Police said the use of force was lawful; 7-Eleven said the gun violated company policy.
OKLAHOMA CITY, Okla. — A 7-Eleven night clerk who shot a man during a struggle inside her store was fired days later, intensifying debate over how far workers can go to protect themselves at work and how companies enforce no-weapons rules.
The case centers on Stephanie Dilyard, a former overnight cashier who says she opened fire only after a man tried to strangle her when she refused a counterfeit $100 bill. Police said her actions met Oklahoma’s self-defense standard. The company separated her employment, citing a workplace policy barring firearms. The situation has become a flashpoint for labor and public-safety advocates, with legal analysts noting Oklahoma’s at-will employment status and the state’s stand-your-ground law now moving on parallel tracks. The immediate stakes: whether Dilyard faces any criminal exposure, how prosecutors proceed against the suspect, and whether the incident prompts any change to store safety practices.
The confrontation happened just before midnight on a Thursday during Dilyard’s solo shift. She told reporters the man hurled threats, vaulted the counter and wrapped his hands around her neck as she tried to call for help. “He said he was going to slice my head off,” she said, describing how she was forced out of the counter space. She fired her personally owned handgun once, then the man fled toward MacArthur Blvd. and Northwest 34th St., where he called 911. Officers later confirmed the shot man was treated and arrested at a hospital. Dilyard, who worked the 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. shift for more than two years, showed a scratch on her neck and burns on a finger from the shot. She said she made it home to her children and later learned she no longer had a job.
Oklahoma City police said the shooting fell under lawful self-defense. The suspect, identified by authorities as Kenneth Thompson, 59, was booked on complaints including assault and battery, threatening acts of violence, attempting to pass a fake bill, and a felony parole-violation warrant. Dilyard said corporate human resources informed her the following Monday that she was being terminated for violating company policy by bringing a firearm to work. “They said they were going to separate from employment because of a policy violation,” she said. Two Oklahoma attorneys who reviewed the facts publicly drew a line between criminal law and employment rules: one noting the state’s stand-your-ground protections, another saying national chains avoid liability by banning weapons in stores. A company spokesperson did not immediately provide additional comment on whether broader security measures would change.
Oklahoma is an at-will employment state, which generally lets employers end a job for any reason that isn’t illegal discrimination or a narrow public-policy exception. Convenience stores, meanwhile, remain frequent robbery targets, and many national chains publish strict no-weapons rules for on-duty staff. In this case, police statements that the shooting was justified do not decide the employment question. Records indicate the suspect fled the scene and sought medical help before being arrested. Prior reports from the station’s earlier coverage also placed the attempted strangling after a counterfeit-bill dispute, a pattern seen in late-night retail conflicts when clerks work alone with limited security. The case has drawn substantial reaction because it sits at the intersection of workplace risk, criminal accountability and corporate compliance.
What happens next runs on two tracks. On the criminal side, prosecutors will review assault and fraud-related complaints against Thompson and decide charges after receiving police reports and medical documentation. On the employment side, Dilyard could seek counsel to evaluate whether any wrongful-termination theory fits, though legal analysts said her path is difficult under current state law and a clear policy. The company could also reassess overnight staffing, store security and signage, or reaffirm current protocols. Police said they would release additional reports once they are finalized. Any civil claims, if filed, would start with demand letters and could move into district court; initial filings would list the store location, parties, alleged harms and requested relief.
Reaction outside the store remained swift. Defense attorney Ed Blau said large chains avoid “employees packing heat” because of liability concerns. Personal-injury lawyer Noble McIntyre called the outcome “unfortunate,” arguing the clerk’s decision stopped a violent attack. Shoppers interviewed outside nearby storefronts said they understood why the company has rules but questioned leaving a clerk alone overnight. “You can’t strangle someone and expect them not to fight back,” one customer said. Another resident said companies should add guards or plexiglass if firearms remain off-limits to staff. Dilyard said she would make the same choice again because she wanted to get home to her children.
As of Friday, police still described the clerk’s use of force as lawful self-defense, the suspect remained tied to a slate of potential charges, and the company had not announced any policy changes. Officials said the next public update could come once prosecutors file formal counts or decline to do so.
Author note: Last updated November 21, 2025.