A West Virginia court has ruled in favor of self-defense
The United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia presents, for resolution by this Court, the following certified question: ?Whether the right of self-defense is a 'substantial public policy' exception to the at-will employment doctrine, which provides the basis for a wrongful discharge action?? Following a review of the parties' arguments, the record presented for our consideration, and the pertinent authorities, we answer the certified question in the affirmative. In this regard, we find that the State of West Virginia recognizes a substantial public policy exception to the at will employment doctrine whereby an employee may defend him/herself against lethal imminent danger. However, an employer may rebut the presumption of a wrongful discharge based upon an employee's exercise of his/her right to self-defense by demonstrating that it based the termination upon a plausible and legitimate business reason.A West Virginia court has ruled that self-defense does not constitute a reason to fire an employee -- even an at will employee (meaning, one who can normally be fired without cause). The employee in question stopped an armed robbery with his bare hands. I'd call that heroism and promote him, rather than firing him, but that's just me. 7-11 seems to think differently. While I'm not a fan of their thinking, I'm reluctant to suggest that firing an at-will employee is an offense worthy of damages even when the firing is clearly not justified. That's an issue I'm still very uncertain about. Not because I don't think people have the right to self-defense, I just think that the employer may have the right to cease employing that person -- no matter how stupid I think it would be for them to do so. Still, even if the decision overreaches, it's a clear victory for our side. I'll have more to say on the decision once I've read through the whole thing, and thought about it a bit. UPDATE: After glancing through a little more of the decision, it becomes apparant that this is not a ruling on a case per se. It's a ruling on a question of law certified by the lower court, which requested guidance from the Court of Appeals. It's a rare, but not unknown, move when the law is not clear on an issue, and it can avoid a later reversal. Thus, what we have appears to be a ruling that firing someone for self defense can be illegal, but is not necessarily illegal in this case. The lower court will still need to hear and decide the case in light of the opinion from the Court of Appeals. UPDATE: There's some good analysis at Of Arms & the Law, the Volokh Conspiracy, and Stop the Bleating!. UPDATE: You may also be interested in Property rights vs self-defense rights which covers similar issues. UPDATE: A commenter nitpicked the headline (Virginia rather than West Virginia), so I corrected it. The body had the correct usage. |
Check the groups below and enter your email address to receive updates by email:
The trackback URL for this entry is: http://triggerfinger.org/weblog/servlet/trackback/6506
texas hold em sony k750 free
Hanley Rastus?diminution.deliverers free texas hold em no downloads http://www.radcraft.com/texas-hold-em.html
THE NEXUS BETWEEN SELF-DEFENSE AND OTHER LIBERTIES
Regular readers know I'm a strong proponent of the right of self-defense.
No comments have been posted so far.