Court of Appeals Holds That Self-Defense Is Not An Exception From Employment At Will

Under Kentucky law, absent a contract to the contrary, the employer/employee relationship is "at will"; either party may terminate the agreement any time. As characterized by one court, the relationship may be terminated "for a good cause, for no cause, or for a cause that some might view as morally indefensible." Wymer v. J. H. Properties, Inc., 50 S.W.3d 195, 198 (Ky. 2001). There are, however, a few narrow exceptions to this rule, typically to the effect that an employee may not be terminated for engaging in certain protected activities such as filing a claim for worker's compensation or engaging in union organizing activities.

In this case, the Court of Appeals considered, and rejected, the suggestion that an employee's exercise of the admitted right of self-defense does not constitute an exception to the rule of employment at will. Smith v Norton Healthcare, Inc., No. 2014-CA-000352-MR (Ky. App. Sept. 11, 2015).

Smith was an employee of Norton Healthcare where he worked as an environmental services supervisor. On May 23, 2012, when dropped off to work near the Norton facility, he was attacked by a hotdog vendor who both insulted and struck him on the face. As reported by the Court of Appeals, "After Smith took up a defensive posture, he became entangled with the vendor but never hit him. Norton security officers broke up the altercation and reported the incident to the Norton." A week later, on May 30, Norton terminated Smith, citing a violation of its...