At approximately 4:00 A.M. on July 14, 2000, a woman wearing a mask and pointing a firearm demanded that 7-Eleven employees at a store in Berkeley County, West Virginia, give her the store’s money. Antonio Feliciano was working that morning as a sales clerk. While other employees emptied the cash register and the woman was focused on them, Feliciano grabbed and disarmed her. He continued to restrain the would-be robber until local law enforcement authorities arrived on the scene and apprehended her. No one was physically injured in the incident. Nevertheless, shortly thereafter, 7-Eleven terminated Feliciano’s at-will employment. 7-Eleven explained to Feliciano that he was being fired because he violated a company policy that prohibits employees from subduing a robber or otherwise interfering with a store robbery. Feliciano subsequently filed a lawsuit against 7-Eleven alleging that he had been wrongfully discharged in contravention of the West Virginia public policy favoring an individual’s right to self-defense. Is Feliciano correct that the public policy exception to employment at will renders his termination wrongful?

At approximately 4:00 A.M. on July 14, 2000, a woman wearing a mask and pointing a firearm demanded that 7-Eleven employees at a store in Berkeley County, West Virginia, give her the store’s money. Antonio Feliciano was working that morning as a sales clerk. While other employees emptied the cash register and the woman was focused on them, Feliciano grabbed and disarmed her. He continued to restrain the would-be robber until local law enforcement authorities arrived on the scene and apprehended her. No one was physically injured in the incident. Nevertheless, shortly thereafter, 7-Eleven terminated Feliciano’s at-will employment. 7-Eleven explained to Feliciano that he was being fired because he violated a company policy that prohibits employees from subduing a robber or otherwise interfering with a store robbery. Feliciano subsequently filed a lawsuit against 7-Eleven alleging that he had been wrongfully discharged in contravention of the West Virginia public policy favoring an individual’s right to self-defense. Is Feliciano correct that the public policy exception to employment at will renders his termination wrongful?

Similar questions

Brendan Bosse and Michael Griffin were part of a group of four teenagers eating a meal at a Chili’s restaurant in Dedham, Massachusetts. Chili’s is owned by Brinker Restaurant Corporation (collectively “Chili’s”). The cost of the meal was $56. The teenagers decided not to pay. They went out of the building, got in their car, and drove away, heading northward up Route 1. A patron of the restaurant saw the teenagers leave without payment. He followed them in his white sport-utility vehicle (SUV). The teenagers saw him following them. A high-speed chase ensued through Dedham side streets. The patron used his cell phone to call the Chili’s manager. The manager called 911 and reported the incident and the location of the car chase. The teenagers’ car collided with a cement wall, and Bosse and Griffin were seriously injured. The Chili’s patron drove past the crash scene and was never identified. Bosse and Griffin sued Chili’s for compensatory damages for their injuries. The plaintiffs argued…
Arvo Lake, a retired 71-year-old man, bought an air conditioner in May. The unit was installed and operated according to the manufacturer's specifications. Unbeknownst to Lake, the unit contained a hole in the refrigeration system that allowed Freon, the coolant, to escape from the unit. By August, the unit had ceased cooling, and Lake's residence reached a temperature of at least 96 degrees Fahrenheit. The heat caused Lake to suffer from hyperthermia, which caused circulatory failure and then death. The executor of Lake's estate sued the manufacturer of the air conditioner for damages resulting from breach of warranty.Was Lake's death a foreseeable consequence of the air conditioner's failure to operate properly?
What legal duty, if any, does the physician owe the person? Please explain in detail. Assuming that the physician has a legal duty towards the person, did the physician breach that legal duty? Please explain in detail. Assume that the physician knew that they were infected with a communicable disease and purposefully performed the CPR, although others at the scene could have performed it; what intentional tort(s), if any, has the physician committed against the person? List the tort(s.) What possible defense(s) does the physician have against a tort action by the person.
5-3 PROXIMATE CAUSE. Galen Stoller was killed at a railroad crossing when a train hit his car. The crossing was marked with a stop sign and a railroad-crossing symbol. The sign was not obstructed by vegetation, but there were no flashing lights. Galen’s parents filed a suit against Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railroad Corp. The plaintiffs accused the defendant of negligence in the design and maintenance of the crossing. The defendant argued that Galen had not stopped at the stop sign. Was the railroad negligent? What was the proximate cause of the accident? Discuss. [Henderson v. National Railroad Passenger Corp., __ F.3d __ (10th Cir. 2011)] (See Negligence.)
A man named Bob Smith believes that he is Santa Claus (who delivers presents to all the children around the world on Christmas Eve). In fact, he is not Santa, but he has believed this for many years. He signs his name "Santa." He signs many contracts as "Santa," and he refers to his wife as "Mrs. Claus" even though her name is actually Betty Smith. She puts up with it, because he really does believe he is Santa, and because she loves him and because his wages from his job at Hasbro toys pays the bills. One day he enters a contract with your company to hire you to build him a gigantic workshop in his backyard so he can build his toys and stable his "eight tiny reindeer." In return he will pay you $120,000 for the construction. When his wife learns of this deal, she tries to reject it because it is voidable due to his lack of contractual capacity. Was this contract voidable, or valid and enforceable? Answer the questions.
Joseph Burger was the owner of a junkyard in Brooklyn, New York. His business consisted, in part, of dismantling automobiles and selling their parts. The state of New York enacted a statute that requires automobile junkyards to keep certain records. The statute authorizes warrantless searches of vehicle dismantlers and automobile junkyards without prior notice. One day, five plain-clothes officers of the Auto Crimes Division of the New York City Police Department entered Burger’s junkyard to conduct a surprise inspection. Burger did not have either a license to conduct the business or records of the automobiles and vehicle parts on his premises, as required by state law. After conducting an inspection of the premises, the officers determined that Burger was in possession of stolen vehicles and parts. He was arrested and charged with criminal possession of stolen property. Burger moved to suppress the evidence. Did Burger act ethically in trying to suppress the evidence? Does the…
Ann took Bonnie’s watch before Bonnie was aware of the theft. Bonnie discovered her loss immediately and pursued Ann. Ann pointed a loaded pistol at Bonnie, who, in fear of being shot, allowed Ann to escape. Was Ann guilty of robbery? Of any other crime?
Leon A. Tashof operated a store known as the New York Jewelry Company. The store was located in an area that served low-income consumers, many of whom had low-paying jobs and had no bank or charge accounts. About 85 percent of the store’s sales were made on credit. The store advertised eyeglasses “from $7.50 complete,” including “lenses, frames and case.” Tashof advertised this sale extensively on radio and in newspapers. Evidence showed that of the 1,400 pairs of eyeglasses sold by the store, fewer than 10 were sold for $7.50; the rest were more expensive glasses. The Federal Trade Commission sued Tashof for engaging in bait-and-switch marketing, in violation of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. a) Explain what a bait and switch is. b) Was Tashof’s conduct in this case ethical? c) Who wins, and why?
Betty went to the cinema to watch the premiere of Hulk Mister. She bought the ticket and went into the cinema. As she sat down on the chair, the legs of the chair broke and she fell onto the ground injuring her lower back. It turned out that the chair was previously broken and has not been properly repaired by the staff of the cinema. She was hospitalised for a month and could not work during the time she was in the hospital. Required: Betty wants to start legal proceedings to claim damages from the cinema for the injury. Advise her of the legal grounds on which she can claim compensation from the cinema and discuss, with reference to relevant legal principles and cases, the necessary steps that Betty needs to go through in order to prove her case.
Joseph Eugene Dodson, age sixteen, purchased a used pickup truck from Burns and Mary Shrader. The Shraders owned and operated Shrader’s Auto Sales. Dodson paid $14,900 in cash for the truck. At the time of sale, the Shraders did not question Dodson’s age, but thought he was eighteen or nineteen. Dodson made no misrepresentation concerning his age. Nine months after the date of purchase, the truck began to develop mechanical problems. A mechanic diagnosed the problem as a burnt valve but could not be certain. Dodson, who could not afford the repairs, continued to drive the truck until one month later, when the engine “blew up.” Dodson parked the vehicle in the front yard of his parents’ home and contacted the Shraders to rescind the purchase of the truck and to request a full refund. a. What arguments would support Dodson’s termination of the contract? b. What arguments would support Shrader’s position that the contract is not voidable? c. Which side should prevail? Explain.
Lucy cannot stand the fact that her ex-husband, Ethan, is about to get remarried. After all, it was a horrible breakup, and Ethan was really mean to her. Lucy decides to get her revenge by telling Ethan’s employer that Ethan stole large amounts of money from his previous employer, even though Lucy knows it is not true. If Lucy follows through on her plan, she will have: a) not committed the tort of defamation because the statement would not harm Ethan’s reputation. b) committed the tort of defamation because it is an untrue statement intended to harm Ethan’s reputation, and she stated it to another person. c) not committed the tort of defamation, because she only made the statement to one person.
Erin is a lawyer with twin sons that are 12 years old. Erin is resting in her bedroom when she hears loud noises in the family room. She springs up, runs to the family room, and sees one son, Phil, punch the other son, Kip. Erin immediately orders Phil to stay in his room for the rest of the day and to not use the internet for 48 hours. As Phil mopes along the hallway to his room, Phil shouts. "Kip punched me first!" What legal principle would Erin recognize Phil's remark as being? O ad hoc because Phil is adding an accusation against his opponent Kip. O in pari materia because Kip attacked in the same manner as did Phil O caveat emptor because Phil thinks he is right. O jus ad bellum because Kip's action is what actually started the fight (the "war") O in pari delicto because they (Phil and Kip) are at equal fault.