Colorado Supreme Court Considers Whether Self-Defense is an Exception to Colorado’s Employment At-Will Doctrine
Colorado Supreme Court Considers Whether Self-Defense is an Exception to Colorado’s Employment At-Will Doctrine
Brett Whitley, Associate
On October 21, 2025, the Supreme Court of Colorado heard oral arguments on a single question from the United States District Court for the District of Colorado (the “District Court”) in Moreno v. Circle K Stores, Inc.:[1] Does Colorado law recognize a public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine that allows an employee to bring a wrongful termination claim in the event the employee is terminated for actions taken in self-defense? If the Supreme Court answers, “yes,” Colorado employers will need to consider an employee’s right to self-defense when violence arises in the workplace when drafting its workplace policies.
Brief Background of Moreno v. Circle K
On October 4, 2020, during Moreno’s shift at Circle K, an armed robber entered Circle K holding two knives. The robber approached the cashier counter and asked for a pack of cigarettes. When Moreno presented the cigarettes to the robber, he asked that he have them for free and Moreno declined. Then, the robber moved behind the counter, approached Moreno and in response, Moreno grabbed the robber’s arm when he reached for the cigarettes. Moreno contends her touching of the robber was in self-defense, while Circle K contends her touching the robber was not in self-defense, in part, because the robber never verbally threatened her and that her actions violated Circle K’s “Confront & Chase Policy” that instructs employees to not confront or fight persons suspected of shoplifting. Circle K argues that it fired Moreno due to her failure to follow this policy on October 4, 2020.
In response to her termination, Moreno sued Circle K for wrongful termination, arguing that she was terminated for acting in self-defense against the robber and that her termination violated Colorado public policy. However, as Circle K argues, Colorado law does not recognize a self-defense public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine. Moreno counters by arguing that the District Court should recognize a public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine, especially considering Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1-704, which states:
a person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he may use a degree of force which he reasonably believes to be necessary for that purpose.
The District Court ultimately agreed with Circle K and granted its motion for summary judgment after declining to recognize this new type of public policy exception to Colorado’s at-will employment doctrine. However, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit vacated the District Court’s Order granting Circle K’s motion for summary judgment and remanded the case back to the Court so that the Court could consider three issues: (1) whether Moreno acted in self-defense; (2) whether Circle K fired Moreno for using self-defense; and (3) whether self-defense could support a wrongful-discharge claim under Colorado’s public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine.
The District Court determined that the answers to (1) and (2) should be decided by a jury and (3) should be decided by the Supreme Court of Colorado, due to the Supreme Court being in a better position to speak on state public policy. The Supreme Court of Colorado agreed to answer the following question (the “Question”) in May of 2025: Does Colorado law recognize a public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine that allows an employee to bring a wrongful termination claim in the event the employee is terminated for actions taken in self-defense?
Oral Argument Before the Supreme Court of Colorado
On October 21, 2025, Moreno and Circle K argued their respective positions on the Question before the Supreme Court. The Justices’ questioning during the oral arguments did not indicate that the Supreme Court is leaning one way or the other. For instance, Justice Carlos A. Samour Jr. asked, “It may be shoplifting, but if it’s a self-defense situation and you’re reasonably in danger of serious injury or death, why should the employer make that choice for the employee in advance?” But Justice Richard L. Gabriel stated, “It doesn’t strike me as irrational to say, ‘In this context, you can defend yourself. We can’t fire you if you’re truly under imminent threat. But if you can retreat, you have to. . . .'”
Employer Takeaways
Up until the Moreno case, employers could craft policies centered upon worker and customer safety without having to balance safety with an employee’s right to defend him/herself. However, if the Supreme Court recognizes a self-defense exception to the at-will employment doctrine in Moreno, employers may need to balance safety objectives with an employee’s right to defend him/herself.
Further, if the Supreme Court recognizes a self-defense exception, employers may still be left with questions, such as: who makes the decision if an employee is truly defending herself in situations or simply taking action because they can? what if the company policy required calling the police, and the employee did so, but the events escalated before the police arrived? should the employee be fired for taking action? Campbell Litigation will continue to monitor the Moreno case and is available for consultation regarding employer policies and procedures when violence in the workplace arises.
[1] Civil Action No. 22-cv-02327-NYW-STV.