A Bit Too Far: Employee’s Alleged Self-Defense Fails To Sway NH Justices On His Wrongful Discharge Claim

by Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.
Contact

Could an employee be fired by his employer for actions he claimed were done in self-defense?  In Leeds v. BAE Systems, No. 2012-599 (November 5, 2013), the New Hampshire Supreme Court found that he could where the employee’s actions went beyond what was reasonably necessary to potentially defend himself.

Lawrence Leeds, a former quality control inspector for BAE Systems in Hudson, New Hampshire, was driving to work in April 2009 when he passed a fellow motorist as the roads the two were driving on merged into one lane.  The other driver, visibly irate, proceeded to tailgate Leeds all the way to the BAE Systems parking lot even though she was not a BAE Systems employee.  After parking her car perpendicular to Leeds’s vehicle and between him and the BAE Systems entrance, the driver stuck her cell phone out of her driver’s side window in order, she later claimed, to take a picture of Leeds’s license plate.  Leeds, however, mistook the cell phone for a weapon and swatted the device out of the driver’s hand, causing some of it to break.  Leeds and the other driver then engaged in a 30 second exchange of obscenities and threats, after which Leeds was able to get around the other driver’s vehicle and into the BAE Systems facility.

After investigating the incident, BAE Systems discharged Leeds for using “abusive or threatening language” against an individual on the company’s premises.  In reaching its decision to fire Leeds, BAE Systems took account of Leeds’s prior conduct that occurred only three months before the April incident during which Leeds had used obscenities and pointed his finger at a fellow employee who he believed was underperforming.  BAE Systems issued Leeds a written warning after that incident.

Leeds contested his firing and eventually filed suit against BAE Systems for wrongful discharge. He alleged that he acted in self-defense in the parking lot and that New Hampshire public policy encourages such actions.  In New Hampshire, as in many other states, an employee can sue his or her former employer for wrongful discharge if the firing was motivated by bad faith or retaliation for engaging in an activity encouraged by public policy.  In the past, New Hampshire employees have asserted successful wrongful discharge claims after being fired for refusing to lie for their employers or for protecting their fellow employees.

After losing on summary judgment twice in the trial court, Leeds brought his case to the New Hampshire Supreme Court.  Leeds relied on RSA 627:4 of the New Hampshire criminal code, which provides that self-defense can serve as a justification for actions that would otherwise be criminal.  He urged the Court to rule that New Hampshire public policy encourages employees to act in self-defense and that it was therefore unlawful for BAE Systems to fire him for having done so.

The Court, however, disagreed that Leeds’s actions were justified by self-defense.  Though Leeds’s swatting of the cell phone may have been justified if he had reasonably believed that it was a weapon, the Court found that Leeds had no excuse for engaging in a heated exchange with the other motorist after swatting the cell phone away from her.  Particularly in light of Leeds’s previous written warning for the same sort of conduct, the Court found that BAE Systems had justifiable grounds to terminate his employment.

Because it ruled that Leeds did not act in complete self-defense, the Court left for another day the question of whether, under different circumstances, an employee acting in self-defense would be protected from termination on public policy grounds.  At a time when concern over workplace violence is at an all-time high, the Leeds decision suggests that there could be limits to an employer’s zero tolerance policy toward violence in the workplace.  If, for example, all that Leeds had done to get fired was swat the angry motorist’s phone, the Court may have concluded that his actions were justified by New Hampshire’s public policy in favor of self-defense.  It then would have been left to a jury to determine whether it was acceptable for BAE Systems to punish him for conduct that in almost any other circumstance would have been unacceptable and potentially dangerous.

Todd M. Torres is an associate in the Boston office of Ogletree Deakins.

 
- See more at: http://blog.ogletreedeakins.com/a-bit-too-far-employees-alleged-self-defense-fails-to-sway-nh-justices-on-his-wrongful-discharge-claim/#sthash.diKeV6kA.dpuf

Could an employee be fired by his employer for actions he claimed were done in self-defense?  In Leeds v. BAE Systems, No. 2012-599 (November 5, 2013), the New Hampshire Supreme Court found that he could where the employee’s actions went beyond what was reasonably necessary to potentially defend himself.

Lawrence Leeds, a former quality control inspector for BAE Systems in Hudson, New Hampshire, was driving to work in April 2009 when he passed a fellow motorist as the roads the two were driving on merged into one lane.  The other driver, visibly irate, proceeded to tailgate Leeds all the way to the BAE Systems parking lot even though she was not a BAE Systems employee.  After parking her car perpendicular to Leeds’s vehicle and between him and the BAE Systems entrance, the driver stuck her cell phone out of her driver’s side window in order, she later claimed, to take a picture of Leeds’s license plate.  Leeds, however, mistook the cell phone for a weapon and swatted the device out of the driver’s hand, causing some of it to break.  Leeds and the other driver then engaged in a 30 second exchange of obscenities and threats, after which Leeds was able to get around the other driver’s vehicle and into the BAE Systems facility.

After investigating the incident, BAE Systems discharged Leeds for using “abusive or threatening language” against an individual on the company’s premises.  In reaching its decision to fire Leeds, BAE Systems took account of Leeds’s prior conduct that occurred only three months before the April incident during which Leeds had used obscenities and pointed his finger at a fellow employee who he believed was underperforming.  BAE Systems issued Leeds a written warning after that incident.

Leeds contested his firing and eventually filed suit against BAE Systems for wrongful discharge. He alleged that he acted in self-defense in the parking lot and that New Hampshire public policy encourages such actions.  In New Hampshire, as in many other states, an employee can sue his or her former employer for wrongful discharge if the firing was motivated by bad faith or retaliation for engaging in an activity encouraged by public policy.  In the past, New Hampshire employees have asserted successful wrongful discharge claims after being fired for refusing to lie for their employers or for protecting their fellow employees.

After losing on summary judgment twice in the trial court, Leeds brought his case to the New Hampshire Supreme Court.  Leeds relied on RSA 627:4 of the New Hampshire criminal code, which provides that self-defense can serve as a justification for actions that would otherwise be criminal.  He urged the Court to rule that New Hampshire public policy encourages employees to act in self-defense and that it was therefore unlawful for BAE Systems to fire him for having done so.

The Court, however, disagreed that Leeds’s actions were justified by self-defense.  Though Leeds’s swatting of the cell phone may have been justified if he had reasonably believed that it was a weapon, the Court found that Leeds had no excuse for engaging in a heated exchange with the other motorist after swatting the cell phone away from her.  Particularly in light of Leeds’s previous written warning for the same sort of conduct, the Court found that BAE Systems had justifiable grounds to terminate his employment.

Because it ruled that Leeds did not act in complete self-defense, the Court left for another day the question of whether, under different circumstances, an employee acting in self-defense would be protected from termination on public policy grounds.  At a time when concern over workplace violence is at an all-time high, the Leeds decision suggests that there could be limits to an employer’s zero tolerance policy toward violence in the workplace.  If, for example, all that Leeds had done to get fired was swat the angry motorist’s phone, the Court may have concluded that his actions were justified by New Hampshire’s public policy in favor of self-defense.  It then would have been left to a jury to determine whether it was acceptable for BAE Systems to punish him for conduct that in almost any other circumstance would have been unacceptable and potentially dangerous.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.
Contact
more
less

Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.
Feedback? Tell us what you think of the new jdsupra.com!