The Right to Self-Defense is not Given Up by Employment
Colorado Employer Cannot Punish Employee for Exercising Right of Self Defense
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gmbSG-Nq and at https://zalma.com/blog, #insurancebooks, #insurance books, #amazon.
Post number 5380
In Mary Ann Moreno v. Circle K Stores, Inc., 2026 CO 46, No. 25SA134, Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc (June 15, 2026) Moreno, a seventy-two-year-old Circle K employee, was working when an armed robber approached the register with hunting knives, demanded cigarettes for free, and moved behind the counter toward her.
Moreno told him not to come behind the counter and extended her arms, which she characterized as an instinctive act of self-defense. The robber left with cigarettes and was later arrested for armed robbery. Circle K terminated Moreno for violating its “Don’t Chase or Confront” policy, and Moreno sued for wrongful discharge in violation of Colorado public policy.
The District court certified a question that only asked the Supreme Court to answer if an exception exists. Instead, the Supreme Court answered only the certified question in the affirmative and returned the case to the district court for further proceedings.
Law:
Colorado recognizes a public-policy exception to at-will employment when an employee is terminated for refusing illegal conduct, performing a public duty, or exercising an important job-related right or privilege. The public policy must be clearly expressed, sufficiently public, and related to the employee’s role as a worker. The Supreme Court considered whether Colorado’s statutory self-defense provision which recognizes the right to defend one’s life — satisfy that standard.
Discussion/Analysis:
The Colorado Supreme Court held that both the statute and constitutional provision clearly express a public policy favoring lawful self-defense.
The Supreme Court reasoned that section 18-1-704 defines when and how a person may use reasonable force, giving employees and employers notice of the right’s boundaries.
The court further concluded that self-defense is a public right because it protects personal safety and human life, not merely a private proprietary interest.
Finally, the court found the right sufficiently job-related because an unprovoked attack may occur at work; employees do not surrender the right to defend themselves by entering the workplace. The majority emphasized that the exception is narrow and applies only when an employee lawfully exercises self-defense in response to an unprovoked workplace attack.
Conclusion:
The court answered the certified question in the affirmative.
While the Supreme Court concluded that this is a right granted to all people that is not left at the door simply because a person enters the workplace, it emphasized that the scope of the exception is narrow. It is limited, importantly, to self-defense as an essential, inalienable right. Critically, the exception applies only when an employee lawfully exercises the right in response to an unprovoked attack at work.
Colorado law, therefore, recognizes a narrow public-policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine when an employee is terminated for lawfully exercising the right of self-defense in response to an unprovoked attack at work. The case was returned to the federal district court for further proceedings on the disputed factual issues.
The employment relationship should not be used to strip workers of the ordinary legal privileges every person possesses.
The right to self-defense has never been cabined by role or location.
The right to self-defense is job-related insofar as the need to lawfully defend oneself from an unprovoked attack can occur at work. Thus, even though the right to self-defense—constitutional and statutory — does not explicitly mention workers, it is nonetheless a right guaranteed to workers.
Under the law, it is an essential, inalienable right guaranteed to everyone, including people at work. It is not a right that is left at the door when a person enters the workplace.
ZALMA OPINION
Ms. Moreno, a brave 72-Year-Old employee of Circle K had the right to defend her life against a knife wielding thief and could not be dismissed by her employer for working to survive the assault by the defending her life. The inalienable right guaranteed to everyone, including people at work, protected Ms. Moreno from being fired by her employer.
(c) 2026 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://gbarryzalma.substack.com/subscribe
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://Cwww.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the InsuranceClaims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.
Insurance Expert May Not Testify to Speculative and Contains Unsupported Conclusions.
Posted on September 18, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fmifw-expert-may-only-testify-to-what-experience-supports.html
In Michele A. Over, and The Estate Of Paul R. Over v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, and State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, Civil Action No. 23-cv-02243-PAB-STV, United States District Court, D. Colorado (September 14, 2026) Michele and Paul Over sued State Farm Fire and State Farm Auto over hail-damage and stolen-vehicle claims.
The operative dispute concerned State Farm Auto’s motion to exclude or limit opinions from plaintiffs’ insurance-industry expert, Aaron Castillo. Castillo.
Law
The proponent of expert testimony must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that an expert is qualified and that the opinions are helpful, sufficiently grounded, and reliably derived and applied. Experience-based opinions must explain how the...
150 Months in Prison for Tax Fraud
Post 4846
Posted on September 17, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g8rh3JBX and https://lnkd.in/gmkdy-9C, In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
Thomas Addaquay controlled United Consolidated Accounting and Business Services (UC), nominally a check-cashing business.
The government proved a three-stage tax-refund scheme that converted the resulting refund checks into usable funds through ...
Major Fraud Perpetrator Asserts Fifth Amendment Privilege to Avoid Prosecution
Post 5489
Posted on September 14, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Fraudster Refuses to Answer Questions About His Alleged Fraud
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr and at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr
In Great American Insurance Co. v. Gemstone Property Management, LLC, et al., No. 23-cv-9100 (LJL), United States District Court, S.D. New York (September 8, 2026) Great American Insurance Company alleged that it was defrauded through a scheme in which Subin Associates, LLP recruited individuals to stage construction-site injuries, arranged unnecessary medical treatment and litigation funding, and pursued fraudulent personal-injury claims.
Luis Manuel Garcia Salcedo, resulted in a $6 million settlement. Non-party Jose Hernandez allegedly worked as an assistant manager at Subin, operated Hernandez Associates, and owned litigation-funding companies that shared office space with Subin and provided services to its clients.
After Great American ...
Employee Report of Fraud Results in Damages Suit After Qui Tam Suit Settled
No Statutory Hearing Right Arose Because No Dental Commission Complaint License Suspension, Revocation, Or Sanction Occurred.
Post 4855
Posted on October 2, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Abbas Mohammadi et al. v. William M. Tong et al., No. AC 47598, Court of Appeals of Connecticut (September 29, 2026) Abbas Mohammadi owned and operated Columbia Dental, P.C., which provided dental services through multiple Connecticut offices; Columbia Oral Maxillofacial Imaging, LLC served as the billing entity.
From April 2012 to February 27, 2013, Columbia Dental employed Brittany Ames Mahoney as a dental assistant. During her employment, Mahoney claimed to have discovered certain billing irregularities, including, but not limited to, false and fraudulent reimbursement claims submitted to the Department of Social Services for services rendered to Medicaid beneficiaries. Mahoney filed a complaint and an affidavit in the United States District Court for the District of...
Another Anniversary for Barry Zalma, Inc
Posted on October 1, 2026 by Barry Zalma
From October 1, 1979 – 2026
Post 4854
Read the full issue of ZIFL at https://zalma.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/ZIFL-10-01-2026.pdf Forty seven years ago today I left the world of the employed and became an entrepreneur by opening my own law firm. The law practice was incorporated shortly thereafter as Barry Zalma, Inc.
When I opened for business on October 1, 1979, I had no clients and no certainty that I would have any in the future. I had borrowed money from the bank to carry me through the first six months and was concerned about my ability to pay the loan with my third child about to be born.
Much to my surprise and pleasure, on October 1, 1979, at 8:10 a.m., the best claims handler in the London market, Alan Warboys, called from London and provided me with my first case as an independent lawyer to represent Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London. He, and the Lloyd’s Underwriters he represented, showed faith in me as a lawyer and insurance expert. Alan is now, although ...
Defendants Successfully Moved for Summary Judgment
Post 4854
Posted on September 30, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Jeffrey Wayne Phillips v. Creative Website Studios, et al., No. 5:23-CV-568-BO-BM, United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Western Division (September 28, 2026) the Court needed to rule on the order and memorandum and recommendation (“M&R”) of the Magistrate.
Jeffrey Wayne Phillips had contracted with Creative Website Studios and SR Telecommunications for website and hosting services. He alleged that defendants repeatedly billed him for hosting periods he had already paid for and later took down his website. Phillips claimed the outage prevented him from bidding on U.S. government security contracts and sought roughly $300 million in consequential damages.
LAW
Under North Carolina law, fraud requires a false material representation or concealment, intent and effect of deception, resulting damage, and reasonable reliance. Obtaining property by false pretenses similarly requires an ...
