case /Basis of the Claim
With Dietz v. Finlay Fine Jewelry, I see many issues with this case. The plaintiff Melissa Dietz presented many claims to the court.

1. Dietz’s false imprisonment claim was not properly dismissed because Finlay Fine Jewelry had proof that she gave the unauthorized discount.
2. Dietz could go to trial on her emotional distress claim because she was very upset by the Bake’s questioning of her.
3. Dietz could go to trial on her defamation claim because false, damaging accusations were made in the presence of others.
4. Dietz could go to trial on her malicious prosecution claim because the Finlay Fine Jewelry pressed criminal charges against her.

However, Dietz had filed an emotional stress and privacy tort claim which were eventually rejected. Base on the information given we see that Dietz was intimidated by the Bake the store’s security managers behavior also his conduct was not professional at all as well however the court decided that it was not enough to inflict real and long-lasting emotional distress (Kline, 2001). Some of the other legal issues, in this case, include the question on whether the decision by the court to disapprove Dietz' claims against Finlay for lack of substance and how much the court maintained favoring Finlay (Walsh,