What was the employer’s rationale for this policy, assuming the employee was c/c legally?
I’m certain in the end it had to do with their own liability for the acts of an employee. But it seems as though they could work out some way to protect themselves legally and still not fire people who were legitimately defending their lives.
This seems especially to be the case where the employer, by virtue of the location of the store or the nature of the business, is putting the employee at risk of bodily harm.
Would the company rather have to hire armed security guards for each pizza store?
“What was the employer’s rationale for this policy, assuming the employee was c/c legally?”
$ comes before right.