UT Supreme Court: self-defense trumps company policy
According to Salt Lakes’ Fox 13 back in 2011, a group of Walmart employees were fired when they wrested control of a firearm from a disenchanted shopper. Apparently Walmart policy dictated that they should have disengaged, withdrew and alert authorities instead.
Well, the Utah Supreme Court sided with those employees against Walmart and ruled that “Utah law reflects a policy favoring the right of self-defense, and that policy is of sufficient magnitude to qualify as a substantial public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine, but only under the narrow circumstances where an employee cannot withdraw and faces imminent serious bodily injury.”
Here’s the whole decision if you’re interested in that kind of thing;
Ray, Et Al. v. Wal-Mart by Ben Winslow
Category: Guns
WalMart did what its lawyers advised. If it did not, the next WalMart employee who took some action and was hurt would argue—through THEIR lawyer—that WalMart implicitly expected or approved such action by failing to enforce its policy on prior occasions. So, don’t blame WalMart. It did what it legally should have done to protect its ass. Now, it will have to shell out a few more smiley-face dollars to place more security in its stores, I guess.
Sure the policy is what they needed to do to protect themselves. However, if the concern is creating an environment were walmart expected or approved such action could have been handled by counseling them after the fact on the policy and ordering company wide retraining on the policy to re-instill the expectation that employees should disengage.
Firing their employees was unnecessary, a PR failure, and an expensive legal battle.
Lars, the lab called and said your brain is ready for installation, and lay off of the Dutch Rudder Gang Cocktails!
huh? WTF was that you said in that second rambling sentence?
That’s it! I’m heading to the McDonalds’ drive through for a REALLY hot cup of coffee.
Exactly, Sparks.
CAUTION: HOT COFFEE IS…HOT.
Still remember the story on an El Paso station one morning: shortly after the MacDonalds brouhaha, someone ordered coffee at a Las Cruces drive-through. When he got to the window, he was wearing a T shirt and a hard-on – only – and was extremely unhappy when the server dumped the large piping-hot coffee in his lap. Even though he reportedly screamed like a girl and drove off at high speed, for some reason he never reported it to the cops.
There are few, but every common sense ruling we get from a Supreme Court is a step forward.
Heh. Reminds me (in lesser degree and non-fictional kind) of the opening chapters of Monster Hunter International.
Oldie:
Q: What do you call a bus load of lawyers going off a cliff?
A: A good start ……
What do you call a aircraft full of lawyers in a cornfield?
Q: What’s the fastest way to save a lawyer from drowning?
A: Take your foot off his head!
Why don’t sharks eat lawyers; professional courtesy.
What’s black and brown and looks good on a lawyer; a Doberman pinscher.
What do you have with a lawyer neck deep in shit; not enough shit.
Laughing myself silly. Jokes were better then good morning stories ?
A lawyer and a mudcat?
One’s a cold blooded, slimy, bottom feeder.
The other one is a fish.
I’m here all week, tip the wait staff!
what’s black and brown and looks good on a lawyer? A Doberman…