In Fermino v. Fedco, Inc. (1994) 7 Cal. 4th 701, the plaintiff worked as a sales clerk in the jewelry department of defendant's department store. The store's personnel manager summoned the plaintiff to a windowless room and interrogated her concerning her alleged theft of the proceeds of a $ 4.95 sale to a customer. Two security agents and the store's loss prevention manager joined the personnel manager. The interrogation lasted more than one hour, during which defendants denied the plaintiff's repeated requests to leave the room to call her mother and "physically compelled" plaintiff to remain in the room. (Fermino v. Fedco, Inc., supra, 7 Cal. 4th at pp. 706-707.) When the plaintiff tried to leave and walked toward the door, a security guard "slid in front of the door, threw up a hand and gestured her to stop." (Id. at p. 707.) The California Supreme Court described "a tripartite system for classifying injuries arising in the course of employment." First, there are injuries caused by an employer's negligence or without employer fault that are exclusively governed by and compensable under the workers' compensation system. Second, there are injuries caused by "ordinary employer conduct" that is intentional, knowing, or reckless misconduct; such injuries are also exclusively compensable in workers' compensation. ( Id. at p. 714.) Third, there are certain types of intentional misconduct which are not a normal risk of employment or contrary to fundamental public policy; injuries arising therefrom fall outside the workers' compensation system. ( Id. at pp. 714-715.) Plaintiff's cause of action for negligent hiring and retention falls within the first category. Plaintiff's exclusive remedy for such negligent conduct is workers' compensation. ( Id. at pp. 713-715). In sum, a sales clerk was falsely accused of stealing merchandise and interrogated for more than an hour. Store managers and security personnel threatened and verbally abused her. When plaintiff tried to leave the room, "one of the security guards slid in front of the door, threw up a hand and gestured her to stop." ( Id., at p. 707.) Plaintiff was finally released after the interrogators admitted that she was innocent. Our Supreme Court held that the detention, even if motivated by legitimate employer objectives, was carried to an extreme. ( Id., at pp. 721.) "When an employer forcibly and criminally deprives an employee of her liberty, even as a means to otherwise legitimate ends, it steps outside its 'proper role,' whether it uses assault and battery to enforce that false imprisonment, or employs some other coercive stratagem." ( Id., at pp. 721-722.)