utbagpiper
Banned
This is mostly off topic, but probably of interest to some.
The Utah Supreme Court has ruled that self-defense is a strong enough public policy in Utah as to create an exception to the "employment at will" laws in certain cases.
This was reported today on the KSL website. Some fair use excerpts (I note that much of what I copy below are direct quotes from the Utah Supreme Court decision and thus the property of the public):
This ruling has no immediate effect on private employer gun bans in Utah. However, the "pubic policy" language used here is similar to the language one of our lower State judges used in the Lund V SLC case where the judge determined that the mere presence of an OC'd firearm did not create PC/RAS for a stop. See footnote 9 from that case:
Charles
The Utah Supreme Court has ruled that self-defense is a strong enough public policy in Utah as to create an exception to the "employment at will" laws in certain cases.
This was reported today on the KSL website. Some fair use excerpts (I note that much of what I copy below are direct quotes from the Utah Supreme Court decision and thus the property of the public):
KSL report on Utah Supreme Court ruling said:Five former Wal-Mart employees who said they were wrongfully fired after defending themselves and disarming weapon-wielding shoplifters now have the backing of the state's highest court.
In a 4-1 decision, the Utah Supreme Court on Friday sided with the employees, noting that they had a right to defend themselves. Wal-Mart terminated the employees, saying their actions violated company policy and put their fellow workers and shoppers at risk.
"The right of self-defense is a public policy of sufficient clarity and weight to qualify as an exception to the at-will employment doctrine," the court opinion states. "But we limit the exception to situations 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."
...
"We conclude that there is a clear and substantial public policy in Utah favoring the right of self-defense," the Utah Supreme Court justices wrote.
The court's said "the right of self-defense is enshrined in Utah statutes," and public policy supporting the right of self-defense outweighs an employer's own workplace regulations when the employee is faced with the imminent threat of serious bodily injury and does not have the opportunity to retreat.
This ruling has no immediate effect on private employer gun bans in Utah. However, the "pubic policy" language used here is similar to the language one of our lower State judges used in the Lund V SLC case where the judge determined that the mere presence of an OC'd firearm did not create PC/RAS for a stop. See footnote 9 from that case:
Footnote 9 Lund v SLC said:By itself, mere possession of a firearm in public is not unlawful and may well represent the exercise of a fundamental constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, § 6 of the Utah Constitution (recognizing the "individual right of the people to keep and bear arms for security and defense of self, family, others, property, or the state, as well as for other lawful purposes," subject to the power of the Legislature to define the "lawful use of arms."). See District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S.Ct. 2783, 2799 (2008) ("There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms."); see also Utah Code Ann. §§ 76-10-500 to 530 (2003 & Supp. 2008) (Utah Firearms Act). In Utah, the carrying of a concealed weapon on one's person in public is a matter of State licensing and regulation, and is routinely permitted pursuant to the applicable State statute. See Utah Code Ann. §§ 53-5-701 to 711 (Supp. 2008). The legislature has explicitly denied local governmental entities such as Salt Lake City the power to limit or restrict possession of a firearm on public property: "Unless specifically authorized by the Legislature by statute, a local authority or state entity may not enact, establish, or enforce any ordinance, regulation, rule, or policy pertaining to firearms that in any way inhibits or restricts the possession or use of firearms on either public or private property." Utah Code Ann. § 53-5a-102 (Supp. 2008); see University of Utah v. Shurtleff, 2006 UT 51, 11, 144 P.3d 1109, 1113 (observing that the enactment of § 53-5a-102 in 2004 "dramatically altered the legal landscape, rendering it clear that Utah's firearms statutes are universally applicable"). The legislature has authorized municipalities only to "regulate and prevent the discharge of firearms, rockets, powder, fireworks or any other dangerous or combustible material." Utah Code Ann. § 10-8-47 (2007).
Charles
Last edited: