Search form

Utah Supreme Court Expands Wrongful Discharge Claims to Recognize Self-Defense as Public Policy

By Conrad S. Kee
  • November 13, 2015

The Utah doctrine of wrongful discharge claims recognizes self-defense as a clear and substantial public policy under limited circumstances, the Utah Supreme Court has ruled in a 4-1 decision that expands the state’s exceptions to the at-will employment doctrine. Ray, et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2015 UT 83 (Sept. 17, 2015).

The Court held the policy favoring the right of self-defense is an exception to the at-will employment doctrine, but only “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.”

Background

The five plaintiffs were former employees of Wal-Mart who were fired after incidents involving alleged shoplifters. In the first incident, an alleged shoplifter purportedly threatened two of the plaintiffs with a pocketknife and was disarmed by the two employees and a bystander. In the second incident, an alleged shoplifter purportedly displayed a gun and was disarmed by three of the plaintiffs.

A published company policy stated that if a suspect has a weapon or threatens use of a weapon, employees must disengage from the situation, withdraw to a safe position, and contact law enforcement. After investigations, Wal-Mart discharged the five employees for violating this policy.

The employees filed suit against Wal-Mart in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah asserting various claims, including wrongful termination in violation of public policy. After pretrial discovery, the federal court granted the employer summary judgment and dismissed all claims against Wal-Mart, except the claim asserting the employees had been discharged in violation of public policy. The federal court certified the issue, asking the Utah Supreme Court to weigh in on the public policy claim. The federal court asked the Utah Supreme Court to assume that, for the purposes of its decision, the employees were unable to safely disengage from the incidents.

Utah Wrongful Discharge Claims

Like many states, Utah recognizes a wrongful discharge exception to the at-will employment doctrine. The Utah exception is fairly limited, permitting an employee to assert a claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy when an employee has been discharged for:

  1. refusing to commit an illegal or wrongful act;
  2. performing a public obligation, such as accepting jury duty;
  3. exercising a legal right or privilege; or
  4. reporting to a public authority criminal activity of the employer.

Ryan v. Dan’s Food Stores, Inc., 972 P.2d 395, 408 (Utah 1998).

Not all legal rights or privileges rise to the legal standard to assert such a claim, but Utah courts have held that they must be reflected in authoritative sources of state public policy, affect the public generally, and not be outweighed by countervailing policies. Claims that an employee was discharged for asserting a workers’ compensation claim is an example that Utah courts have found to fall within the coverage of the wrongful discharge doctrine.

In Ray, the Utah Supreme Court noted that the right of self-defense is expressed in the Utah State Constitution, as well as the Utah self-defense statute and common law decisions. The Court considered such decisions and also statutes as the Utah Stand Your Ground law that broadened the definition of self-defense under some circumstances. It addressed, as well, the parties’ arguments as to the application of self-defense in a workplace setting, rather than as a defense in a criminal case, and the duty to retreat from a potentially violent confrontation.

The Court concluded, “[W]here an at-will employee is unable to withdraw from an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm, the employer may not terminate the employee for exercising the right of self-defense.”

The case now returns to the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, where the federal court will determine whether there is sufficient evidence that the plaintiffs were unable to withdraw for the case to proceed to trial. Ultimately, a jury may be asked to determine these questions.

Lessons for Employers

The Utah Supreme Court noted that the employer’s policy may be consistent with the holdings of its decision. Further, it stated, “[T]here is no reason why Wal-Mart and other employers cannot continue to train their employees to disengage and withdraw from dangerous situations when there is no imminent threat of serious bodily injury or a reasonable opportunity to withdraw.”

Employers — particularly those in retail or similar settings, with exposure to the public — should regularly consider workplace violence issues. (See our articles on workplace violence, Retailers Guide to Defending Against Workplace Violence and Reminder of Challenges Associated With Workplace Violence Prevention.) Additionally, Utah employers should ensure their workplace violence policies are current and, to the extent they have policies regarding contact with shoplifters, are consistent with Ray. Moreover, by training employees having contact with the public on dealing with shoplifters and managing other potentially violent situations, employers may avoid dangerous confrontations.

If you have any questions about Utah law, please contact the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you regularly work or our Salt Lake City office.

©2015 Jackson Lewis P.C. This material is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice nor does it create a client-lawyer relationship between Jackson Lewis and any recipient. Recipients should consult with counsel before taking any actions based on the information contained within this material. This material may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Reproduction of this material in whole or in part is prohibited without the express prior written consent of Jackson Lewis P.C., a law firm that built its reputation on providing workplace law representation to management. Founded in 1958, the firm has grown to more than 900 attorneys in major cities nationwide serving clients across a wide range of practices and industries including government relations, healthcare and sports law. More information about Jackson Lewis can be found at www.jacksonlewis.com.

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

November 13, 2019

Healthcare Employers’ Title VII Obligations in Harassment, Discrimination of Employees by Patients

November 13, 2019

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act requires healthcare employers to protect their medical staff and employees from harassment and discrimination and respond to any such behaviors swiftly and effectively, even if the actor is a patient, rather than a coworker or supervisor. A decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit... Read More

October 18, 2019

Pay the Piper – California Employers Pressed to Pay Arbitration Fees or Risk Harsh Consequences

October 18, 2019

California employers may face harsh consequences for failing to pay arbitration fees on time under a bill (Senate Bill 707) signed by Governor Gavin Newsom on October 13, 2019. The new law goes into effect on January 1, 2020. Under the new law, if an employer fails to pay fees required for the commencement or continuation of an... Read More

October 15, 2019

New California Law Attacks Mandatory Arbitration Again … But Is It More Bark Than Bite?

October 15, 2019

California has joined a number of states in passing legislation purporting to prohibit mandatory arbitration agreements for sexual harassment and other claims. Such laws have gained popularity in the wake of the #MeToo movement, but are subject to challenge under Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preemption principles. (See our articles... Read More