A federal judge ruled last month that Circle K lawfully fired a 72-year-old convenience store cashier after she attempted to stop a knife-wielding robber from stealing cigarettes.

Mary Ann Moreno was a 16-year employee of the company and was behind the register at a Westminster Circle K store when a man holding two hunting knives asked if Moreno could give him cigarettes for free. When she declined, the man went around the counter to steal the cigarettes, prompting Moreno to grab his arm and shirt.

Days later, Circle K fired her, citing company policy that forbids employees from confronting shoplifters. Moreno filed suit against her former employer, alleging it terminated her in violation of Colorado’s public policy. Specifically, she argued Colorado law recognized Moreno’s right to defend herself, and Circle K could not retaliate against her as the victim of a crime.

In a Jan. 19 order, U.S. District Court Judge Nina Y. Wang disagreed with both of those arguments. Moreno had not provided evidence that Circle K had fired her for being a victim, nor had she shown why the right to self-defense that applies in criminal prosecutions had any bearing on her workers’ rights case.

“Ms. Moreno does not explain why her statutory or common-law right to assert self-defense in the criminal context is related to her job-related duties at Circle K,” Wang wrote.

Iris Halpern, an attorney for Moreno, said she planned to appeal the decision, noting that the central issue was whether “pure self-defense” is protected activity in the workplace.

“This is a pressing question in Colorado, particularly given the spate of violent mass shootings and other attacks we’ve witnessed in recent years. Schools, clubs, supermarkets, movie theaters — these are all workplaces too,” Halpern said.

In Moreno’s telling of the October 2020 encounter, the knife-wielding robber attacked her while she was trapped behind the counter, prompting her to defend herself. In the process, she made contact with her assailant.

After reviewing the security footage, Circle K managers did not believe Moreno acted in self-defense. Instead, she stepped toward the shoplifter and grabbed his arm and shirt as he reached for the merchandise.

“Circle K is entitled to summary judgment because Moreno was not defending herself but rather confronting the robber and attempting to stop him from stealing cigarettes, which is precisely what Circle K’s policy lawfully prohibits,” wrote Circle K’s attorneys.

“Defendant asks the Court, in essence, to grant carte blanche approval for companies to terminate their employees for defending themselves at work from armed attackers, no matter the circumstances,” responded Moreno’s lawyers.

Wang observed Moreno’s claim of wrongful discharge relied on the idea that Circle K’s actions undermined “clearly expressed public policy.” Although Colorado’s criminal law recognizes the right to self-defense and the state constitution broadly acknowledges people have the right to defend their lives, Wang did not believe she could find self-defense in the workplace to be a clear public policy.

“This Court is simply not in the position to recognize, in the first instance, a new type of public-policy exception,” she wrote.

Wang also found no evidence Circle K unlawfully retaliated against Moreno or any other employee for their status as a crime victim, rather than for violating company policy against confronting shoplifters. Finally, Wang agreed Moreno had not shown Circle K was liable for intentionally inflicting emotional distress by firing her within days of the robbery.

“That Ms. Moreno was terminated so soon after the robbery is undoubtedly regrettable,” Wang wrote, “but the Court cannot conclude that losing one’s job in the midst of or immediately after a difficult or traumatic event necessarily renders the termination ‘so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency.'”

The case is Moreno v. Circle K Stores, Inc.