Colorado Supreme Court Recognizes Self-Defense Exception to At-Will Employment 

On June 15, 2026, the Colorado Supreme Court issued a significant 5–2 decision in Moreno v. Circle K Stores, Inc., 2026 CO 46. Applying the state’s narrow public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine, the Court held that an employer may not terminate an at-will employee for engaging in lawful self-defense in response to an unprovoked workplace attack. 

The decision requires employers to re-evaluate zero-tolerance or de-escalation workplace policies that could conflict with employees’ legally protected right to defend themselves. Bottom line: Colorado employers can no longer rely on blanket no-confrontation policies to justify termination where an employee’s conduct constitutes lawful self-defense.

Majority Holding

The underlying case arises from an incident involving Moreno, a 72-year-old Circle K clerk. While working, Moreno encountered an individual who brandished hunting knives and demanded free cigarettes. After Moreno refused, the individual moved behind the counter toward her, prompting a physical confrontation. Neither party was injured, and the parties later presented differing accounts of the encounter—none of which were resolved given the case’s procedural posture on appeal.

Circle K terminated Moreno for violating its “Don’t Chase or Confront” policy, which prohibits employees from confronting suspected shoplifters. Moreno subsequently filed a wrongful termination lawsuit against Circle K under Colorado’s public policy exception to at-will employment. After procedural disputes, a federal district court certified to the Colorado Supreme Court whether termination for lawful self-defense can support such a claim. 

The Court analyzed the claim under the Martin Marietta test (Martin Marietta Corp. v. Lorenz, 823 P.2d 100 (Colo. 1992)), which allows a wrongful discharge claim where: 

1. The employer directed the employee to perform an illegal act or prohibited the performance of a public duty; 
2. The employer’s directive violates a clearly expressed public policy related to public health, safety, or welfare; 
3. The employee was terminated for refusing to comply; and 
4. The employer knew the employee’s refusal was based on a reasonable belief of illegality or violation of rights. 

Focusing primarily on the second prong, the Court found that Colorado’s self-defense statute, C.R.S. § 18-1-704, and related constitutional principles reflect a clear and substantial public policy. Rejecting the employer’s argument that self-defense is purely personal, the Court reasoned that preserving life and deterring violent crime serve broader societal interests. 

The Court further concluded that the right to self-defense is sufficiently “job-related,” noting that workplace violence can occur in any setting. Accordingly, the Court held that an employer may not lawfully terminate an employee for properly exercising the legally protected right to self-defense in response to an unprovoked workplace attack. 

The Court emphasized that this exception is narrow: it applies only where the employee’s response is lawful and arises from an unprovoked workplace attack. Employers remain free to enforce reasonable workplace conduct policies. 

Dissent and Open Questions

The dissent, authored by Chief Justice Márquez, highlights the broader implications of the Court’s reasoning. Of particular importance, the dissent asserts that the majority misapplies the Martin Marietta framework by treating self-defense as a “job-related” right merely because it occurs at work. Prior cases, the dissent notes, involve duties intrinsic to employment, unlike self-defense, which is situational and personal. The dissent also challenges the majority’s characterization of self-defense as a public right, emphasizing that constitutional protections typically constrain government—not private employers—and primarily shield individuals from criminal liability. 

Looking ahead, the dissent raises several unresolved questions: 

• Does the exception extend to defense of others? 
• Does it incorporate Colorado’s no-duty-to-retreat doctrine? 
• Does it apply to defense of property? 
• Could other constitutional rights now limit private employment decisions? 

In sum, the dissent warns that the decision may restrict employers’ ability to enforce de-escalation policies, potentially increasing workplace risk and litigation exposure. 

Key Takeaways for Employers

In light of this decision, Colorado employers should consider the following next steps: 

1. Review Workplace Violence and De-Escalation Policies. Revisit “no confrontation” or “zero-tolerance” policies to ensure they do not categorically prohibit lawful self-defense in situations involving immediate and unprovoked threats. Policies should clearly distinguish between aggressive conduct and defensive responses, as well as between lawful and excessive force.
2. Train Managers and HR Personnel. Provide guidance on implementing these updated policies, evaluating self-defense claims, and ensuring proper documentation is created for all incidents involving threats of imminent harm. 
3. Monitor Legal Developments. New wrongful termination claims will likely be used to test this decision. As such, future cases and potential legislation may refine or expand this exception.  

If you have questions about the implications of Moreno v. Circle K Stores, Inc., 2026 CO 46, please contact Sarah Andrzejczak and Ashley Stephens of Buchalter’s Denver office.

This communication is not intended to create or constitute, nor does it create or constitute, an attorney-client or any other legal relationship. No statement in this communication constitutes legal advice nor should any communication herein be construed, relied upon, or interpreted as legal advice. This communication is for general information purposes only regarding recent legal developments of interest, and is not a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter. No reader should act or refrain from acting on the basis of any information included herein without seeking appropriate legal advice on the particular facts and circumstances affecting that reader. For more information, visit www.buchalter.com.