Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: May employer fire employee for reasonable on-the-job armed self-defense? 6CA, OK!

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,163

    May employer fire employee for reasonable on-the-job armed self-defense? 6CA, OK!

    By Eugene Volokh June 2 at 8:08 pm

    May employer fire employee based on employee’s reasonable on-the-job armed self-defense? No problem under Michigan law, the Sixth Circuit ruled today in Hoven v. Walgreen Co. (6th Cir. June 2, 2014).

    http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions...4a0115p-06.pdf 98 KB 12 pages

    There is, however, a third constraint, created by judges in many states: the tort of “wrongful termination in violation of public policy.” The Michigan formulation of this tort, which is similar to that in many other states, bars such termination when:

    (1) the employee is discharged in violation of an explicit legislative statement prohibiting discharge of employees who act in accordance with a statutory right or duty;
    (2) the employee is discharged for the failure or refusal to violate the law in the course of employment; or
    (3) the employee is discharged for exercising a right conferred by a well-established legislative enactment.

    The complicated category is category (3). There are lots of legal rights and privileges that don’t trigger that category — people have the right to speak, but, absent a statute, courts generally don’t bar employers from firing employees based on their speech.
    [ ... ]
    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).
    [ ... ]
    [T]he Self–Defense Act does not confer a right on the public to engage in self-defense. The right, if any, that is conferred is simply the right to present a defense in a criminal case, the elements of which a factfinder may or may not determine were satisfied. Moreover, … this statute does not apply to both civil and criminal cases. The fact that the statute immunizes an individual who meets its requirements from criminal consequences but not civil liability demonstrates that it does not confer an unlimited right to engage in self-defense — it only provides a potential defense to criminal prosecution by the state. Just as the constitutional [free speech] provisions that applied only against state action did not suffice as a basis for a public-policy claim against a private employer [citing an earlier Michigan state appellate precedent], neither does this law.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/v...-self-defense/
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  2. #2
    Regular Member HPmatt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Dallas
    Posts
    1,597
    Yes they can.
    “Men live without other security than what their own strength and their own invention shall furnish them"
    -Thomas Hobbes 1651

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,163
    Quote Originally Posted by HPmatt View Post
    Yes they can.
    The rationale, the legal reasoning is the issue.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,011
    If they work in a "Right to Fire" state, I believe they can.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    The wrongful or retaliatory discharge is quite narrow; even refusing to break a law may not be enough - it has to be a law that the public has seen to be so important that it cannot be broken and if fires then compensation is due.

    So if you want to refuse to break the law and think that you are protected this may not be true...as many have found out. After all, who decides if something is unlawful? Not an employee.

  6. #6
    Regular Member HPmatt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Dallas
    Posts
    1,597
    Subject to state laws, Texas being a Right to Work state, I can fire employees without cause, as long not discriminating along federal or state laws, otherwise free to do so as I please. My issue w/b the liability I incur as an employer for conduct of my employees, both to the hiring corporation/LLC and myself personally. Unless I am operating a wrecker company, repo company, bail bond agency, gun store, liquor/check cashing store, cock fight supply house, halfway house, etc - I would permit employees to CC in compliance with state law.

    Would not let EEs to OC long guns. If/when Texas allows OC - constitutional or licensed, would revise that to allow OC. Issue for businesses in Dallas County is that the county government has tilted democrat over the last decade, so would be concerned about protection of assets if an incident ever went to a liberal judge/liberal jury in Dallas. If business was anywhere else in Texas other than Dallas, Harris, Travis, Bexar, but not El Paso counties, would not be an issue about how the DA and jury would see/understand a trial.
    “Men live without other security than what their own strength and their own invention shall furnish them"
    -Thomas Hobbes 1651

Posting Permissions

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