Another conflict of rights

[stebo0728]

Ok lets give the whole Islam, terrorlst thing a rest for a while ^.^

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/25008504/detail.html

Synopsis of this article:

Woman is fired for carrying firearm in her vehicle while on company business. The company has a policy prohibiting firearms while "on the clock". She is suing to have the company's policy struck down on the grounds that it violates her rights to carry with a permit. The company claims that the Georgia law does not extend her rights to company time.

Ok so now here is the conflict of rights. Clearly the woman has rights to carry the weapon in her car considering she has the proper permits. But does the company have the right to prohibit the weapon during company business? Thats a tough one. She doesnt have to work for that company if she doesnt like the policy. Also, if the company is going to have this policy, it needs to be clearly relayed to employees, and the company may find the position hard to fill with this policy in place. I tend to side with the company on this one, even though I am strong on gun rights, I am also strong on employer rights.

Any thoughts?

[AppleBonker]

Pretty sure they can legally fire her for this. In Indiana they recently passed a law that would make it ILLEGAL for an employer to fire an employee for legally carrying a firearm in their car onto the company parking lot. Since this law was explicitly needed, I would have to imagine that a company in a state without such law would be allowed to fire an employee for carrying into the parking lot.

[IBCoupe]

Unless there's a Federal or Georgia statute that specifically extends her legal permits and rights to a private contract, I think she loses. This seems pretty straightforward to me. The Second Amendment prohibits government interference with her gun rights, but it doesn't apply to private businesses. We can see an applicable parallel in looking at civil rights and discrimination - the only reason private businesses are not permitted to discriminate on the basis of certain defined protected classes is because Congress said so in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and certain follow-up statutes. The equal protection rights only applied to the government until the government regulated business to that same extent.

So while her carry permit prohibits the government from taking her guns away, it doesn't prohibit her employer from including a "no gun on duty" policy as a contractually-based condition for employment. It's no different than a "no guns on premises" or "no drinking on the job" clause, in that respect.

So there's the legal analysis. You're probably asking, "Should this be the case," and I'll get to that in another post

[IBCoupe]

Yes, it should be the case. Were it not the case, and were she to shoot someone while on company time, in the course of her normal duties, the company would be liable for her actions through the theory of respondeat superior. A business should have the right to limit its liability - by making her actions a contractual out, they remove themselves as potential defendants in a lawsuit.*

While she should be allowed to have her rights, I think she shouldn't be allowed to impose them upon another individual, unless society (via Congressional action) has deemed it appropriate for her to do so.

*They could still be liable if they knew (or reasonably should have known) she carried the gun, or that she had shot people before, and did nothing to avoid the incident.

[stebo0728]

Well like I said, I tend to side with the company here. There are some details missing here, like was she informed of this part of the company regulation? Or was it a "oh hey by the way, your fired!" sorta thing? I would say if so she should have been given due warning to comply before being fired. Maybe she was, those details are not forthcoming yet.

I support companies right to have no smoking, no drinking, no drugs policies. I even agree with companies setting no smoking policy and enforcing it on current employees. Give them time to quit, dont expect the employee to necessarily cold turkey it, but if they value their job for the long term, they will quit. Or at least quit at work. Im not a fan of a company telling you what to do and not to do on personal time, unless of course that is set up as a contractual stipulation.

[RocketSurgery]

I agree with everyone on here, if there is no precedent set by the state or federal government preventing the company from setting this kind of policy, then she probably has no case. In fact when I was delivering pizza while in college my company created a similar policy. We were required to sign a form stating that we agreed to a policy to not carry any weapon while working for the company. It was pretty lame seeing as no one had been involved in any incident up till then. It also was uncomfortable delivering at 4 a.m. in some pretty sketchy places without being able to carry my pistol. But, like everyone has already said, it is either agree to the policy or face termination.

[audtatious]

If the companies employment guide states that under no circumstances should an "on the clock" employee have access to a gun then they are fully justified. Now, IB mentioned about company liability. If the employee shot someone then, yes, the company could be sued for liability since the employee was working for said company.....On the flip side, if the employee was traveling somewhere on company business in their car and was attacked, the company could be help liable by the employee if it could be shown that having the gun around may have saved them...or something.

[IBCoupe]

I don't think they could. I'm pretty sure that Worker's Comp would prevent the employee from suing the employer, unless the employer tries to fight the worker's comp payout on the basis that there was another individual involved. I can try to look into that hypothetical for you, though.

[audtatious]

Depends. Say the employee was sent to a high-crime side of town. In normal circumstances the employee would have had their weapon handy but in this case did not because the company does not allow it. Say they were accosted and injured. While the criminal themselves are to blame for the crime, would not the company potentially be open for a lawsuit for not allowing said employee the normal means they would use for protection or by offering some form of alternative to ensure their safety?

Yes, I'm aware there is a whole lotta "what if's" but there are tons of lawsuits against people and companies that are won in which I shake my head.

[IBCoupe]

I don't think the company would be liable for prohibiting the employee from arming himself. Again, if worker's comp isn't applicable for whatever reason (because that's how we got away from employees suing their employers), they might be able to get away with suing the employer for failing to take action to prevent it, but not for failing to allow the employee to shoot people or brandish a weapon in order to scare people away.

I don't think there's a court in the country that would let that ruling stand.

[audtatious]

Maybe, maybe not. Depends on if it's a judge making the decision or a jury.

[IBCoupe]

On matters of law, there is no jury. You'd have to get past the hurdle of finding that the company could possibly be liable in the first place under that theory.

[AZhitman]

In my [government] office, last year, they installed a gun safe on the first floor, next to Security.

We're supposed to lock up any weapons there, rather than in our cars / on our person.

To date, according to Security, no one has opened the safe. That speaks volumes.

[IBCoupe]

Department can't sit in your car with you, but having that safe policy means that they might be free and clear from being sued by the people you shoot, and be free and clear from worker's comp if it's determined that you got into a scuffle you otherwise wouldn't have without the gun.

I have yet to take a course on employment law, so I don't know exactly how worker's comp works in that situation, and so you should take that last bit with a big grain of salt. Please let me know if you know it to be untrue.

[audtatious]

On matters of law, there is no jury. You'd have to get past the hurdle of finding that the company could possibly be liable in the first place under that theory.

With a civil suit that would not be the case, correct?

[IBCoupe]

Incorrect. It's harder to get a jury trial in civil court than it is in criminal court, where, except for matters where there is no fact in dispute, you are guaranteed a jury trial. Matters of law are not determined by a jury, even in civil cases. Matters of fact are determined by a jury. But depending on what you're asking the Court to rule, you may not be entitled to a jury - if it's a suit in equity (meaning either it's a certain type of action that was defined in 1790 England as a suit in equity, or that you're asking primarily for action rather than damages), there are no juries. There is only a judge.

The distinction is this: if you're trying to determine whether the company's actions interfered with your ability to defend yourself, that's a matter of fact that a jury would be asked to find if it got that far. If, on the other hand, you're trying to determine whether the company's actions have any bearing on the company's liability, you wouldn't be in front of a jury. You can bet that, if they even get to a court room, the Company's going to be sure to litigate that issue first.

[audtatious]

Hm.

Just thinking outside the box. I try and stay as far away from court as possible.

[IBCoupe]

So do I. I don't want my law degree to take me to trial.