Mary Ann Moreno v. Circle K. Stores

Denver, Colorado employment law lawyer represented the Plaintiff who sued on a wrongful termination theory.



For many years, Mary Ann Moreno worked as a cashier for Circle K Stores, Inc. In 2020, she had the misfortune of having a customer in possession of a knife enter the store and demand free cigarettes. After she declined to provide them, the man went behind the counter and helped himself. Circle K managers later reviewed video-audio recordings taken by the store cameras and determined that Moreno's response to the shoplifter had violated its "Confront & Chase” policy. For that alleged violation, Circle K fired Moreno.



Moreno sued, alleging that Circle K had wrongfully discharged her for acting in self-defense, despite her having a right to self-defense under the Colorado Constitution, its statutes, and the common law. Moving for summary judgment, Circle K argued that Moreno was dischargeable as an at-will employee. It also raised two preliminary—and potentially dispositive—issues: namely, that Moreno had failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact either on (1) whether her actions amounted to self-defense or (2) if they did, whether Circle K fired her for using self-defense.



The district court did not address these two potentially dispositive grounds, instead choosing to decide the case on a difficult legal issue of first impression under Colorado law—whether Colorado would recognize a public-policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine for employees whose conduct had been self-defense. Having taken that route, the district court ultimately concluded that Colorado would not as a matter of public policy recognize a self-defense exception to the state's at-will employment doctrine. It granted Circle K summary judgment solely on that basis.



During Moreno's employment at Circle K, the company had a "Confront & Chase” policy, which instructed employees, in part, not to "confront follow, pursue, track, chase, fight or follow [inside and/or outside] any person[s] suspected of shoplifting products and/or cash from the site, beer runs or any other confrontational situation.” App. vol. II, at 316. As for the question whether Moreno raised a genuine issue of material fact about her conduct being self-defense, both parties point us to the store's video-audio recording, which captured the minute-long encounter between Moreno and the shoplifter. So that a reader has perspective on our ruling, we recount what we see and think we hear, all subject to contrary fact-finding by the district court on remand.

We vacate the district court’s summary judgment order and remand for reconsideration consistent with this order.