GOING TO WAR. Fired in violation of Senate Bill 411 passing

[thebishopp]

Let me preface this by saying I hope Mr. Relford brings this case to a successful outcome, but if the Indystar story is accurate I have some IANAL questions about the application of current satutes.

By having the rifle 'out' of the vehicle to show another person and then negligently disharging the weapon....would the employer not be placed in a position of liability? It seems that at the point of the ND he has become a safety liability to those around him. How much protection from statute would the OP still have after this??

From what I have gathered, the employer is also guilty of poorly handling this issue. If you were going to fire him for the ND, then do it right then. It would also seem prudent to pay a person for all days worked regardless of grounds for termination.

What seemed pretty clear cut, gets a lot murkier to me, if the ND story is accurate. I have a lot more questions given that article....but it is the RedStar

Actually it still is clear cut.

He should have been terminated for the ND (In my opinion). BUT since the employer decided to give disciplinary action in the form of a written warning and if the OP's evidence backs his claims (and it probably does since Redford took the case) then they terminated him NOT for the ND but for a policy they instituted in violation of state law.

 

[mkbar80]

Actually it still is clear cut.

He should have been terminated for the ND (In my opinion). BUT since the employer decided to give disciplinary action in the form of a written warning and if the OP's evidence backs his claims (and it probably does since Redford took the case) then they terminated him NOT for the ND but for a policy they instituted in violation of state law.

That's pretty much my opinion too, but not being a lawyer I thought I'd pose the question and see if any of the legal experts on the forum would weigh in their thoughts in light of the IndyStar article.

 

[bwframe]

...seems the OP had a ND first ??

 

[Amattern]

Let me preface this by saying I hope Mr. Relford brings this case to a successful outcome, but if the Indystar story is accurate I have some IANAL questions about the application of current satutes.

By having the rifle 'out' of the vehicle to show another person and then negligently disharging the weapon....would the employer not be placed in a position of liability? It seems that at the point of the ND he has become a safety liability to those around him. How much protection from statute would the OP still have after this??

From what I have gathered, the employer is also guilty of poorly handling this issue. If you were going to fire him for the ND, then do it right then. It would also seem prudent to pay a person for all days worked regardless of grounds for termination.

What seemed pretty clear cut, gets a lot murkier to me, if the ND story is accurate. I have a lot more questions given that article....but it is the RedStar

There are always extra circumstances that one party isn't going to disclose in their side of the story.

Obviously this rifle wasn't locked and secured in your vehicle. Yes they should have fired you right there on the spot. You are being a little ridiculous with this, you know the real reason you are being let go. You are suing on a technicality that they wrote down another reason than that you were trying to be cool and show off your rifle and coon fingered it, and it went boom. Yes they screwed up with how they went about it but, you both need to take the loss and move on. Get your final pay check and split ways.

 

[KG1]

Actually it still is clear cut.

He should have been terminated for the ND (In my opinion). BUT since the employer decided to give disciplinary action in the form of a written warning and if the OP's evidence backs his claims (and it probably does since Redford took the case) then they terminated him NOT for the ND but for a policy they instituted in violation of state law.

I agree with this. It would've been nice if the OP would've included that tidbit of information if indeed true but as you put it the employer should've terminated because of the ND and they would've been in all likely hood covered.

It seems that he was terminated for failure to disclose when asked by his employer whether he still possessed the rifle in his vehicle in violation of the new policy according to what his attorney stated in the article.

According to the law enacted they cannot even make that inquiry let alone fire him for that specific reason and apparently the OP claims that he has proof that they did just that.

 

[bwframe]

...It would've been nice if the OP would've included that tidbit of information if indeed true...

If it is true, it certainly makes you wonder about a lot of things?

 

[KG1]

If it is true, it certainly makes you wonder about a lot of things?

I agree. It calls into question ones character when they leave out bits and pieces of a story that might just reflect bad on themselves.

I mean if the OP can prove that his former employer violated the law in his termination then I guess that's the way it goes down but in all honesty I certainly don't feel the same way about this incident as I did before I heard about the new details.

 

[bwframe]

...I certainly don't feel the same way about this incident as I did before I heard about the new details.

If the allegation is true, I hope Mr. Relford was made aware up front.

 

[KG1]

If the allegation is true, I hope Mr. Relford was made aware up front.

Idk but I just re-read that Indystar article in the link that was posted and I could swear it is an updated version with more detail than the one I read earlier.

 

[LEaSH]

I'm sure he (Guy) was informed. That was the reasoning for the memo and set the whole thing into motion. Keep in mind: The ND was off duty and off company property.

It's still an ND, don't get me wrong, I'm very much concerned with that anytime something like that happens: you have my attention.

But give OP a chance to tell his side after everything is done with. He started off telling way too much here in the beginning, and of course left out that juicy nugget for obvious reasons.

 

[bwframe]

... He started off telling way too much here in the beginning, and of course left out that juicy nugget for obvious reasons.

I'm just an oddball, but to me that "nugget" would be a damn good reason to keep your mouth shut. Otherwise, it might look like you were trying to garner support from your peers while sweeping critical details under the rug?

 

[MrsGungho]

Idk but I just re-read that Indystar article in the link that was posted and I could swear it is an updated version with more detail than the one I read earlier.

It is far more detailed than what I read earlier.

I'm sure he (Guy) was informed. That was the reasoning for the memo and set the whole thing into motion. Keep in mind: The ND was off duty and off company property.

It's still an ND, don't get me wrong, I'm very much concerned with that anytime something like that happens: you have my attention.

But give OP a chance to tell his side after everything is done with. He started off telling way too much here in the beginning, and of course left out that juicy nugget for obvious reasons.

and happened on July 6 (?), memo went out the next day about long guns in vehicles and OP was fired on Sept 1 after refusing to answer if he had a long gun in his car. By law he did not have to answer and employer was wrong in asking.
The employer could not be reached for comment so I am sure all info in that story came from Relford.

 

[singlestacksig]

Idk but I just re-read that Indystar article in the link that was posted and I could swear it is an updated version with more detail than the one I read earlier.

Yes it has, when I first posted the link, the story made it sound like the ND happend at his workplace.. It did not.. so it should not be an issue in this case.. except some want to make it so..

 

[Roadie]

Idk but I just re-read that Indystar article in the link that was posted and I could swear it is an updated version with more detail than the one I read earlier.

It has definitely been expanded..

 

[mkbar80]

Idk but I just re-read that Indystar article in the link that was posted and I could swear it is an updated version with more detail than the one I read earlier.

As others have stated its been updated. Original did not include location/circumstance of the ND. It certainly seemed to imply he was on ADM property.

 

[KG1]

As others have stated its been updated. Original did not include location/circumstance of the ND. It certainly seemed to imply he was on ADM property.

Exactly.

 

[LEaSH]

I speculate that it happened at apartments that are a job site/client property of ADM's.

That might muddy the waters.

Or maybe it wasn't at all. We won't know obviously.

 

[bwframe]

I speculate that it happened at apartments that are a job site/client property of ADM's.

That might muddy the waters.

Or maybe it wasn't at all. We won't know obviously.

There is a lot that can't be known. Could be the fellow employees are concerned for their safety?

 

[KG1]

I did not acknowledge the email at all.


Listening to the recording again.....LMAO she even tried to rationalize an apartment complex as a Secure Facility. I have a feeling this is going to be expensive but rather humorous in the long run.



Buckstopshere

Its ok to record calls in indiana as long as one party to the call consents. I consented.

I speculate that it happened at apartments that are a job site/client property of ADM's.

That might muddy the waters.

Or maybe it wasn't at all. We won't know obviously.

This could very well be as you've speculated. It might have been some client property. The OP mentions something about an apartment complex brought up by his employer and they made the claim it was a secured facility in a post from early in the thread that I quoted above.

In any event I don't believe it was his employers property. If it was a clients property that this happened at then the employer should have and would have had the grounds to fire him for the ND which they did not do at the time.

 

[LEaSH]

I bet good money ADM settles over this and we won't be allowed the details per the settlement.