UT: Can't fire employees for defending selves

[ELB]

Decision by the Supreme Court of the State of Utah:

RAY v. WAL-MART

¶1 Under the at-will employment doctrine, an employer has broad discretion to manage its workforce and may, accordingly, fire an employee for any reason not prohibited by law. But there are several exceptions to at-will employment, including when an employee‘s termination violates a clear and substantial public policy of the State of Utah. In this case, several employees of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (Wal-Mart) were involved in physical confrontations with shoplifting customers and were ultimately fired for violating company policy. Wal-Mart‘s policy requires employees to disengage and withdraw from potentially violent situations. The Employees sued Wal-Mart in federal district court for wrongful termination, arguing that terminating a person‘s employment for exercising self-defense in the workplace violates Utah public policy. The district court concluded that their argument raised an issue of first impression under Utah law — whether the right of self-defense is the type of public policy that provides an exception to the at-will employment doctrine. Accordingly, it certified the following question of law to us: ― Is the right of self-defense a substantial public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine that provides the basis for a wrongful discharge action?

¶2 We conclude that the policy favoring the right of self-defense is a public policy of sufficient clarity and weight to qualify as an exception to the at-will employment doctrine. But we limit the exception to situations where an employee reasonably believes that force is necessary to defend against an imminent threat of serious bodily harm and the employee has no opportunity to withdraw.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/281842568/Ray ... v-Wal-Mart

[ELB]

This is not the final round in this particular battle: The Utah SCOTUS was deciding a question sent to it by a Federal District Court as part of the employees' federal lawsuit against Walmart. The employees may have to show the Fed Court that they could not safely withdraw from the incidents.

[dlh]

Looks like they watered down the holding enough with provisos and exceptions that it won't be much help to those employees.

dlh

[Taypo]

From what I understand, Walmart has a very strict "Let em walk and call the cops" policy similar to just about every other major chain. If that's the case, it sounds like they inserted themselves into a situation of their own accord contrary to their employee handbook.

Much as I hate Walmart, I dont know how they can be responsible for that.

[ELB]

From what I understand, Walmart has a very strict "Let em walk and call the cops" policy similar to just about every other major chain. If that's the case, it sounds like they inserted themselves into a situation of their own accord contrary to their employee handbook.

Much as I hate Walmart, I dont know how they can be responsible for that.

The description of the two incidents is in the linked opinion as well as Walmart's position and policy. Walmart did not argue that confronting the shoplifters was out of policy, only that engaging in self-defense was not allowed by policy (which is a morally, if not legally, indefensible position). In both incidents (and especially the one with the gun) it is pretty clear that the employees were acting within Walmart's policy right up to the moment the shoplifter brought a weapon into play.

[ELB]

Looks like they watered down the holding enough with provisos and exceptions that it won't be much help to those employees.

dlh

The court spends a lot of time trimming around the edges, but the key point for the employees is that in Utah at least, self-defense is indeed a public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine. This is a big win for the employees, since all the rest of their claims had been tossed by the Federal District Court. Their only hope of continuing was a UT SCOTUS ruling that self-defense is a public policy exception, and they got that.

Their next hurdle is to show that they could not have safely retreated. For the incident in the back room with the shoplifter holding a gun it seems pretty straightforward to me that simply trying to run carried a good chance of getting shot. For the one with the knife, it will depend on whether the employees holding the shoplifter who produced a knife can show that letting go and trying to run was less dangerous as keeping that arm controlled...

[JALLEN]

The most fascinating idea in this case is that Walmart jobs are actually worth fighting for.

If you believe the unions and commun..... err, Democrats, the working conditions at Walnart are so hideous, demeaning, undesirable etc. that the company should be closed, the owners and managers sold into slavery and nobody allowed to shoplift there.