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.
The Largest Residential Burglary of All Time
Post 5407
Fraud & the Fear of Bad Faith Suits
Posted on July 22, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gWQQEySW and at https://lnkd.in/gyhdK6wv
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
After ...
Chutzpah is not Enough
Post 5397
Posted on July 20, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the video and at https://lnkd.in/gNUs2XzT and at https://lnkd.in/g2MawyzX
Magistrate Issues a Search Warrant if there is a Fair Probability that Contraband or Evidence of a Crime will be Found in a Particular Place.
In United States Of America v. Frank Suess, et al., CRIMINAL No. 3:24-308, United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania (July 16, 2026) a federal grand jury indicted Frank Suess, Melissa Driscoll, and others in a 55-count health care fraud and anti-kickback prosecution arising from an alleged scheme involving medically unnecessary prescription “foot baths.”
As part of the investigation, the FBI obtained an August 19, 2022 warrant to search Driscoll’s Sterling Pharmacy Yahoo email account for emails from January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2020. Driscoll moved to suppress the resulting evidence, arguing that the warrant lacked probable cause, was overbroad, and rested on material misstatements and omissions.
LAW:
The ...
Fraud Shouldn’t Pay
Post 5396
See the video and at https://rumble.com/v7ctgmq-the-great-jewel-theft.html at https://youtu.be/aRbQ2sJfGwA
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the ¬¬¬Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
The Insured purchased, for the first time in his life, a policy of Personal Articles Floater Insurance (PAF) scheduling $125,000 worth of ladies jewelry. He advised the insurer that the jewelry was always kept in a class E safe at his residence. He also told the insurer that he was employed full time as the owner of a gasoline service station and that he had never been canceled or suffered a previous loss.
One month after the policy was ...
Specific Jurisdiction is Related to an Activity Conducted Within the Forum State.
Post 5408
Posted on July 23, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Company v. Changan Chu, No. 14-25-00965-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourteenth District (July 21, 2026) NJM issued an automobile insurance policy in New Jersey to Changan Chu while Chu was a New Jersey resident.
Chu was injured in an auto-pedestrian collision in Harris County, Texas, allegedly caused by an uninsured driver. Chu sued the driver and NJM, seeking a declaration that his UM/UIM coverage was in force and provided $300,000 in limits. NJM filed a special appearance supported by affidavit evidence showing it was a New Jersey corporation with its principal place of business in New Jersey, had no offices, agents, employees, advertising, registration, or insurance business in Texas, and did not insure any person, property, or risk located in Texas. Chu did not file evidence opposing the special appearance.
LAW
A Texas court may exercise ...
Victims of Fraud Should Always Fight Back Proactively
Post 5398
Posted on July 21, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Cross-Claim Against Fraudsters Successful
In Dual Diagnosis Treatment Center, Inc., et al. v. Health Net, Inc., et al., Health Net Life Insurance Company, B331260, California Court of Appeals, Second District, Third Division (July 16, 2026) a trial verdict in favor of Health Net and against Sovereign, a network of mental health and substance use disorder treatment centers, and Health Net, Inc., Health Net of California, Inc., Health Net Life Insurance Company, and Managed Health Network, Inc. (collectively, Health Net) was appealed to the California Court of Appeals.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Between 2014 and 2016, Sovereign submitted claims to Health Net for medical care provided to more than 400 patients. Health Net paid some claims but rejected many others. Sovereign, as the patients' assignee, sued Health Net for breach of contract, insurance bad faith, and breach of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA)....
The Only Solution to Fraud is to Take the Profit Out of the Crime
It Takes Courage to Fight the Fraudster
Post number 5395
Posted on July 16, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Vivian Maritza Triana Marin, Sebastian Arroyave Penagos, and Daniel Arroyave Penagos v. Marc J. Paynter and Transport Marc Paynter Inc., No. 23-CV-6498, United States District Court, E.D. New York (July 10, 2026) Plaintiffs sued Defendants in diversity after a rear-end collision on the Whitestone Expressway in Queens, New York. Plaintiffs were in a Subaru driven by Vivian Maritza Triana Marin, while Defendant Marc J. Paynter drove a Transport Marc Paynter Inc. tractor-trailer.
Facts:
Dashcam footage from Defendants’ vehicle showed Plaintiffs’ vehicle braking suddenly in the left lane despite an open roadway ahead. Marin could not identify a specific reason for braking, the passenger plaintiffs did not know why she braked, and a non-party witness testified that Plaintiffs’ vehicle stopped abruptly for no apparent reason.
The Accident occurred when ...
