Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 34

Thread: May Employer Fire Employee Based on Employee’s Reasonable On-the-Job Self-Defense?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154

    May Employer Fire Employee Based on Employee’s Reasonable On-the-Job Self-Defense?

    "Generally speaking, private employers may terminate their relationship with employees for any reason, or no reason at all — that’s the “employment at will” principle. There are two main legal constraints on this. [ ... ] There is, however, a third constraint, created by judges in many states: the tort of “wrongful termination in violation of public policy.” [ ... ] This brings us to self-defense (and in particular what I call “reasonable self-defense,” which would set aside situations where a judge or jury concludes that an employee wasn’t sufficiently threatened, could have avoided the problem without physical self-defense, used excessive force under the circumstances, and the like). Feliciano v. 7–Eleven, Inc. (W. Va. 2001) recognized “a substantial public policy exception to the at will employment doctrine whereby an employee may defend him/herself against lethal imminent danger,” though it noted that “an employer may rebut the presumption of a wrongful discharge based upon an employee’s exercise of his/her right to self-defense by demonstrating that it based the termination upon a plausible and legitimate business reason.” [ ... ]

    For a related but different question of whether an employer may fire an employee based on the employee’s gun possession on property owned or controlled by the employer, compare Plona v. UPS (6th Cir. 2009) (rejecting this claim under Ohio common law, where the possession was in a parking lot leased by the employer) with Winters v. Concentra Health Servs., Inc., No. CV075012082S, 2008 WL 803134 (Conn. Super. Mar. 5, 2008) (allowing the case to go forward under Connecticut common law, where the gun possession was on employer premises but the employer allegedly didn’t have a policy prohibiting such possession). For more on constitutional protection for the right to self-defense, protection that can be asserted against a governmental restriction but that is sometimes cited in private employer cases such as this one, see this article." Citations, link URL's in the original.

    http://www.volokh.com/2013/10/13/may...-self-defense/
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Barring a State law prohibiting such a firing (I know of none), yep. And that is the way it should be. The employer should be able to fire anyone they want for any reason. If you employer is so capricious, find another job.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154
    One can lead a ******* to water but one cannot make it read, let alone think.
    Last edited by Nightmare; 10-13-2013 at 06:35 PM.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  4. #4
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    One can lead a ******* to water but one cannot make it read, let alone think.
    And if the employer isn't required to list a reason for termination? Then it doesn't matter what supposed protections you have, even if the protections apply in states with at-will employment, right? It'd be on you to prove they fired you for the act of self defense. Good luck with that unless they're stupid enough to say so.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Barring a State law prohibiting such a firing (I know of none), yep. And that is the way it should be. The employer should be able to fire anyone they want for any reason. If you employer is so capricious, find another job.
    So an employer can fire one just for owning a gun?

    I think you still don't get it ...

  6. #6
    Regular Member JustaShooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Posts
    728
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    So an employer can fire one just for owning a gun?
    Exactly so. In an at-will employment state, you can be fired for any reason (except for those artificially-created scenarios involving so-called "protected classes").

    So, in Ohio (an at-will employment state) I could fire you for owning a foreign car. Or for having blue eyes. Or because I'm having a bad day and you were the first person through the office door that morning.
    Christian, Husband, Father
    NRA Life Member
    NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
    NRA Certified Pistol & Rifle Instructor

    Anything I post in these forums is my personal opinion formed by my own interpretation of the topic.
    IANAL and anything I say is not intended to be nor should it be taken as legal advice.

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    So an employer can fire one just for owning a gun?

    I think you still don't get it ...
    Fair's fair.

    If the employer can't fire because the employee has a gun, then the employee can't quit when the employer suddenly bans firearms.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  8. #8
    Regular Member XD40sc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    425
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    So an employer can fire one just for owning a gun?

    I think you still don't get it ...
    In reality they can fire you because.___________ (fill in the blank). they just can't say so, but results are the same, you no longer work there.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Fair's fair.

    If the employer can't fire because the employee has a gun, then the employee can't quit when the employer suddenly bans firearms.
    Exactly. I don't think that the troll from CT believes in Liberty. He just believes that he should be able to do whatever he wants. That ain't Liberty. If we all aren't free, none of us are. That necessarily includes the employer having the right to hire and fire at will.
    Last edited by eye95; 10-14-2013 at 07:03 AM.

  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Exactly. I don't think that the troll from CT believes in Liberty. He just believes that he should be able to do whatever he wants. That ain't Liberty. If we all aren't free, none of us are. That necessarily includes the employer having the right to hire and fire at will.
    Careful, Eye. You haven't exactly been a fountain of liberty-minded commentary, yourself. There's a definite statist mist coming off your prose.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    May Employer Fire Employee Based on Employee’s Reasonable On-the-Job Self-Def...

    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Careful, Eye. You haven't exactly been a fountain of liberty-minded commentary, yourself. There's a definite statist mist coming off your prose.
    Again, folks who are not Libertarian or Anarchistic are "statist." How binary of you.

    I recognize the need for the government to protect Rights. Otherwise we only have individuals using force to protect wants. That does not make me "statist," except to binary thinkers. Don't be so shallow.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154

    Karl Popper Boom boom Karl Popper boom boom Popper Popper

    I do wish that y'all would read The Open Society and Its Enemies. He identifies the withered roots of so many disagreements being watered with the lifeblood of good people impoverished by historicism.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  13. #13
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Karl Popper, Austrian born, British subject. I'll stick to reading the writings of British subjects, learned men in their own right, who were just a wee bit closer to home, sacrificed for liberty and a "open society" and did it all about 150 years before Popper did.

  14. #14
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Again, folks who are not Libertarian or Anarchistic are "statist." How binary of you.

    I recognize the need for the government to protect Rights. Otherwise we only have individuals using force to protect wants. That does not make me "statist," except to binary thinkers. Don't be so shallow.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>
    I submit that, contrary to your implication, the deeper you go, the more binary you're conclusions will become. If something appears to be less than absolute, perhaps a perspective change is required. Perhaps you just aren't asking the right question.

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Back in the 50's the public policy, whistle-blower, retaliatory discharge exceptions to at-will employment did not exist.

    Courts are slow to add on or expand the "public policy" exceptions (and some states still may not recognize this one).

    But one day, we will be free from being terminated because we own, possess, and cherish our 2nd amendment rights.

    I don't think it will be from a case from EYE though but who knows? Maybe he'll get terminated for something related to his guns and become a true believer in freedom.

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator View Post
    I submit that, contrary to your implication, the deeper you go, the more binary you're conclusions will become. If something appears to be less than absolute, perhaps a perspective change is required. Perhaps you just aren't asking the right question.
    Very specific questions tend to be binary. Broad concepts tend not to be.

    Binary thinking is almost always lazy thinking. It is easier to answer a yes/no question than to answer an essay question.

    Take the last word. I won't discuss binary thinking anymore in this thread. I have made my point clear, and rational thinkers are cogitating on it. That's good enough for me.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154
    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator View Post
    I submit that, contrary to your implication, the deeper you go, the more binary you're conclusions will become. If something appears to be less than absolute, perhaps a perspective change is required. Perhaps you just aren't asking the right question.
    This, binary versus unitary and absolute versus relative, is at the heart of tribal statism versus individualism. The philosophical roots are in Platonism versus Aristotelianism.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  18. #18
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator View Post
    I submit that, contrary to your implication, the deeper you go, the more binary you're conclusions will become. If something appears to be less than absolute, perhaps a perspective change is required. Perhaps you just aren't asking the right question.

    He makes an assumption and then labels the assumption as binary. The post he quoted pointed out that some of his statements are not liberty centric but more statist in nature its a mere personal observation that in my opinion rings true.

    You can be personally a socialist, a conservative, ....whatever.....and be a libertarian or and anarchist or both......as long as you don't believe in using force in enforcing your viewpoints.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  19. #19
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    SNIPYou can be personally a socialist, a conservative, ....whatever.....and be a libertarian or and anarchist or both......as long as you don't believe in using force in enforcing your viewpoints.
    (chuckle)

    If I ever start a religion, the first commandment will be:

    "Thou shall neither initiate force, nor defraud."

    Imagine if that had been on the tablets carried down from the mountain.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  20. #20
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    (chuckle)

    If I ever start a religion, the first commandment will be:

    "Thou shall neither initiate force, nor defraud."

    Imagine if that had been on the tablets carried down from the mountain.
    Would that be the last commandment, too? Everything else would be pretty much a specificity (that word work?) to one of those, no?
    Last edited by stealthyeliminator; 10-16-2013 at 09:15 PM.

  21. #21
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    Commandment II "Be Innocent of Instigation"

  22. #22
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator View Post
    Would that be the last commandment, too?
    Yeah, maybe just for emphasis.

    And, in the middle somewhere, I might write, "Thou shall not create kings for thyself. Nor, shall thee consider thyself above others, or below them, but their equal. Thy mutual protection societies shall be by consent only."

    Last edited by Citizen; 10-16-2013 at 11:36 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  23. #23
    Regular Member papa bear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    mayberry, nc
    Posts
    2,258
    hate to agree with EYE, but a employer should be able to terminate employment at any time. after all it is their own job(not the employee's). too, why would you want to work for someone that didn't want you there.

    BUT, the employee should have all UN-employment benefits with cause.

    wonder how long it will take EYE to call someone an ass
    Luke 22:36 ; 36Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

    "guns are like a Parachute, if you don't have one when you need it, you will not need one again"
    - unknown

    i you call a CHP a CCW then you are really stupid. period.

  24. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    One post longer than it took you to behave like one.

  25. #25
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    Speaking of all of this right to work stuff - I've been noticing some newish looking posters going up in various businesses around town. First time I saw one, I was steamed. Attached it to this post. Is it a new one, or have I just never seen it before?
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	right to work.jpg 
Views:	51 
Size:	93.9 KB 
ID:	10896  

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •