Regular readers know I'm a strong proponent of the right of self-defense. But I'm also a strong proponent of liberty of contract, which is implicated in the at-will employment doctrine. What's why this case, linked to by Dave Kopel on the Volokh Conspiracy today, gives me slightly mixed feelings. (Let me point out that the case is not new; it was decided during the fall, 2001 term.)
we hold that when an at will employee has been discharged from his/her employment based upon his/her exercise of self-defense in response to lethal imminent danger, such right of self-defense constitutes a substantial public policy exception to the at will employment doctrine and will sustain a cause of action for wrongful discharge. Consistent with our prior precedent, we hold further that an employer may rebut an employee's prima facie case of wrongful discharge resulting from the employee's use of self-defense in response to lethal imminent danger by demonstrating that it had a plausible and legitimate business reason to justify the discharge.
If courts begin to recognize the right of self-defense as a fundamental right, I think it'll be that much harder for them to reject a meaningful right to keep and bear arms; the two are closely linked. And I think they're in greater danger these days than the at-will employment doctrine. Thus, all-in-all, I think Feliciano does more good than harm. It gives me pause, though.
UPDATE: That other Matt, at TriggerFinger, seems to share my mixed feelings. He says, vis-a-vis Feliciano:
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.
Right. In an update, he goes on to say:
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.
On a nitpicky note, the cerfified question was actually from a federal district court to the West Virginia Supreme Court, between which there is no higher-lower relationship, technically speaking. That said, the Other Matt's sort of right about the holding. The West Virginia Supreme Court held that:
we hold that when an at will employee has been discharged from his/her employment based upon his/her exercise of self-defense in response to lethal imminent danger, such right of self-defense constitutes a substantial public policy exception to the at will employment doctrine and will sustain a cause of action for wrongful discharge. (See footnote 10) Consistent with our prior precedent, (See footnote 11) we hold further that an employer may rebut an employee's prima facie case of wrongful discharge resulting from the employee's use of self-defense in response to lethal imminent danger by demonstrating that it had a plausible and legitimate business reason to justify the discharge.
This does narrow the holding, in a technical sense. But in a practical sense, rebutting the presumption likely will require the defendant-employer to go to trial, and rack up the extensive attorneys' fees involved in a jury trial, all for the chance of losing anyway. I expect that most employers, in most cases, won't want to bear that much risk and expense. Therefore I think the case strongly vindicates the right of self-defense even despite its theoretical limitations.
Posted by Matt Rustler at June 12, 2005 10:51 PM