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.
Arsonist Tried To Represent Himself, Failed, and Sought Habeas Relief
Post number 5357
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/he-who-acts-his-own-lawyer-has-idiot-client-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-d4bwc, See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Karacson’s Arson for Profit Attempt Required Skill & Experience to Succeed
In Steve Ellis Karacson v. David Shaver, Warden, No. 25-1089, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit (May 20, 2026) Steve Karacson was convicted in Michigan state court of arson and insurance fraud after evidence showed he burned his own insured home. Investigators found multiple points of origin, gasoline odor, and evidence tying him to the scene, including cell-phone location data and a receipt showing he had purchased a gas can and gloves shortly before the fire.
FACTS
Karacson initially had appointed counsel, but his relationships with both appointed attorneys ...
Foolish to Repeatedly Disobey Court Orders
All That Remains For Trial Is Plaintiff’s Damages On Each Of These Claims And Establishing Proximate Causation Of Those Damages.
Post number 5348
See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus 5300 posts.
In Linh Wang v. Esurance Insurance Company, No. C24-0447-JCC, United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle (May 1, 2026) John C. Coughenour, United States District Judge, found that throughout this case, culminating with its briefing on Plaintiff’s renewed motion and that Defendant has subjected Plaintiff to unnecessary motion practice for clearly discoverable information and made dubious representations (including to the Court).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This case involves an underinsured/uninsured motorist insurance bad faith claim arising from a 2017 motor vehicle collision. The plaintiff, Linh Wang, alleges that Esurance Insurance ...
The Right to Negotiate with Insurer is Not an Assignment of Claims
Post number 5347
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ambiguous-contract-repair-assignment-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2xppc, see the full video at https://rumble.com/v79is1s-ambiguous-contract-to-repair-not-an-assignment.html and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Nebraska Requires an Actual Assignment to Allow Contractor to Sue Insurer
In Millard Gutter Company, a corporation doing business as Millard Roofing and Gutter v. Farmers Mutual Insurance Company of Nebraska, also known as Farmers Mutual Insurance, also known as Farmers Mutual, No. A-24-818, Court of Appeals of Nebraska (May 5, 2026) Millard sued Farmers as an assignee of Jane Anzalone who had hired Millard Gutter to repair the roof of her home and agreed to allow Millard Gutter to coordinate with her insurer, Farmers Mutual, concerning reimbursement for repairs authorized under her insurance policy.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In ...
Second Filing of Same Suit Precluded as Res Judicata
It Doesn’t Pay to Sue Twice
Post number 5379
Posted on June 24, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Susan Cheung & another v. Thomas B. Puschak & another, No. 24-P-1451, Appeals Court of Massachusetts (June 12, 2026) the plaintiffs, Susan Cheung and Christopher Cheung, filed an initial complaint against Dr. Thomas Puschak and Carol Puschak in December 2022. The complaint alleged that Dr. Puschak committed malpractice, sexually assaulted the plaintiffs, attempted to poison Christopher, and engaged in insurance fraud.
The Superior Court ordered the plaintiffs to provide a more definite statement, and when they failed to comply, the first action was involuntarily dismissed in March 2023. The dismissal was with prejudice, and the plaintiffs did not appeal.
About six months later, the plaintiffs filed a second complaint asserting the same allegations against the same defendants. A second judge entered summary judgment for the defendants on res judicata grounds.
Law
...
Failure to Plead Sufficient Facts to State a Facially Plausible Claim Defeats Suit
Post number 5378
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/court-applies-law-written-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-itwrc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5350 posts.
Screwed by Insurance Brokers Judge Allows Plaintiff to Continue some of His Suit
In Wilfredo Cruz, et al. v. Bay Point Insurance LLC, et al., Civil Action No. GLR-25-44, United States District Court, D. Maryland on June 10, 2026 dealt with a suit brought by Wilfredo Cruz who alleged that Bay Point Insurance LLC, Karl Smith, and David Small committed insurance fraud in connection with insurance policies brokered for Cruz’s trucking business, W&DC General Contractor, LLC.
Cruz claimed Defendants represented that they could procure workers’ compensation, commercial general liability, motor cargo, and physical damage coverage even though Bay Point Insurance and Small allegedly were not licensed to transact insurance in Virginia at the relevant time. After ...
Failure to Plead Sufficient Facts to State a Facially Plausible Claim Defeats Suit
Post number 5378
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/court-applies-law-written-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-itwrc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5350 posts.
Screwed by Insurance Brokers Judge Allows Plaintiff to Continue some of His Suit
In Wilfredo Cruz, et al. v. Bay Point Insurance LLC, et al., Civil Action No. GLR-25-44, United States District Court, D. Maryland on June 10, 2026 dealt with a suit brought by Wilfredo Cruz who alleged that Bay Point Insurance LLC, Karl Smith, and David Small committed insurance fraud in connection with insurance policies brokered for Cruz’s trucking business, W&DC General Contractor, LLC.
Cruz claimed Defendants represented that they could procure workers’ compensation, commercial general liability, motor cargo, and physical damage coverage even though Bay Point Insurance and Small allegedly were not licensed to transact insurance in Virginia at the relevant time. After ...
