Posted on Sep 21, 2015
Can You Believe This? The Utah Supreme Court says you don’t have to take a bullet for your company.
5.07K
32
14
3
3
0
Sometimes a company policy has to be ignored. This is one of those situations.
SALT LAKE CITY — In a split ruling, the Utah Supreme Court sided with a group of Wal-Mart workers who were fired for exercising self-defense when confronting an armed shoplifter.
The case stems from an incident in January 2011, when six workers were fired after they fought with a shoplifter who pulled a gun on them inside the Layton Wal-Mart. The company had claimed the employees violated Wal-Mart’s policy of disengaging, withdrawing and alerting authorities.
During a hearing last year, Utah Supreme Court Justice Christine Durham bluntly asked if an employer should be able to fire somebody “for refusing to take a bullet for the company?”
http://fox13now.com/2015/09/18/the-utah-supreme-court-says-you-dont-have-to-take-a-bullet-for-your-company/
SALT LAKE CITY — In a split ruling, the Utah Supreme Court sided with a group of Wal-Mart workers who were fired for exercising self-defense when confronting an armed shoplifter.
The case stems from an incident in January 2011, when six workers were fired after they fought with a shoplifter who pulled a gun on them inside the Layton Wal-Mart. The company had claimed the employees violated Wal-Mart’s policy of disengaging, withdrawing and alerting authorities.
During a hearing last year, Utah Supreme Court Justice Christine Durham bluntly asked if an employer should be able to fire somebody “for refusing to take a bullet for the company?”
http://fox13now.com/2015/09/18/the-utah-supreme-court-says-you-dont-have-to-take-a-bullet-for-your-company/
Walmart
Policy
Supreme Court
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 8
6
6
0
Sounds like a good opinon by the judge. Amazing what common sense can accomplish.
(4)
(0)
4
4
0
It would have to depend on the situation. It seems like a mismanagement issue to me. If the policy is to disengage, withdraw, and alert authorities, it is for the sake of safety of employees. If the situation allowed for a struggle to overpower the gunman, hooray for the employees who went above and beyond to do that. That's not a fireable offense.
The Utah Supreme Court in my humble opinion is right on the money on this one.
The Utah Supreme Court in my humble opinion is right on the money on this one.
(4)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
Me too SSG (Join to see). It may have been a case of self defense since the crook had a weapon. If I thought I was going to be shot, I would do anything to prevent that from happening, rules or not.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
You don't have to take a bullet for your company. I was robbed in high school at the restaurant I worked at. I let them take everything. It is not worth dying over.
(3)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
That's why the companies have insurance, CSM Carl Cunningham. Let 'em have whatever they want.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
I don't know about you guys, but we were trained to protect and we we're trained to disarm as well. I have literally thrown unruly customers out of my restaurant before for being......disrespectful to my employee's. I can't imagine what I would do if we were being robbed. I'm usually packing anyway
(2)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
Cpl Clinton Britt, You can't think about what you would do with an armed crook. You have to have an instant reaction. I'm not telling you anything you don't already know, just saying.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
What, you are now allowed to defend yourself against an armed assailant rather than cower in fear and hope the perpetrator decides not to execute you and your coworkers? If this occurred in the Meat Dept. then this ruling should be called the Stand Your Ground Round Doctrine...
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Was money or product replaceable? I'm sure. What would have happened if someone got shot? I think in this particular case, with what little the article provides, Wal-Mart values the human life more than the commodity. (in reality, I think Wal-Mart doesn't want the long term care costs should someone get hurt) If I were shopping in the store and not involved with the take down and my wife or kids were shot.....all because some Wyatt Earps' thought that they could pull off a take down safely......
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
While I can appreciate the company's position, they should have taken into account the circumstances of the situation. The employees had no room to "disengage" from the individual, so I think their actions were entirely justified. And who's to say if he HAD been allowed to leave, that he wouldn't have shot up the store?
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google