It's important to keep in mind that although the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, § 6 of the Michigan Constitution limit some state interference with an individual’s right to engage in self-defense and bear arms, they do not prevent interference with these rights by private actors.
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed that fact and emphasized the limited nature of the public policy exceptions to Michigan’s at-will employment doctrine.
A pharmacist held a Michigan license to carry a concealed weapon. On May 8, 2011, gun-wielding robbers entered the store where the pharmacist was working the overnight shift. After one of the masked robbers pointed a gun at the pharmacist, he drew his concealed weapon and fired it multiple times. Eight days later, he was terminated for violating his company’s non-escalation policy.
The pharmacist filed suit, alleging he was terminated in violation of Michigan public policy for “lawfully exercising his right of self-defense, the defense of others, and to carry a concealed weapon.” The trial court dismissed his case and the Sixth Circuit affirmed, finding the pharmacist’s assertion that seven sources of public policy supported his claim was without merit.
In particular, the Sixth Circuit rejected the pharmacist’s argument that the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, § 6 of the Michigan Constitution supported his public-policy claim, confirming that under Michigan law, constitutional provisions may not be the source of a claim for termination in violation of public policy against a private employer.
In addition, the Sixth Circuit also found the pharmacist’s argument that the Michigan Self-Defense Act supported his claim unpersuasive. According to the Sixth Circuit, although the laws cited related to self-defense, they do not “confer” a general right to engage in self-defense.
The Sixth Circuit analogized its rejection of the Self-Defense Act as a basis for a public-policy claim to its earlier decision in Casias v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., where it rejected the argument that the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act (“MMMA”) supported a public-policy claim. In that case, the Sixth Circuit held that the MMMA “does not impose restrictions on private employers,” but rather protects only against state action.
A member of the firm's Bloomfield Hills office, Courtney L. Nichols serves as Co-Leader of Plunkett Cooney's Labor and Employment Law Practice Group.
Ms. Nichols focuses her litigation practice in the area of employment law ...
Add a comment
SubscribeRSS Plunkett Cooney LinkedIn Page Plunkett Cooney Twitter Page Plunkett Cooney Facebook Page
- Employment Liability
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
- Human Resources
- Wage & Hour
- Title VII
- Labor Law
- Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA)
- Department of Labor (DOL)
- Employment Agreement
- Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
- National Labor Relations Act
- Employment Discrimination
- Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)
- Minimum Wage
- National Labor Relations Board
- Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA)
- Transgender Issues
- Whistleblower Protection Act
- Sick Leave
- Hostile Work Environment
- Class Actions
- Workplace Harassment
- Department of Education (DOE)
- Title IX
- Tax Law
- Medical Marijuana
- Right to Work
- Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)
- Union Organizing & Relations
- Lessons Learned – Part Three – The Oral Contract
- Lessons Learned – Part Two – Punitive Damages
- Lessons Learned Series - Part One - No-fault Attendance Policies
- DOL Gets Granular on Rounding of Employees’ Time
- Federal Appellate Court Finds Potential USERRA Violations
- Employers Must File EEO-1 Survey with Pay Data by Sept. 30
- Adopt and Amend? Supreme Court to Decide Fate of Paid Medical Leave, Improved Workforce Opportunity Acts
- New ADA Case Is Great For Employers
- Michigan Legislature Challenges its Own Lame Duck Amendments to Paid Sick Time, Minimum Wage Rate Laws
- Supreme Court Rules EEOC Charge not Jurisdictional Requirement for Bringing Civil Rights Claims in Federal Court