http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2005_06_05-2005_06_11.shtml#1118499071
[David Kopel, June 11, 2005 ]
W.V. COURT VINDICATES SELF-DEFENSE RIGHT FOR EMPLOYEES:
In Feliciano v. 7-Eleven, a masked woman with a gun attempted to rob the
7-Eleven where Feliciano worked. While the robber was distracted by
another employee, Feliciano grabbed her gun, and held her captive until
the police arrived. "Following this incident, 7-Eleven terminated
Feliciano, who was an at will employee, for failure to comply with its
company policy which prohibits employees from subduing or otherwise
interfering with a store robbery."
The West Virginia Supreme Court cited numerous precedents showing that
the right of self-defense is very well-established and substantial
public policy. Accordingly:
we hold that when an at will employee has been discharged from his/her
employment based upon his/her exercise of self-defense in response to
lethal imminent danger, such right of self-defense constitutes a
substantial public policy exception to the at will employment doctrine
and will sustain a cause of action for wrongful discharge. Consistent
with our prior precedent, we hold further that an employer may rebut an
employee's prima facie case of wrongful discharge resulting from the
employee's use of self-defense in response to lethal imminent danger by
demonstrating that it had a plausible and legitimate business reason to
justify the discharge.
[David Kopel, June 11, 2005 ]
W.V. COURT VINDICATES SELF-DEFENSE RIGHT FOR EMPLOYEES:
In Feliciano v. 7-Eleven, a masked woman with a gun attempted to rob the
7-Eleven where Feliciano worked. While the robber was distracted by
another employee, Feliciano grabbed her gun, and held her captive until
the police arrived. "Following this incident, 7-Eleven terminated
Feliciano, who was an at will employee, for failure to comply with its
company policy which prohibits employees from subduing or otherwise
interfering with a store robbery."
The West Virginia Supreme Court cited numerous precedents showing that
the right of self-defense is very well-established and substantial
public policy. Accordingly:
we hold that when an at will employee has been discharged from his/her
employment based upon his/her exercise of self-defense in response to
lethal imminent danger, such right of self-defense constitutes a
substantial public policy exception to the at will employment doctrine
and will sustain a cause of action for wrongful discharge. Consistent
with our prior precedent, we hold further that an employer may rebut an
employee's prima facie case of wrongful discharge resulting from the
employee's use of self-defense in response to lethal imminent danger by
demonstrating that it had a plausible and legitimate business reason to
justify the discharge.
