W.V. Court Vindicates Self-defense Right for Employees [employer can't fire for self defense]

The Volokh Conspiracy ^ | June 11, 2005

[John Jorsett]

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.

[Tabi Katz]

I can't imagine he'd actually want his job back. Wouldn't other retailers be lined up around the block to hire a guy who saved his company's a**, not to mention his own life and that of their other employees & customers? Hopefully he'll take the $ from the law suit, tell 7-eleven to stick it, and spread the word about how he was treated.

[Paleo Conservative]

"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.

[DugwayDuke]

"Wouldn't other retailers be lined up around the block to hire a guy who saved his company's a**, not to mention his own life and that of their other employees & customers?"

They might, but their lawyers would advise them not to hire the man. Simply too much potential liability. The employer is open to a suit claiming excessive use of force. And, what happens if a customer is injured? It's much cheaper to let the criminal have the money.

[boop]

True, but we read all the time about convenience store clerks getting KILLED by robbers. I think it was reasonable to be paranoid. One of the most sickening things I have seen is on the "banned from TV" video. These thugs shoot the elderly clerk in the chest because there wasn't "enough" money in the till. He cooperated fully, and we get to hear him gasp for breath and die.

[DugwayDuke]

But when did you hear of a family of a convienience store employee sueing the employer after a fatality? Even if such a suit made it into court, it's likely that the judgement wouldn't be particularly large. However, if an emplyee accidently killed a customer in a gun battle with a criminal over a couple of hundred dollars in the till...?

[fini]

While large companies may not hire a person who had defended themselves. I personally know of two cases that went just the other way. In both cases, a hold up of a convenience store and the other a franchise pizza place, the clerks were fired and quickly hired by competitors. The justification for the firing and the hiring were the same- they stopped a crime. In fact in the case of the pizza place the clerk was specifically given permission to carry a pistol at work (the clerk had a concealed weapon permit). The major difference between the hiring and the firing was that the businesses that fired them were owned by large franchise owners and the businesses that did the hiring were owned by independent owners.

[DugwayDuke]

"The major difference between the hiring and the firing was that the businesses that fired them were owned by large franchise owners and the businesses that did the hiring were owned by independent owners."

No, the major difference was that the large franchises owners had lawyers while the indepenents had common sense.

[Tax Government]

It comes down to whether the potential new employer has deep or shallow pockets, and would be an easy mark for a big-money lawsuit.

[School of Rational Thought]

"They might, but their lawyers would advise them not to hire the man. Simply too much potential liability. The employer is open to a suit claiming excessive use of force. And, what happens if a customer is injured? It's much cheaper to let the criminal have the money."

Well any employer can extrapolate any scenario out of proportion and realty.

This guy didn't attack a customer as you put it. He disarmed a robber who had already pointed her gun at him.

Even in nutty England this guy would be on firm ground, The robber had the gun, the clerk was unarmed.
A claim of excessive force is unplausible even in the US

[DugwayDuke]

I really wasn't speaking of this specific case but the hypothetical reason a future employer might not wish to hire this guy. He's shown a tendency to confront robbers which is something many attorneys would find disturbing for it's potential liability.

[Revel]

This happened a long time ago and I remember this story. Here are some links from the archieves if anyone would like to read more and see what freepers thought in 2000.



http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/297919/posts

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/297642/posts

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/296347/posts


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/search?SX=42ad15495093534de70923a70d2c1fe1a1523a6c;m=all;o=time;q=deep;s=7-Eleven;t=-1