Utah Supreme Court Addresses Wrongful Termination Claims Yet Again

In September, 2015 the Utah Supreme Court issued another opinion further clarifying the scope of Utah's judicially created wrongful termination in violation of a clear and substantial public policy claim. We last addressed this claim in August when the Court decided Pang v. International Document Services, 2015 UT 63, where the Court held that a former in-house counsel's complaint did not sufficiently plead a claim for relief for wrongful termination based upon Rule 1.13(b) of the Utah Rules of Professional Conduct - which requires in-house counsel to report suspected unlawful activity to its client - because the Rule did not constitute a clear and substantial public policy (but instead regulates the relationship between a lawyer and his client which the Court somehow found was not a sufficiently clear public interest).

In Ray v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2015 UT 83, the Utah Supreme Court answered a certified question from the United States District Court of Utah regarding the scope of Utah's judicially created wrongful termination claim.  Ray addressed whether the right of self-defense is a substantial public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine that provides the basis for a wrongful discharge action. In Ray the Court concluded that the policy favoring 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, but limited 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.

Ray involved two incidents at two Wal-Mart stores where a number of employees were fired after using force against armed shoplifters. The employees purportedly violated Wal-Mart's policy that required the employees to disengage and withdraw from apprehending shoplifters who have a weapon. In one situation, the shoplifter had a knife. In the other, the shoplifter had a gun.

Although the Court acknowledged that Wal-Mart's interest in regulating its workforce is important, it  concluded that there is a clear and substantial public policy in Utah favoring the right of self-defense for three reasons. First, the right of self-defense is enshrined in Utah statutes, the Utah Constitution, and our common law decisions. Second, a policy favoring the right protects human life and deters crime, conferring substantial benefits on the public. And third, the public policy supporting the right of self-defense outweighs an employer‘s countervailing interests in circumstances where an employee reasonably believes that force is necessary to defend against an imminent threat of serious bodily injury and the employee has no opportunity to withdraw.

If you have questions about Ray or Pang, or the scope and application of Utah's judicially created wrongful termination in violation of a clear and substantial public policy claim, please call Stavros Law at (801) 758-7604 and speak to one of our experienced Utah employment law attorneys.  You can also contact us online at www.utahtriallawyers.net.