The National Trial Lawyers
  • Home
    • Meet Our Team
    • Contact Us
    • Mission & Goals
    • FAQ
  • Webinars
  • News
  • Membership Directory
    • Top 100 Map – Civil Plaintiff
    • Top 100 Map – Criminal Defense
    • Top 40 Under 40 Map – Civil Plaintiff
    • Top 40 Under 40 Map – Criminal Defense
  • Top 100
    • Civil Plaintiff Officers / Executive Committee
    • Criminal Defense Officers / Executive Committee
    • Benefits
    • About
    • Top 100 Presidents Message
    • Diplomat
    • Membership Renewal
    • Member Profile Updates
    • Top 100 Badge
  • Top 40
    • Civil Plaintiff Officers / Executive Committee
    • Criminal Defense Officers / Executive Committee
    • Top 40 Under 40 Trial Academy Bootcamp
    • Benefits
    • About
    • Top 40 Presidents Message
    • Membership Renewal
    • Member Profile Updates
    • Top 40 Badge
  • Specialty Assoc
    • About
    • Shop
    • Officers
    • Membership Renewal
    • Member Profile Updates
  • Nominate
    • Top 100
    • Top 40
    • Specialty Association
    • Trial Lawyer Hall of Fame
    • Trial Lawyer of the Year
    • Trial Team of the Year
    • America’s Most Influential Trial Lawyer
    • America’s Most Influential Law Firm
    • Lifetime Achievement Award
  • Shop
  • Magazine
    • A-List
  • Education and Networking Agenda
    • Trial Lawyers Summit
    • Top 40 Under 40 Trial Academy Boot Camp
    • Mass Torts Made Perfect
    • The Lanier Trial Academy Master Class 6.0
    • The Business Of Law
    • Webinars
  • Hall of Fame
    • Trial Lawyer Hall of Fame

Utah Employees Now Have the Right to Self-Defense in the Workplace

Posted on October 23, 2015 by Eleanor Smith
Wal-Mart Self-Defense

Derek Holt was fired from Wal-Mart after an incident with a suspected armed shoplifter.

Utah employees will never have to choose between keeping their jobs and exercising self-defense thanks to the Utah Supreme Court’s decision. According to Utah’s high court, workers who face violent attackers while on the job can sue their employers for wrongful termination if they are fired for defending themselves from imminent harm.

This decision could effectively change the standard of “at-will employment” and impact employers within the state.

The case concerns five former Wal-Mart employees who brought suit for wrongful termination after being fired for defending themselves by disarming weapon-wielding shoplifters. The facts revolve around two separate incidences of imminent threats: a knife and a gun.

Violence in the Workplace

The knife incident occurred at a West Valley Wal-Mart where employees Derek Holt and Eric Hunter grabbed a suspected shoplifter by the arms when she attempted to run away. The shoplifter in turn pulled out a pocket knife and threatened to stab Holt and Hunter.

For another Wal-mart case, see Sixth Circuit Opens the Doors to Time-Barred Employment Class Actions

During an ensuing struggle, the shoplifter pulled out a pocket knife and shouted that she would stab the men, but they did not let go of her. A fellow shopper helped pry the knife out of the woman’s hand and the theft was avoided, but both men were fired for violating Wal-Mart’s company policy.

Wal-Mart policy states that “if the suspect is believed to possess a weapon, the suspect must not be approached. If during an approach or investigation it becomes apparent that the suspect has a weapon or brandishes or threatens use of a weapon, all associates must disengage from the situation, withdraw to a safe position, and contact law enforcement.”

The second incident involved plaintiffs Shawn H. Ray, Gabriel M. Stewart and Lori Poulsen, who approached a customer attempting to steal a laptop concealed inside his pants. The workers accompanied the man to the asset protection office where Poulsen saw the customer move a gun from his back to his coat pocket. The shoplifter shoved one of the workers against the wall, pointed the gun at his back, and said, “Don’t make me do this.” A physical struggle ensued in which the other workers grabbed the gun and held the shoplifter down until police arrived. These employees were also fired.

Store Policy v. Public Policy

The Supreme Court’s majority opinion said, “The law should not require employees to choose between keeping their jobs and protecting themselves or others from a serious, imminent threat of harm. And in light of the impressive constitutional and statutory pedigree the right of self-defense enjoys in our state, we hold that Utah law does not require employees to make that choice.”

Under the at-will employment doctrine, an employer has broad discretion to manage its workforce and can fire an employee for any reason not prohibited by law. There are several exceptions to at-will employment, including when an employee’s termination violates a “clear and substantial” state public policy.

The precedential 4-1 decision was not without opposition. Rather than promoting workplace safety, Justice Lee argued in his dissenting opinion, allowing self-defense to override company policies like Wal-Mart’s “jeopardizes employee safety in Utah.” Wrongful termination suits are costly, and the threat of litigation might make it harder for Utah employers to enforce workplace violence policies on a day-to-day basis. As Justice Lee lamented, the majority opinion “opens the door to a free-wheeling, case-by-case public policy exception that threatens to swallow the [traditional] rule of at-will employment.”

The case is Shawn H. Ray et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., case number 2015 UT 83, in the Supreme Court of the State of Utah.

Posted in Blog, Business Law, Employment

Comments are closed.

News Categories

Read about other Top Jury Verdicts

The New Mexico Supreme Court Upholds $165 Million Damage Awards in a Deadly FedEx Crash

The New Mexico Supreme Court Upholds $165 Million Damage Awards in a Deadly FedEx Crash

The New Mexico Supreme Court on Thursday upheld $165 million of jury awards against FedEx in a wrongful-death lawsuit stemmin[Read More...]
Noom Reaches a $56 Million Class Action Settlement Over Its Autorenewal and Cancellation Policy

Noom Reaches a $56 Million Class Action Settlement Over Its Autorenewal and Cancellation Policy

Weight-loss program Noom has agreed to a $56 million settlement to resolve class action claims regarding its autorenewal and [Read More...]
Virginians Will Receive $489 Million in a Payday Loan Settlement

Virginians Will Receive $489 Million in a Payday Loan Settlement

Online payday loan companies that charged as much as 919% interest will spend $489 million to reimburse some 555,000 borrower[Read More...]
The State of Minnesota Will Pay $1.5 Million to a Man Who Alleged Excessive Force During an Arrest

The State of Minnesota Will Pay $1.5 Million to a Man Who Alleged Excessive Force During an Arrest

Minneapolis has agreed to pay $1.5 million to a man who said police used excessive force when he was arrested during the prot[Read More...]
A $230 Million Settlement Is Reached Over a 2015 Southern California Oil Spill

A $230 Million Settlement Is Reached Over a 2015 Southern California Oil Spill

The owner of an oil pipeline that spewed thousands of barrels of crude oil onto Southern California beaches in 2015 has agree[Read More...]

#LegalNews

@@TheNTLtop100

Contact Us | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy

Attorney information and content provided on this website is provided for the benefit of members of The National Trial Lawyers and as a public service by Legal Associations Management, Inc. The website and all data are the property of Legal Associations Management, Inc. Data, including without limitation attorney information and content, on the site may not be mined, sold, or used commercially for any purpose without the explicit written consent of Legal Associations Management, Inc. This site may not be accessed by any automated program for extracting data for any use. By accessing and using the site you agree that you will not develop, support or use software, devices, scripts, robots, or any other means or processes (including crawlers, browser plug-ins and add-ons, or any other technology) to scrape data or otherwise copy profiles and other data. Unauthorized use or attempted unauthorized use of this system may subject you to both civil and criminal penalties.