Employer May Terminate An At-Will Employee For Exercising His Right To Self-Defense Where Retreat Is Possible

Hector Escalante began working as a printer at Wilson's Art Studio in 1996. During his employment, Escalante was a good worker, did not create any trouble, and was viewed by management as a "relatively passive personality." In February of 1999, Escalante was physically attacked by another employee, Ion Stanei, without provocation. It was not the first time Stanei had attacked a coworker. Approximately eight years earlier, Stanei had attacked another employee, Francis Vu, inflicting injuries serious enough to require stitches. Both Stanei and Vu continued working for Wilson's after that incident.

According to Escalante, the incident at issue in this case began when Stanei approached Escalante and another worker and started screaming at them. Stanei then grabbed a piece of wood and began swinging it at Escalante, possibly hitting him in the arm. Stanei then took up either a hammer or a box of screws and hit Escalante with it. At that point, Escalante fled the room, but Stanei began following him. When Escalante was about 30 to 40 feet away from Stanei, Stanei threw a box of screws, hitting Escalante in the back. At that point, Escalante stopped his flight, turned around and saw Stanei holding a large metal cap. Escalante then rushed toward Stanei, grabbing him in a bear hug in an attempt to restrain him. Stanei immediately struck Escalante in the head with the cap, splitting the skin on his scull and causing substantial bleeding. It is undisputed that Escalante did not hit Stanei.

Nonetheless, Goetsch decided to fire Escalante after hearing his side of the story, "because he did not continue to leave the scene.... He made a decision to go back. And that is not a decision I agreed with."

Escalante brought suit against Wilson's, alleging wrongful termination in violation of public policy. The jury found for Escalante, and Wilson's appealed. The primary issue raised on appeal is whether Escalante's exercise of his right of self-defense is the type of "public" interest that would support a claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy. The Court of Appeal of California concluded that it is not, and reversed:

An employer's right to terminate an "at-will" employment relationship is largely unfettered. For the most part, the decision can be both arbitrary and unwise--as it may have been in this case--without being actionable. The courts have limited an employer's right of termination only to the extent its exercise is based upon considerations antithetical to societal interests, such as unlawful discrimination or an employee's refusal to engage in wrongful or criminal conduct. This appeal raises the question of whether an employer can terminate an at-will employee for exercising his constitutionally-guaranteed right to self-defense.

Wilson's Art Studio appeals from a judgment in favor of Hector Escalante for wrongful termination in violation of public policy. The jury found that Escalante's employment was terminated because he chose to engage in self-defense rather than continue his initial retreat from a coworker's physical attack. While we sympathize with Escalante and find his decision understandable, we cannot say the employer's policy against employee fighting, even in self-defense if retreat is possible, violates any public policy. It cannot, therefore, be the basis of a wrongful termination claim.

Escalante v. Wilson's Art Studio

Read the case