ByJacob Gershman
- Associated Press
Wal-Mart employees can’t be fired for refusing to stand-down when confronted with a violent customer threatening imminent harm, Utah’s highest court ruled.
The case, a wrongful termination lawsuit brought by five employees, asked under what situations do employees of Wal-Mart Stores Inc. have the right not to withdraw from a violent situation and disobey company policy of non-resistance.
Reports the Salt Lake Tribune:
The ruling sends the case back to federal court where five employees, formerly of Wal-Mart stores in Layton and West Valley City, had sued the giant retailer that had fired them for violating a policy that requires them to withdraw from situations where a suspected shoplifter or a customer pulls a weapon.
U.S. District Judge Robert Shelby sent the case to the Utah Supreme Court to determine whether state law provides protections from being fired from a job for engaging in self-defense.
The five employees suing Wal-Mart handled loss-prevention at two Wal-Mart locations, investigating and preventing theft of merchandise. They were fired for violating a company policy that requires workers to withdraw from potentially violent confrontations and call law enforcement.
At a West Valley City store, two employees pried a knife out of the hands of a woman caught shoplifting who threatened to stab them if they didn’t let her go, according to court documents.
The second incident took place at a store in Layton where three Wal-Mart employees confronted an armed customer caught trying to steal a laptop.
According to Wal-Mart’s version of what happened, the man put the computer down and said he wanted to leave the premises. Then, after the man was spotted moving a gun from his back to his coat pocket, according to the company, the employees pinned him against a wall and snatched his gun away. The employees say the skirmish ensued after the customer shoved one of them against the wall and pressed a gun to the worker’s back.
The question in the case was whether the right of self-defense in Utah provides a basis for a wrongful discharge claim. The fired employees claimed that they properly exercised their right to defend themselves. Lawyers for Wal-Mart said that the company has a stronger interest in discouraging employee vigilantism, enforcing its policy of “deescalation and non-confrontation” and deterring workers from flouting it.
In a decision handed down Thursday, the Utah Supreme Court, citing the Utah Constitution’s right of self-defense and the state’s “Stand Your Ground” statute, disagreed with the company. Wrote Utah Chief Justice Matthew B. Durrant:
Although we acknowledge that Wal-Mart‘s interest in regulating its workforce is important, we conclude that there is a clear and substantial public policy in Utah favoring the right of self-defense….[T]hat policy is of sufficient magnitude to qualify as a substantial public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine, but only under the narrow circumstances where an employee cannot withdraw and faces imminent serious bodily injury.
An attorney for the Wal-Mart employees, Lorraine P. Brown, told Law Blog that the ruling “moves the whole stand-your ground self-defense movement in the United States a notch forward.” She said the decision “expands the right of self-defense to the workplace.”
Randy Hargrove, a spokesman for Wal-Mart, told Law Blog the court’s decision “sets a bad precedent” for businesses and their customers. “Our number one concern is always the safety of our customers and associates, and we don’t condone behavior that puts them at risk,” he said.
Not all the justices agreed on the outcome. Utah Justice Thomas R. Lee dissented from his colleagues, stating they couldn’t be sure that the actions of the fired employees were reasonable or an overreaction.
“I would conclude that Utah‘s public interest in preserving a right of self-defense is insufficient to override Wal-Mart‘s legitimate interests in holding its workers to the policy at issue,” he wrote.