Background
Mary Ann Moreno, a 72-year-old Circle K employee, was working a shift when Tyler Wimmer approached the register holding two hunting knives, demanded cigarettes, and walked around the counter toward her with the knives in hand. Moreno extended her arms to stop his advance. Wimmer grabbed a pack of cigarettes and fled; he was later arrested for armed robbery. Circle K terminated Moreno for violating its “Don’t Chase or Confront” policy, which prohibits employees from confronting, following, or fighting any customer suspected of shoplifting.
Moreno sued in Colorado state court, alleging wrongful discharge in violation of public policy because she was exercising her statutory and constitutional right to self-defense. Circle K removed the case to federal court and moved for summary judgment. The U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado granted the motion, concluding that neither Colorado’s self-defense statute (§ 18-1-704) nor the Colorado Constitution (Art. II, § 3) established a sufficiently clear, job-related right to support a public-policy exception to at-will employment. The Tenth Circuit reversed, finding unresolved factual questions, and on remand the district court denied summary judgment after finding genuine disputes of material fact. The district court then certified the controlling legal question to the Colorado Supreme Court.
The certified question asked whether Colorado law recognizes a public-policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine permitting a wrongful termination claim when the employee is fired for actions taken in self-defense. The Colorado Supreme Court accepted jurisdiction under C.A.R. 21.1.
The Court’s Holding
In a 5-2 decision authored by Justice Berkenkotter, the Colorado Supreme Court answered the certified question in the affirmative. Applying the four-part test from Martin Marietta Corp. v. Lorenz, 823 P.2d 100 (Colo. 1992), the court held that both § 18-1-704 and Article II, Section 3 of the Colorado Constitution establish a public policy in favor of self-defense that supports a wrongful-termination claim. The court found: (1) the statute and constitutional provision clearly express the right to self-defense through explicit text and an extensive body of case law defining its boundaries; (2) the right to self-defense is an inherently public right—an essential, inalienable right guaranteed to all Coloradans—rather than a merely individual or proprietary interest; and (3) the right is job-related because the need to defend oneself from an unprovoked attack can arise anywhere, including at work, and the right does not disappear when an employee enters the workplace.
The court emphasized that the exception it recognized is narrow in scope. It applies only to lawful self-defense exercised in response to an unprovoked attack at work, grounded in self-defense as an essential, inalienable right. The court expressly declined to resolve any remaining factual issues—whether Circle K’s policy actually barred self-defense (as opposed to shoplifter confrontations), whether Moreno in fact acted in lawful self-defense, or whether Circle K terminated her for that reason. Those questions were returned to the district court. Chief Justice Márquez, joined by Justice Hood, dissented.
Key Takeaways
- Colorado now recognizes a self-defense public-policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine; an employer may not lawfully terminate an employee solely for lawfully defending themselves against an unprovoked attack at work.
- The exception is grounded in both Colorado Revised Statutes § 18-1-704 and Article II, Section 3 of the Colorado Constitution, either of which independently satisfies the Martin Marietta test.
- The exception is expressly narrow: it covers only lawful self-defense in response to an unprovoked attack—it does not broadly restrict workplace no-confrontation or loss-prevention policies.
- The right to self-defense is “not left at the door” when an employee enters the workplace; inalienable constitutional rights follow the person into the employment context.
- The court decided only the legal question; whether Moreno’s specific conduct qualifies and whether Circle K’s motivation was retaliatory remains for the trier of fact on remand.
Why It Matters
This decision creates a new category of wrongful-termination exposure for Colorado employers. Workplace no-confrontation and loss-prevention policies—common in retail, hospitality, and other customer-facing industries—must now be drafted and applied with care. An employer that enforces such a policy against an employee who was responding to an unprovoked physical threat, rather than engaging in voluntary confrontation, may face a viable public-policy wrongful-discharge claim. The ruling does not invalidate “Don’t Chase or Confront” policies outright; it simply holds that those policies cannot constitutionally reach conduct that constitutes lawful self-defense.
More broadly, the decision extends a line of authority recognizing that inalienable constitutional rights do not dissolve at the workplace threshold. By analogizing self-defense to workers’ compensation, wage rights, and other long-established public-policy exceptions, the court signals that courts should assess the “public” nature of a right by its fundamental character—not merely by whether the statute expressly references employment. Employment counsel advising Colorado businesses on termination decisions should now include a self-defense analysis when the underlying incident involved any physical threat to the employee.