May an employee be fired “for refusing to take a bullet for the company”?

In a case that we have been following and posted about previously, the Utah Supreme Court answered “no” in a 4-1 split decision; the Court's lengthy opinion and dissent are available at Ray v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (Utah 2015).
 
The case arose from two separate incidents where five employees in total were fired after they fought with shoplifters who pulled weapons on them inside the Wal-Mart stores in Layton and West Valley City, Utah. The employees claimed that they were acting in self-defense, but the company fired them anyway based Wal-Mart’s policy requiring employees to disengage, withdraw, and alert authorities. The employees sued Wal-Mart in federal district court for wrongful termination, arguing that terminating their employment for exercising self-defense in the workplace violated Utah public policy. The district court concluded that the employees’ argument raised an issue of first impression under Utah law and certified the issue to the Utah Supreme Court.
 
During oral argument last year, Utah Supreme Court Justice Christine Durham asked the Wal-Mart attorney if an employer should be able to fire somebody “for refusing to take a bullet for the company?”
 
After analyzing the split in authority around the country, the Court found:

We conclude that Utah law recognizes a policy favoring the right of self-defense, and that policy is the kind of clear and substantial public policy that qualifies as an exception to the at-will employment doctrine. Accordingly, an at-will employee who is fired for exercising that right may maintain a wrongful termination action, but only if the employee faced an imminent threat of serious bodily harm in circumstances where he or she was unable to withdraw. We so hold because (1) Utah law strongly supports the right of self-defense while recognizing circumstances in which a person may have a duty to withdraw; (2) a policy favoring the right of self-defense is also of broad public importance because it protects human life while deterring crime; and (3) despite the strong interests employers have in maintaining a safe workplace through de-escalation policies, the right of individuals to defend themselves against imminent bodily injury or death is simply more compelling where the employee cannot safely withdraw.

Presumably, the case will now go to trial in the federal district court.

Category: 

Tag: 

By: