Law column: Employees right of self-defense in the workplace

Several weeks ago, during an argument over bus fare, a student hit a female school bus driver in Davenport and injured her. This unfortunate incident raises several issues: Can an employee in Iowa be allowed to defend herself, and can an Iowa employer set workplace rules regarding the employee's right of self-defense?

The answers are yes.

Iowa recognizes the right of self-defense and additionally has a 'stand your ground” statute, in Iowa Code 704.1 (2015). Accordingly, an Iowa employee is legally permitted to use 'reasonable force” to defend him or herself to prevent injury or loss.

An Iowa employee also may legally use reasonable force, including deadly force - even if an alternative course of action is available if that alternative entails a risk to life or safety, or the life or safety of a third-party, or would require an employee to abandon or retreat from one's employment.

Iowa employers similarly must provide their employees with a safe work environment. Many employers, therefore, have written policies prohibiting employees from approaching an individual possessing a weapon and require employees to withdraw from violent situations.

Such 'non-escalation” policies are designed to improve workplace safety and also prevent employee injury. (Your insurance carrier may also frown on such conduct, as an employer may become liable if an employee is hurt on the job.)

As an alternative to confrontation, many employers wisely resort to alternatives such as off-duty police officers to provide extra security, panic buttons, automatic locking doors, pepper spray or other devices to deter attacks.

However, contrary to some policies, employees argue that they often are required to react immediately to a rapidly unfolding situation. There recently has been litigation whether an employee's right of self-defense overrides an employer's workplace rules. For example, in a Utah case, several Wal-Mart employees were fired for allegedly violating company rules prohibiting them from approaching a criminal suspect possessing a weapon.

The employees apparently confronted a suspected shoplifter who pulled a weapon. The employees disarmed the person, detained him and then Wal-Mart terminated their employment.

The employees sued, claiming their termination violated their public policy right of self-defense. While Utah, as with Iowa, is an at-will employment state, broadly allowing termination of employment, Utah (again like Iowa) recognizes a public policy exception to the employment at will doctrine.

The Utah employees claimed their termination violated Utah public policy and the Utah Supreme Court agreed. In a 4-1, decision issued Sept. 18, 2015, the court found that employees have a right to defend themselves.

'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,” the court ruled.

However, the court limited the exception to situations in which the employee reasonably believes that force is necessary to defend against an imminent threat of serious bodily harm and the employee cannot withdraw.

In 2001, the West Virginia Supreme Court similarly held that there was a public policy exception to employment at-will, holding that an employee at a 7-Eleven store was permitted to defend himself against lethal, imminent danger.

On the other hand, a Michigan court held that it was not against public policy for employer to terminate an employee for self-defense. In that case, an armed robber jumped a counter at a Michigan Walgreens store and pointed a gun at the pharmacist.

In response, the pharmacist pulled out his own gun and fired at the robber, driving him away and saving himself at all those around him. Walgreens fired the pharmacist for bringing a gun to work and violating its non-escalation policy.

While Michigan has a concealed weapon law, it explicitly states that an employer can prohibit an employee from carrying a concealed weapon in the course of employment. Accordingly, there is no such public policy in support of the employee's behavior.

In any event, companies legitimately are concerned about their customers' and employees' safety, and would not condone behavior that puts them at risk. However, courts now appear to be finding that the right of individuals to defend themselves may outweigh the employer's interest in maintaining a safe workplace.

To paraphrase the Utah Supreme Court justice from the Wal-Mart case, an employee should not be fired for refusing to take a bullet for the company. While no Iowa court has ruled on it yet, the right of self-defense could constitute a well-recognized and clearly defined public policy in Iowa and provide an exception to employment at-will.

' Wilford H. Stone is with Lynch Dallas Attorneys at Law.