West Virginia House Bill HB5001

West Virginia 2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/30/26
• Refer: 1/30/26

Caption

Prohibiting the termination of employment of an employee who defends themselves from an attack inside workplace

Summary

HB5001 would amend West Virginia’s civil self-defense statute to add explicit workplace protections for employees who use reasonable and proportionate force to defend themselves or others from an attack at their place of employment. The bill states that an employee who is physically attacked, or reasonably fears being attacked, by someone who is not a co-worker may not be subject to adverse employment action, including termination, solely because the employee used reasonable and proportionate force in defense of self or others. The bill also clarifies that, in the workplace, an employee may use deadly force without a duty to retreat if the employee reasonably believes that he or she or another person is in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm and deadly force is the only way to prevent it. The bill leaves intact existing self-defense rules in homes and other lawful places, including the no-duty-to-retreat framework and the civil defense against lawsuits brought by an intruder or attacker.

Impact

HB5001 would amend §55-7-22 of the West Virginia Code, expanding the state’s civil self-defense protections to expressly cover certain workplace incidents. It would create a statutory bar against employers terminating or otherwise taking adverse action against an employee solely for using justified defensive force at work, while preserving existing exceptions for unlawful actors and initial aggressors. The bill would also reinforce that the statute does not authorize resistance to law-enforcement officers and does not apply to hazardous property conditions designed to deter crime.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have a strongly pro-self-defense and pro-worker framing, with its stated purpose focused on protecting employees from termination after defending themselves or others at work. The available context does not show recorded committee debate or votes, so there is no documented opposition or support beyond the bill’s introduction and sponsor list. Based on the text alone, the measure is presented as a workplace protection and self-defense clarification rather than a broader criminal justice reform.

Contention

The main point of potential contention is the balance between employee self-defense rights and employer discretion to discipline workplace conduct. Supporters are likely to view the bill as preventing unfair termination of workers who respond to violent attacks, while critics may worry about how broadly “reasonable and proportionate force” or “reasonable apprehension” could be interpreted in workplace disputes. Another possible issue is the bill’s inclusion of deadly-force language in the employment setting, which could raise concerns about escalation, liability, and how the rule interacts with workplace safety policies and existing self-defense law.