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

[Chesh97]

Star news has the story..
http://www.indystar.com/article/201...his-car?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|IndyStar.com

seems the OP had a ND first ??

Seems the OP forgot to leave out this little nugget eh

 

[KG1]

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

You could very well be right. They bungled the way they handled this deal and like it or not no matter what the OP may have done it certainly looks like he has the makings for a case that they violated the law in the way he was terminated.

 

[NYFelon]

Seems the OP forgot to leave out this little nugget eh

Off duty and not on Company property. Relevant how?

 

[Double T]

Off duty and not on Company property. Relevant how?

Was he in uniform? Were the others in uniform? Were the others on duty?

I am very interested in this case, as I have asked whether I am technically an exempted person from this law (and must leave firearms at home), to which I haven't been able to get good answers to.

Was it the booger hook that caused the ND, or a slam fire when charging the handle? Was their a report filed?

Too many questions IMHO, but if the weapon was at fault (and not booger hook) was the company not then justified in asking about the whereaouts of the long gun?

Another reason to keep your guns to yourself and not showboat them to anyone.

 

[KG1]

Off duty and not on Company property. Relevant how?

You are correct that it's not relevant to the grounds of the OP's civil case and has no bearing on his employers alleged violation of the law.

 

[GBuck]

While the ND is obviously an issue, it has nothing to do with this case. He was off duty, off property and on his own damn time. How could they even have given him a written warning? I would have told them to pound sand at that point.

The point is, THEY CITED HIM HAVING THE RIFLE IN HIS CAR as their reason for firing him. BIG no-no. You don't have to have a reason to fire someone, so don't give one!

He couldn't possibly be fired for the ND considering he wasn't fired for 2 months later!

 

[Double T]

If the gun was unsafe, then they probably could fire him for posessing it if the ND was a slamfire. Review/lawyer/insurance consult could have taken that long, especially if anyone else was on duty or in uniform.

 

[Amattern]

Yes the security company cannot say they fired him for having the weapon on their property. But can they let him go for having the firearm on the clients property? Maybe the client found out about the ND and decided they didn't want to take a chance on him having another incident while on duty at their property. I don't see any law that would prevent them from firing him on those grounds.

 

[GBuck]

Yes the security company cannot say they fired him for having the weapon on their property. But can they let him go for having the firearm on the clients property? Maybe the client found out about the ND and decided they didn't want to take a chance on him having another incident while on duty at their property. I don't see any law that would prevent them from firing him on those grounds.

Yeah, you're right. Except the reason that they gave was due to him having a firearm in his vehicle. That was they're mistake and whether that's the real reason it doesn't matter.

 

[Amattern]

Thats what I am saying. He had the weapon in his vehicle on the clients property, so thats why they said it was because he had it in his vehicle.

 

[Mr.JAG]

The owner of the security company has apparently replied in the comments section of the article...

 

[KG1]

The owner of the security company has apparently replied in the comments section of the article...

I saw that. The owner claims it was company property. I'm more inclined to think it was a clients property.

Regardless of that he was'nt fired at the time the ND incident took place and that was'nt given as the reason for termination.

It was alleged by the OP that it was because he declined to respond yea or nay to his employers inquiry 2 months after the incident took place on whether he had a rifle in his vehicle or not in violation of their new policy, which I believe in and of itself is a violation of the law because an employer cannot regulate an employees firearms that are secured in their own personal vehicle unless it is on restricted property spelled out in the law.

That is where the employer legally crossed the line.

 

[bwframe]

The owner of the security company has apparently replied in the comments section of the article...

Apparently you must use facebook to view the comments.

 

[Indy_Guy_77]

And now that someone claiming to represent ADM has posted on the article...

It's also now forever archived and subject to subpoena as well as (potentially) any other relevant postings... (Just like all the ones here)

-J-

 

[LEaSH]

I guess ADM hasn't talked to a lawyer yet . Let's see if they have more to say.

 

[Clay]

Can someone post up the ADM response? I can't see it.

 

[CathyInBlue]

Apparently you must use facebook to view the comments.

I don't have a FB account and I can still read them. You have to let your browser load third party content from them, though.

"Yes, Mr. McClure. Do tell us more about how he was on company property. Add to the public record in this case, by all means. You have my attention."

Can someone post up the ADM response? I can't see it.

I would, but yesterday, I got a warning for copy-pasta'ing text from extra-INGO sources.

 

[MrsGungho]

Can someone post up the ADM response? I can't see it.

all he posted was "he was on company property"

 

[Rookie]

I thought the law allowed hand guns, not semi automatics.

THAT'S FUNNY!

 

[bwframe]

I don't have a FB account and I can still read them. You have to let your browser load third party content from them, though.

Thank you! Couldn't figure Firefox out, but this info led me to Chrome that works.