Key Takeaways
- The Colorado Supreme Court ruled that employers can’t fire workers for exercising self-defense at work.
- Mary Ann Moreno was fired by Circle K after confronting a thief armed with knives, claiming she acted in self-defense.
- The court established that self-defense is a fundamental right in Colorado, not limited to off-duty hours.
- However, the court did not determine if Moreno’s actions constituted self-defense, leaving that to a jury.
- The ruling protects employees only when they lawfully use self-defense against unprovoked attacks at work.
Estimated reading time: 5 minutes
DENVER, CO — The Colorado Supreme Court ruled this week that employers cannot automatically fire a worker for defending themselves on the job. I see it as a solid win for the principle that your right to self-defense follows you to work.
The case began with Mary Ann Moreno, a 72-year-old clerk at a Circle K. In October 2020, a man named Tyler Wimmer came to her register carrying two hunting knives and told her to hand over cigarettes for free. Moreno, who was unarmed, refused. Wimmer then walked around the counter toward her with the knives, and a brief confrontation followed. He grabbed a pack of cigarettes, left the store, and was later arrested. He pleaded guilty to menacing with a deadly weapon.
What happened in those few seconds is the one thing no one agrees on, and the law turns on the difference. Self-defense in Colorado does not require a weapon or a thrown punch. It requires a reasonable belief that you are about to be unlawfully attacked, and a response that fits the threat. Moreno never used deadly force, so her conduct is measured by that lower standard.
In Moreno’s account, she threw her arms out on instinct to keep an armed man who was advancing on her from getting any closer. With knives in hand and Wimmer within reach, putting her hands up to block him is a defensive act. That is self-defense.
In Circle K’s account, the knife had already turned away from her when she stepped toward Wimmer, put herself between him and the cigarettes, and grabbed him by the shirt to pull him off the merchandise while saying she would call the police. No imminent threat to her, and the goal was the cigarettes. That is not self-defense. It is trying to stop a theft.
The same gesture, an arm extended, carries opposite legal meaning depending on who was advancing on whom. That is why this comes down to a jury watching the surveillance video.
Circle K fired Moreno, saying she violated its “Don’t Chase or Confront” policy. That policy tells employees not to confront, chase, or fight suspected shoplifters, and to retreat to a safe spot instead. Moreno sued, arguing she was terminated for exercising her right to defend herself.
The legal fight took an unusual path. Moreno’s wrongful termination suit was in federal court, but the federal judge asked Colorado’s Supreme Court to answer a threshold question of state law first: does Colorado recognize a public-policy exception to at-will employment when a worker is fired for acting in self-defense?
On June 15, 2026, the court answered yes. In a 5-2 decision written by Justice Maria Berkenkotter, the majority held that Colorado’s self-defense statute and the state constitution both establish self-defense as a fundamental public right, and that the right does not vanish when a person clocks in for a shift.
The court rooted its decision in section 18-1-704 of the Colorado Criminal Code and Article II, Section 3 of the state constitution, which counts defending one’s own life among the inalienable rights of every person. As the majority put it, the right to self-defense “has never been cabined by role or location.” An employee, the justices wrote, should never have to choose between their job and their safety.
Here is the part worth understanding clearly. The court did not rule that Moreno acted in self-defense. It said plainly that it was taking no position on whether she was defending herself or the cigarettes. All the justices decided was that the legal exception exists. Whether Moreno’s own conduct qualifies now goes back to the federal district court, where a jury will weigh the competing accounts. Circle K’s best argument there is that Moreno provoked the encounter, since an initial aggressor generally loses the right to claim self-defense.
More from USA Carry:
The ruling is also narrow by design. It protects an employee only when they lawfully use self-defense against an unprovoked attack at work. It does not give anyone cover to chase down or tackle a shoplifter, and it does not blur the line between protecting yourself and protecting merchandise.
Chief Justice Monica Márquez dissented, joined by Justice William Hood. She warned that the majority’s reasoning could sweep more broadly than the facts require and make it harder for employers to enforce de-escalation rules meant to keep workers out of harm’s way.
I land with the majority. The right to defend yourself against an imminent attack is a fundamental civil right, not a workplace perk an employer gets to revoke. A jury still has to decide what Moreno actually did that night. But the larger principle, that you do not forfeit the right to protect yourself the moment you put on a name tag, is the right call.
I will keep following the case as it returns to the district court and a jury weighs whether Moreno acted in self-defense and whether that is why Circle K let her go.
Read the full article here
