Colorado Supreme Court Expands Public-Policy Exception to At-Will Employment

The Colorado Supreme Court has recognized—for the first time—a public-policy exception to at-will employment based on an employee’s lawful exercise of self-defense.

The decision, issued June 15, 2026, in Moreno v. Circle K Stores, Inc., answers a certified question from the U. S. District Court of Colorado that may reshape how employers draft and enforce workplace safety policies and expands potential wrongful termination claims in Colorado.  It further evidences the long, steady decline of the at-will employment doctrine in Colorado.

The underlying case arises from an incident involving Mary Ann Moreno, a 72-year-old Circle K employee, who encountered an armed customer while working a shift at a convenience store. According to Moreno, the customer—holding hunting knives—demanded cigarettes and began moving behind the counter. Moreno told him to stop and extended her arms to prevent him from approaching further, which she characterized as instinctive self-defense in response to an imminent threat. The customer ultimately took the cigarettes and left. He was later arrested and pleaded guilty to a weapons-related offense.

Circle K terminated Moreno, citing a violation of its “Don’t Chase or Confront” policy, which prohibits employees from engaging with suspected shoplifters. Moreno sued, alleging wrongful discharge in violation of Colorado public policy. The federal district court initially rejected her claim, concluding that self-defense was not a recognized exception to at-will employment. After procedural developments, the federal court certified the question to the Colorado Supreme Court:

• Does Colorado law recognize a public-policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine that allows an employee to bring a wrongful termination claim in the event the employee is terminated for actions taken in self-defense?

Colorado follows the general rule that employment is at-will, meaning either party may terminate the relationship at any time. However, the court has long recognized a public-policy exception where termination violates a clearly expressed public policy. Under Martin Marietta Corp. v. Lorenz, a valid claim requires, among other things, a clearly expressed public policy tied to an employee’s rights or duties.

The court held that both Colorado’s self-defense statute (C.R.S. § 18-1-704) and Article II, Section 3 of the Colorado Constitution clearly express a public policy in favor of self-defense because they define when force may be used, requiring a reasonable belief of imminent harm and proportional response.

Importantly, the court emphasized that employees should not have to “choose between their job and their safety.” The court further concluded that self-defense is an “essential, inalienable” right affecting the public, not just individual interests and because the right promotes safety and deters harm, it qualifies as a public policy sufficient to override at-will employment in limited circumstances. The court further emphasized that the need for self-defense can arise anywhere, including at work, and “is not left at the door” when an employee enters the workplace. Thus, discharging an employee for exercising lawful self-defense can support a wrongful termination claim.

While this opinion represents another exception to Colorado’s application of the at-will employment doctrine and expands the public-policy exception in a meaningful way, the court emphasized that its ruling is limited in scope: It applies only to lawful self-defense that requires an unprovoked attack.

So, what do employers do next? The decision certainly creates potential tension between typical employer deescalation policies (e.g., “no confrontation” rules), and an employee’s legal right to defend themself. While the court did not invalidate such policies, it made clear that they cannot be enforced in a way that penalizes lawful self-defense.

Despite the expressed narrow scope of this opinion, the implications are far-reaching, as articulated by Chief Justice Monica Márquez in the dissent:

• Taken together, the majority’s reasoning has startling implications. Although the majority acknowledges that rights conferred by the constitution constrain only state action, its reasoning means that after today, a private employer may not lawfully terminate an at-will employee for conduct related to the exercise of any inalienable constitutional right—even if the employee’s conduct plainly violates the employer’s policies.

Chief Justice Márquez’s comments may prove prescient. For now, these are the steps employers should take immediately:

• Revisit Workplace Safety and Nonconfrontation Policies. Audit policies to ensure they do not appear to outrightly prohibit self-defense. Clarify that policies are intended to discourage escalation—not lawful defensive action.
• Train Managers on “Lawful Self-Defense” Distinctions. Front-line supervisors should understand the difference between policy violations and protected conduct and that discipline decisions must account for whether an employee reasonably believed they faced imminent harm.
• Document Decision-Making Carefully. Given the likelihood of litigation, employers should continue to carefully document the basis for termination decisions and clearly articulate whether the decision is based on a policy violation unrelated to self-defense or a determination that the employee’s conduct was not lawful self-defense.

THIS DOCUMENT IS INTENDED TO PROVIDE YOU WITH GENERAL INFORMATION REGARDING expanded at-will employment exceptions in Colorado. THE CONTENTS OF THIS DOCUMENT ARE NOT INTENDED TO PROVIDE SPECIFIC LEGAL ADVICE. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE CONTENTS OF THIS DOCUMENT OR IF YOU NEED LEGAL ADVICE AS TO AN ISSUE, PLEASE CONTACT THE ATTORNEYS LISTED OR YOUR REGULAR BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, LLP ATTORNEY. THIS COMMUNICATION MAY BE CONSIDERED ADVERTISING IN SOME JURISDICTIONS.