Jeremy Hoven v. Walgreen Co.
751 F.3d 778
| 6th Cir. | 2014Background
- Hoven, a Michigan-licensed pharmacist, was an at-will Walgreen employee who carried a concealed pistol at work.
- During a May 8, 2011 overnight shift, two masked robbers entered Walgreen; Hoven fired his weapon after one robber pointed a gun at him.
- Eight days later Walgreen terminated Hoven’s employment based on a violation of Walgreen’s non-escalation policy.
- Hoven sued in state court alleging termination violated public policy for exercising self-defense, defense of others, and the right to bear arms; he identified multiple statutory and constitutional sources as the basis.
- Walgreen removed the case to federal court; the district court granted Walgreen’s motion for judgment on the pleadings for failure to identify a public-policy source.
- The court of appeals affirmed, holding that none of the asserted sources provide a legislatively enacted right that was violated by termination; jurisdiction issues regarding a magistrate judge were also addressed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hoven’s termination violated public policy under Suchodolski framework. | Hoven contends his firing violated public policy for exercising self-defense and rights under weapon laws. | Walgreen argues no public-policy source establishes a legislatively conferred right violated by termination. | Affirmed; public-policy sources do not confer a right violated by termination. |
| Whether constitutional or statutory rights may serve as public-policy basis against private employers. | Second Amendment and Michigan Constitution rights should prohibit termination for carrying a concealed weapon and self-defense. | Constitutional provisions do not bind private employers and cannot support public-policy termination claims. | Unavailing; constitutions do not support a private-employer public-policy claim. |
| Whether Michigan statutes (Self-Defense Act, licensing provisions) confer a general right impacting termination. | Statutes like the Self-Defense Act and concealment licensing protect rights against private employer retaliation. | These statutes do not confer a broad, general right to act in self-defense in the workplace. | Rejected; statutes do not provide the requisite well-established right. |
| Whether Michigan § 28.425n(2) allocates a fundamental right to carry concealed weapons in the course of employment. | Section 28.425n(2) protects the right to apply for and carry a concealed weapon at work. | Section 5n balances rights but does not create a general right; termination for self-defense remains actionable only under a created public policy. | Rejected; even assuming unconstitutionality, Hoven’s claim fails to identify a right conferred by § 5n. |
Key Cases Cited
- Suchodolski v. Michigan Consolidated Gas Co., 316 N.W.2d 710 (Mich. 1982) (three situations for public-policy termination claims: explicit statute, failure to violate law, or right conferred by enactment)
- McNeil v. Charlevoix Cnty., 772 N.W.2d 18 (Mich. 2009) (term. in violation of public policy requires a well-established legislative enactment)
- Casias v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 695 F.3d 428 (6th Cir. 2012) (MMMA private action limits; public policy not extended to private employers)
- Prysak v. R.L. Polk Co., 483 N.W.2d 629 (Mich. Ct. App. 1992) (constitutional rights against private employers not basis for public-policy claim)
- Kimmelman v. Heather Downs Management Ltd., 753 N.W.2d 265 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008) (public policies not exhaustively listed; framework followed)