Wal-Mart suit: employees fired for resisting getting shot

[CitizensHaveRights]

http://fox13now.com/2014/09/03/should-you-take-a-bullet-for-your-company-utah-supreme-court-considers-fired-wal-mart-workers-case/

The five justices of the Utah Supreme Court peppered lawyers for both sides with questions, looking beyond the issue of the firing. They noted this could impact other companies in Utah.

“In this instance where it’s not safe to withdraw, does an employee’s right of self defense trump any employer policy?” asked Utah Supreme Court Chief Justice Matthew Durrant.

Justice Christine Durham was more blunt, asking Wal-Mart’s attorney if it was acceptable “that an employer can fire somebody for refusing to take a bullet for the company?”

This article explains the individual plaintiffs' situations, I think anything we'd call "justice" sides with the three who were attacked with a gun. The two who were attacked with a knife were probably following company policy, the one who shoved a co-worker's husband can be fired for all I care.
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/58369646-78/mart-wal-employees-fired.html.csp

[jgillmanjr]

They have a right to firehim for whatever reason they want.

That's not to say I support the reason, nor would I disagree with a publicity campaign about it...

[linux203]

They have a right to firehim for whatever reason they want.

That's not to say I support the reason, nor would I disagree with a publicity campaign about it...

Sort of.  If they give a reason for termination, it must be legal and non-discriminatory.  Smart employers in at-will states will not give the real reason, simply "It's not in the company's best interest for your continued employment here."

[jgillmanjr]

Sort of.  If they give a reason for termination, it must be legal and non-discriminatory.  Smart employers in at-will states will not give the real reason, simply "It's not in the company's best interest for your continued employment here."

Yeah, I speak merely from a moral perspective.

If anyone were to call me a legal positivist, they would be horribly mistaken.