GRAND RAPIDS, MI -- A federal appeals court has affirmed Walgreens' rights in firing a pharmacist who shot at armed robbers using his legally concealed handgun.

Jeremy Hoven was fired from a Walgreens in Benton Harbor in 2011, eight days after shooting at armed robbers who entered the store during his overnight shift. Walgreens said he violated the company's "non-escalation" policy.

Hoven was working in the back of the store when he noticed a manager being pushed toward him by one of the armed robbers. He tried to dial 911, but one of the robbers jumped over the counter and pointed a gun at him. Hoven's attorney said the alleged robber tried to shoot at Hoven, but the suspect's gun jammed. Hoven pulled his handgun and fired shots at the suspect.

No one was injured in the incident that was captured by surveillance video. Benton Township police said there have been no arrests in the case.

In a 3-0 decision Monday, June 2, the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals said there are no public policies protecting Hoven.

He filed a lawsuit claiming he was terminated in violation of public policy for

exercising his rights of self-defense, defense of others and to carry a concealed weapon. A federal judge in 2012 granted Walgreens' motion for dismissal before the case could go to trial

Hoven didn't dispute that he was an at-will employee who could be fired at any time, for any, or no, reason.

He became a full-time pharmacist for Walgreens in 2006. Hoven experienced an armed robbery at the pharmacy in 2007. He then asked the company to improve its security systems, but Walgreens didn't comply.

Hoven received a concealed pistol license and carried a handgun in his pants pocket during his shifts.

Michigan’s Concealed Pistol Licensing Act says that an employer shall not prohibit an employee from receiving and carrying a concealed weapon with a license, but also says the law “does not prohibit an employer from prohibiting an employee from carrying a concealed pistol in the course of his or her employment with that employer.”

Hoven argued the statute is unconstitutional and "improperly delegates

authority to private employers to regulate, restrict and eliminate an individual's fundamental right to bear arms for self-defense and defense of others" by denying permit holders their right to carry in the workplace for self-defense.

The Court of Appeals said Hoven's argument that seven sources of public policy support his claim was without merit.

The Court of Appeals said the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article I of the Michigan Constitution prevent some state interference with an individual's right to bear arms and engage in self-defense, but "they do not prevent interference with these rights by private actors."

Appeals Judge Karen Nelson Moore wrote that the Michigan Self-Defense Act doesn't confer an unlimited right to engage in self-defense - it only provides a potential defense to criminal prosecution by the state.

In rejecting the Self-Defense Act as a basis for public policy, Moore pointed to a case in which the court affirmed Walmart's decision in firing an employee who used medical marijuana. The court in that case concluded the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act doesn't impose restrictions on private employers, but rather protects only against state action.

Angie Jackson covers public safety and breaking news for MLive/The Grand Rapids Press. Email her at ajackso3@mlive.com, and follow her on Twitter.