953 N.W.2d 648
N.D.2021Background
- Brandon Potts, a Devils Lake police detective, was terminated after a July 2018 arrest attempt in which his service weapon discharged and the suspect died.
- Potts sued for wrongful termination (public-policy wrongful discharge), arguing a public-policy exception to North Dakota’s at-will employment statute exists for law-enforcement officers who act in lawful self-defense.
- Parties submitted stipulations and converted briefing into cross-motions for summary judgment; the district court granted summary judgment to the City, concluding no such public-policy exception exists under North Dakota law.
- The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed de novo, applying the Court’s framework for recognizing judicial public-policy exceptions to at-will employment (Ressler/Krein), and examined constitutional and statutory self-defense provisions cited by Potts.
- The Court affirmed: statutory/constitutional self-defense provisions are fact-dependent, primarily operate as defenses in criminal cases, and do not supply the requisite clear and compelling public policy to create an exception to N.D.C.C. § 34-03-01; the Legislature, not courts, is better suited to create such an exception.
- Justice Tufte concurred in the result but urged a categorical judicial refusal to create any new public-policy exceptions to the codified at-will rule on separation-of-powers grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether North Dakota recognizes a public-policy exception to at-will employment for on-duty law-enforcement officers who act in self-defense | Potts: ND Constitution and self-defense statutes (and precedent from other jurisdictions) show a clear, compelling public policy protecting self-defense that should bar termination | City: No clear-and-weighty public policy exists; courts should be cautious; many jurisdictions decline to recognize such an exception | No — Court affirmed summary judgment for the City: ND law does not supply a sufficiently clear public-policy exception for self-defense by officers |
| Whether courts should create new public-policy exceptions to the codified at-will rule | Implicit: courts can recognize exceptions when policy is clear and compelling (per Ressler/Krein) | City and concurrence: creation of new exceptions implicates separation of powers; Legislature is better forum to declare public policy | Majority: decline to recognize exception here and defer to Legislature; Concurrence: would foreclose further judicial creation of new public-policy exceptions |
Key Cases Cited
- Ressler v. Humane Soc., 480 N.W.2d 429 (N.D. 1992) (recognized a public-policy exception forbidding discharge in retaliation for honoring a subpoena)
- Krein v. Marian Manor Nursing Home, 415 N.W.2d 793 (N.D. 1987) (recognized wrongful-discharge claim tied to workers’ compensation public policy)
- Ray v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 359 P.3d 614 (Utah 2015) (recognized narrow self-defense exception to at-will employment where employee faced imminent serious bodily injury and could not withdraw)
- Feliciano v. 7-Eleven, Inc., 559 S.E.2d 713 (W. Va. 2001) (held self-defense to lethal imminent danger can be a public-policy exception but employer may rebut with legitimate business reason)
- Dahlberg v. Lutheran Soc. Servs. of N.D., 625 N.W.2d 241 (N.D. 2001) (describes North Dakota’s at-will presumption and limited recognized exceptions)