The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old October 23, 2014, 11:41 AM   #1
KyJim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,142
Utah Sup.Ct- Right to defend one's self an exception to employment at-will doctrine?

The Utah Supreme Court held oral argument September 3, 2014 on whether an employee's right to defend one's self constitutes an exception to that state's employment-at-will doctrine. The case is Ray, et al. v. Wal-mart, No. 20130940.

As most are probably aware, the employment-at-will doctrine allows an employer to fire an employee for any reason subject to certain public policy exceptions such as race, gender, etc. Utah will decide whether the right to defend one's self is one such public policy exception. The actual case is in federal district court which certified the state law question to the Utah Supreme Court which accepted it for review. Some state high courts have this mechanism and some do not.

At any rate, it appears six different employees were fired after three unrelated incidents. A news story briefly describes the three incidents. Here is one of them:
Quote:
In a January 2011 incident at a Wal-Mart in Layton, three employees confronted a man who had put a laptop computer down his pants and escorted him to a security office. There, the man showed them a gun and, the employees claim, pushed it into one of their backs.

The three grabbed the gun away and pinned him against a wall before police arrived. They were fired because Wal-Mart said they should have allowed the man leave the office and not wrestled with him.
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/58...fired.html.csp. I won't quote the story about the other two incidents in order to keep within TFL's policies.

To my knowledge this is the first presumably-to-be-published opinion which would address this issue which has come up for discussion on this forum from time to time. It might also have broader implications. For example, I have hypothesized a theory where a landlord could not restrict a tenant's right to possess a firearm based upon the right of defense being fundamental and the refusal of courts to enforce a provision against public policy -- but that is getting the cart way before the horse.

From the news story, there appears to be at least one justice leaning in each direction.
KyJim is offline  
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:19 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.03322 seconds with 10 queries