Can Employer Fire You for Self-Defense on the Job?

Sometimes no, holds the Colorado Supreme Court.

A short excerpt from Monday's long decision of the Colorado Supreme Court in Moreno v. Circle K Stores, Inc., written by Justice Maria Berkenkotter:

Seventy-two-year-old Mary Ann Moreno … sued her employer, Circle K Stores, Inc. … for wrongful termination. She asserted that she was fired for lawfully exercising her right to self-defense after she was cornered by an armed robber during one of her shifts and that her termination violated Colorado public policy….

This court first recognized a public-policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine in There, we identified a number of circumstances under which an at-will employee may bring a claim for wrongful discharge: if the employee was terminated for (1) refusing to engage in an illegal act, (2) performing a public duty, or (3) exercising an important job-related right or privilege. To serve as the basis for such a claim, the right must be clearly expressed, sufficiently public, and granted to workers….

This case requires us to decide if the right to self-defense, established either by section 18-1-704, C.R.S. (2025) ("section 704"), or by article II, section 3 of the Colorado Constitution ("article II, section 3"), meets the test we articulated in Martin Marietta. In answering the certified question, we first determine that both the statute and the constitutional provision clearly express the boundaries and extent of the right to self-defense based on their explicit language and the extensive and well-defined body of case law regarding self-defense.

Next, we decide that the right to self-defense is inherently a public right, rather than an individual proprietary right, because it is an essential, inalienable right guaranteed to all people. Finally, we conclude that the right to self-defense, as expressed by both the statute and the constitutional provision, is a right that is job-related insofar as the need to exercise the right to defend oneself from an unprovoked attack can occur anywhere, including at work.

While we conclude that this is a right granted to all people that is not left at the door simply because a person enters the workplace, we emphasize that the scope of the exception that we recognize today is narrow. It is limited, importantly, to self-defense as an essential, inalienable right. And, critically, the exception applies only when an employee lawfully exercises the right in response to an unprovoked attack at work.

It is also important to understand what this case is not about. The certified question asks us only to answer if an exception exists. We are not called on to decide whether Circle K's policy bars its employees from acting in self-defense—as Moreno claims—or whether the policy simply prohibits employees from confronting shoplifters—as Circle K claims. We also need not decide if Moreno acted in self-defense or if Circle K fired Moreno for defending herself. We offer no opinion on any of those matters….

Moreno was working at Circle K one evening when Tyler Wimmer approached the register holding several items, including two hunting knives. He placed the knives on the U-shaped counter that separated him from Moreno. After Wimmer told Moreno to get him a pack of cigarettes, Moreno asked what brand he wanted and retrieved them from the display case behind her. When Moreno began to ring up the cigarettes, Wimmer said something to the effect of, "[J]ust give them to me for free." Moreno refused.

Wimmer then picked up the knives and began to walk around the counter. Moreno twice told Wimmer, "[D]on't come back here." Undeterred, and with knives in hand, Wimmer continued to approach. When Moreno was within Wimmer's reach, Moreno extended her arms. In Moreno's telling, she instinctively did this to defend herself and to prevent Wimmer from coming closer to her. Wimmer grabbed a pack of cigarettes, left the store, and was subsequently arrested for armed robbery. {Later, Wimmer pleaded guilty to menacing with a deadly weapon.}

Circle K terminated Moreno for violating its "Don't Chase or Confront" policy. The policy instructs employees not to "confront[,] follow, pursue, track, chase, fight[,] or follow" any customer suspected of shoplifting. Moreno sued Circle K in state court, claiming, in pertinent part, that she was wrongfully discharged in violation of Colorado public policy because she was exercising her right to self-defense and trying to protect herself from being attacked.

{As previously noted, the only issue before us is the purely legal one set forth in the certified question. Moreno contends that Circle K's "Don't Chase or Confront" policy prohibits its employees from exercising their right to self-defense. Circle K contends it does not. It asserts that the company's policy aims to prevent employees from provoking encounters with shoplifters and placing themselves in situations where self-defense is necessary. For the reasons we have already explained, we express no opinion on this dispute.} …

First, we consider if section 704 and article II, section 3 clearly express a public policy in favor of the right to self-defense. Section 704 sets out by whom, when, and how the right to self-defense may be exercised. Any person, including any employee, may justifiably use force when they reasonably believe they face the "use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by [another] person." They may not use excessive force. And with limited exceptions, they are not justified in using force if they were the initial aggressor. …

Additionally, a statute setting out a criminal right or defense is as much an expression of the General Assembly's intent as a statute setting out criminal or civil liability and is no less a source of public policy. As we observed in Martin Marietta, an employee should not have to "choose between losing their job[ ] or engaging in criminal conduct." So too with the right to self-defense: An employee should never have to choose between their job and their safety. Thus, section 704 is strong evidence of Colorado's public policy in favor of self-defense.

Article II, section 3 similarly provides a clear mandate. It concisely and unambiguously recognizes that "[a]ll persons have … the right of enjoying and defending their lives." Despite its brevity, it provides a common understanding of when it's appropriate to exercise the right of self-defense….

Next, we consider whether the right to self-defense is a public right…. [T]he right to self-defense is an essential, inalienable right expressed in this state's constitution—one that has been statutorily recognized for longer than Colorado has been a state. Though this essential, inalienable right is possessed and exercised by individuals, its impact is necessarily public….

Cases from other jurisdictions have similarly concluded that self-defense is a public right. As the Utah Supreme Court noted in a case similar to this one, "A policy favoring the right of self-defense preserves and protects human life …. [Such a policy] protects individuals from serious injuries and deters the completion of crime." Ray v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (Utah 2015). Similarly, the West Virgina Supreme Court has recognized that the right to self-defense affects the safety of the public. Feliciano v. 7-Eleven, Inc. (W. Va. 2001). These cases support our conclusion that section 704 and article II, section 3 both set forth a sufficiently public right affecting the safety of the broader public….

Finally, we consider whether an employer's firing of an at-will employee for exercising their right to self-defense constitutes termination based on the employee's exercise of a job-related right…. To be sure, at-will employment gives employers broad discretion over the terms of employment. It does not, however, allow employers to require employees to commit illegal acts. Nor does it allow employers to prevent employees from reporting legal violations or from performing legal duties, or from exercising important job-related rights. One broad, unifying principle in cases analyzing the public-policy exception—here and across the country—is that an employer may not use termination to penalize an employee for exercising a constitutional or statutory right that reflects an important, clearly expressed public policy that affects the public. Applying these principles here, we conclude that an employer may not lawfully terminate an employee for properly exercising their essential, inalienable right to self-defense if the employee suffers an unprovoked attack at work.

The employment relationship should not be used to strip workers of the ordinary legal privileges every person possesses. The right to self-defense has never been cabined by role or location. It is a unique, essential, and inalienable right that exists for workers, students, retirees, and the unemployed alike. It allows people to protect themselves in their homes, schools, houses of worship, and workplaces under very specifically defined circumstances. Here, it is the very breadth of the right—of the policy—that informs the analysis. It makes no sense to suggest that everyone has an inalienable right to defend themselves if faced with imminent danger, unless they are at work. Rather, the right follows the employee from home to work and back and everywhere in between.

Put another way, the right to self-defense is job-related insofar as the need to lawfully defend oneself from an unprovoked attack can occur at work. Thus, even though the right to self-defense—constitutional and statutory—does not explicitly mention workers, it is nonetheless a right guaranteed to workers within the meaning of Martin Marietta. Under the law, it is an essential, inalienable right guaranteed to everyone, including people at work. It is not a right that is left at the door when a person enters the workplace….

Chief Justice Monica Márquez, joined by Justice William Hood, dissented:

I not only disagree with the majority's reasoning that a constitutional provision can be the source of a claim for termination in violation of public policy against a private employer, but I also fear that the practical implications of today's ruling will tie employers' hands and ultimately undermine workplace safety….

For more details from the long dissent, or from the long majority, see the full opinions. For more on the state constitutional right to self-defense, see State Constitutional Rights of Self-Defense and Defense of Property (especially, as to employment law, pp. 411-12).