Our Posts

Court Rules That Walgreens Worker Who Fired Hidden Hand gun At Armed Robbers Doesn’t Have Claim For Wrongful Discharge

Court Rules That Walgreens Worker Who Fired Hidden Hand gun At Armed Robbers Doesn’t Have Claim For Wrongful Discharge

The U.S. Court of Appeals for that Sixth Circuit held that the former Walgreens worker who had been discharged while he fired a hidden hand gun at armed robbers doesn’t have claim for wrongful discharge in breach of public policy.  The worker held a legitimate license to hold a hidden gun under Michigan law.  When armed robbers pointed a gun in the worker, he retrieved his gun and shot in the robbers multiple occasions.  Walgreens subsequently discharged the worker for violating its policy against escalating a potentially violent situation.  The worker sued Walgreens alleging that his termination violated his legal rights to self-defense, defend others, and also to have a hidden weapon.  A legal court held that although the 2nd Amendment towards the U.S. Metabolic rate and also the Michigan Metabolic rate limit some condition interference with the proper to take part in self-defense and bear arms, they don’t prevent interference using these legal rights by private actors.  Furthermore, Michigan’s hidden gun law particularly approved employers to stop employees from transporting a hidden gun throughout their employment.  The court’s decision is welcome news for employers worried about remarkable ability to enforce policies to limit the possession and employ of firearms at the office in line with condition law.

 

One thought on “Court Rules That Walgreens Worker Who Fired Hidden Hand gun At Armed Robbers Doesn’t Have Claim For Wrongful Discharge

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *