MCCLENDON v. HARPER Et Al., 349 Ga. App. 581

McClendon, a longtime MARTA communications technician, regularly used MARTA van 15652 for east-line work; policy required returning vehicles to the annex when not in use.
On Jan. 22 he parked the van at Kensington, later moved it to MOW facility near Avondale for a scheduled project; Harper (coworker) had taken the van earlier without authorization and often left vans at stations.
Harper reported the van missing and told MARTA police he suspected McClendon; supervisors Pines, Terry, and Campbell also questioned technicians and relayed information to police.
A MARTA detective investigated, reviewed video and card logs, decided there was probable cause, and made a warrantless arrest of McClendon; later the DA declined prosecution and charges were dismissed.
MARTA conditioned McClendon’s continued employment on retirement paperwork; a dispute over timely retirement filings led MARTA to record termination for cause and reduced pension benefits.
McClendon sued MARTA and four employees for false imprisonment, malicious arrest, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent hiring/training/supervision, vicarious liability, and punitive damages; the trial court granted summary judgment for defendants, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
False imprisonment (individual defendants)	Harper and supervisors procured McClendon’s warrantless arrest by reporting and pressing suspicions	They only conveyed facts; arrest decision was made independently by detective	Summary judgment for defendants — no evidence they procured the arrest
False imprisonment / malicious arrest (MARTA vicarious)	MARTA is vicariously liable for employees’ acts	Individual defendants not liable; detective had discretion and qualified immunity, so MARTA not liable	Summary judgment for MARTA — vicarious liability fails because detective immune and no malice shown
Intentional infliction of emotional distress (individuals)	Conduct (false accusations, arrest, termination) was extreme, intentional, and caused severe distress	Accusations and employment actions fall within ordinary workplace harms and are not extreme or outrageous	Summary judgment for defendants — conduct not extreme/outrageous as matter of law
Negligent hiring/training/supervision & punitive damages	MARTA negligently supervised employees and is liable; punitive damages available	MARTA concedes respondeat superior and argues no independent liability; punitive damages unavailable against MARTA as a matter of law	Summary judgment for MARTA — negligent-supervision claim precluded by respondeat superior and punitive damages barred against MARTA

Cowart v. Widener, 287 Ga. 622 (2010) (summary-judgment allocations and nonmoving-party burden)
Ferrell v. Mikula, 295 Ga. App. 326 (2008) (distinctions among false imprisonment, malicious arrest, and malicious prosecution)
Collins v. Sadlo, 167 Ga. App. 317 (1983) (tort for warrantless arrest and burden to prove exceptions)
Smith v. Wal-Mart Stores E., 330 Ga. App. 340 (2014) (liability distinctions between urging prosecution and relaying facts)
PN Express, Inc. v. Zegel, 304 Ga. App. 672 (2010) (employer vicarious liability mirrors employee liability)
Reed v. DeKalb County, 264 Ga. App. 83 (2003) (official/qualified immunity for public employees)
Mercado v. Swoope, 340 Ga. App. 647 (2017) (warrantless-arrest decision is discretionary act)
Steed v. Fed. Nat. Mortgage Corp., 301 Ga. App. 801 (2009) (elements and stringent standard for IIED)
Southland Propane, Inc. v. McWhorter, 312 Ga. App. 812 (2011) (workplace accusations ordinarily insufficient for IIED)
Durben v. American Materials, Inc., 232 Ga. App. 750 (1998) (respondeat superior bars separate negligent-hiring/retention claims when employer admits vicarious liability)
Metropolitan Atlanta Transit Auth. v. Boswell, 261 Ga. 427 (1991) (punitive damages against MARTA violate public policy)