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

[thebishopp]

I am not sure why so many people seem to be against this guy.

Whether you like him or not or if he is an idiot or not... if he was terminated in violation of SB 411 then by god you should be for him winning. If not you probably need to find your way over to the anti-gun forums where you would be more than welcome.

I don't care if you got fired for something you felt was unjust but not protected under the law and just because of that you think this guy should "suck it up". This misery loves company BS gets real old.

If he was terminated for having a gun in his vehicle then I hope to hell he wins. If he does it helps us all just as if he doesn't it hurts us all.

Synopsis of SB 411:

"Synopsis:

Disclosure of firearm or ammunition information. Provides that a civil action may be brought against apublic or private employer that has: (1) required an applicant for employment or an employee to discloseinformation under certain circumstances about whether the applicant or employee owns, possesses, uses, ortransports a firearm or ammunition; or (2) conditioned employment, or any rights, benefits, privileges, oropportunities offered by the employment, upon an agreement that the applicant for employment or the employeeforgo the otherwise lawful ownership, possession, storage, transportation, or use of a firearm or ammunition. Provides that a governmental entity may not restrict the possession of a firearm at a person's residence during adeclared emergency."

The SB says he can sue if that was the reason for his termination.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

I am not sure why so many people seem to be against this guy.

Whether you like him or not or if he is an idiot or not... if he was terminated in violation of SB 411 then by god you should be for him winning. If not you probably need to find your way over to the anti-gun forums where you would be more than welcome.

I don't care if you got fired for something you felt was unjust but not protected under the law and just because of that you think this guy should "suck it up". This misery loves company BS gets real old.

If he was terminated for having a gun in his vehicle then I hope to hell he wins. If he does it helps us all just as if he doesn't it hurts us all.

Synopsis of SB 411:

"Synopsis:

Disclosure of firearm or ammunition information. Provides that a civil action may be brought against apublic or private employer that has: (1) required an applicant for employment or an employee to discloseinformation under certain circumstances about whether the applicant or employee owns, possesses, uses, ortransports a firearm or ammunition; or (2) conditioned employment, or any rights, benefits, privileges, oropportunities offered by the employment, upon an agreement that the applicant for employment or the employeeforgo the otherwise lawful ownership, possession, storage, transportation, or use of a firearm or ammunition. Provides that a governmental entity may not restrict the possession of a firearm at a person's residence during adeclared emergency."

The SB says he can sue if that was the reason for his termination.

Didn't you know - the rights of others are only valid when they acted exactly as you choose to. Any deviation from "what I would have done" nullifies an individual's rights.

Most people only care about individual rights in situations where they perceive them to be applicable to themselves. As long as they are not fired, arrested, or harassed without just cause - it must be his fault, since he "insert something I do not agree with".

 

[Double T]

What if he was fired for posting regarding his gun in the trunk? Not that they cared, but perhaps they lost a customer? Or a contract due to that? Is that then still a violation?

Also, this seems to contradict an "at will" state. If an employer discovers a person has a firearm, I have a feeling that if they terminate employment it's not a violation of section 6 of sb 411, as the employer has the right to terminate employment for any reason; and they are not telling the person that they cannot keep the gun in their car. They just chose to separate the employee.

The employer still reserves the right to terminate, and IMO is not violating SB 411 or anything else. It sucks, but that is how I am reading it.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

"No employee other then police officers employed by XXX shall have, possess on their person or in their vehicle any rifle / shotgun while on duty. If you have any questions feel free to email me directly. If you feel that this an unreasonable rule then XXX will gladly accept your resignation. If I find that this rule is not being followed by employees or supervisors have knowledge of this violation then consider your job to be in jeopardy. This is a zero tolerance rule. All XXX employees shell respond acknowledging this email. Thank you. "

(2) conditioned employment, or any rights, benefits, privileges, or opportunities offered by the employment, upon an agreement that the applicant for employment or the employee forego the otherwise lawful ownership, possession, storage, transportation, or use of a firearm or ammunition.

Working off of the assumption that the memo is truthful and valid, the employer conditioned employment upon the agreement that the employee forego the otherwise lawful transportation of his firearm.

They may not have necessarily had to actually fire him for a suit of this nature to succeed - although without being fired I cannot think of any actual damages that could be claimed.

They could have fired him for any reason they choose without stating why - but the moment they play the "no firearms in your vehicle" card, civil action may be brought against them - right or wrong.

 

[eatsnopaste]

In Indiana you can be fired for being black, for being Catholic, for having a gun in your car at work or for wearing a blue shirt on Friday. The only one that you can TELL the person is the reason for being fired is the blue shirt on Friday. (and I'm sure an attorney will take the case anyway)

 

[KG1]

Regardless of what legalities were violated here or not I think this is once again a perfect example of keeping your cake hole shut regarding any firearms you may or may not have in your possession or in your vehicle. Don't do it.

No one needs to know, especially people that you work with no matter how much you think you can trust them with that info.

 

[Bunnykid68]

He was fired for not having his gun in his car, he used to have it in his car, but didn't want to get fired for violating company policy so he removed it and was fired anyway.

 

[KG1]

He was fired for not having his gun in his car, he used to have it in his car, but didn't want to get fired for violating company policy so he removed it and was fired anyway.

That seems odd. Maybe they just assumed he had one in there since he ran his cake hole previously about carrying a long gun in his vehicle to a supervisor that he thought he could trust.

 

[Bunnykid68]

That seems odd. Maybe they just assumed he had one in there since he ran his cake hole previously about carrying a long gun in his vehicle to a supervisor that he thought he could trust.

I am just going off of what he said, he said he removed it once the policy was changed

 

[Justin Case]

 

[DRob]

Against him?

I don't think many were "against" him. I think many, myself included, believe it was a mistake to post details on the internet.

 

[LEaSH]

I don't think many were "against" him. I think many, myself included, believe it was a mistake to post details on the internet.

I don't see any posts that are against the OP succeeding, either.

There are some gaps in the story - but really not much of the OP's story should've been put out yet either. I'd be glad to read the whole shebang after it's all said and done. I have feeling it wont be followed through with for some reason.

And the whole celebratory nutliquor thing was kind of dumb. Celebrate when you have a reason - anything else seems pompous.

 

[daddymikey1975]

And the whole celebratory nutliquor thing was kind of dumb. Celebrate when you have a reason - anything else seems pompous.

I'd have to go back and read it again, but I believe he was celebrating because he found another job

 

[thebishopp]

What if he was fired for posting regarding his gun in the trunk? Not that they cared, but perhaps they lost a customer? Or a contract due to that? Is that then still a violation?

Also, this seems to contradict an "at will" state. If an employer discovers a person has a firearm, I have a feeling that if they terminate employment it's not a violation of section 6 of sb 411, as the employer has the right to terminate employment for any reason; and they are not telling the person that they cannot keep the gun in their car. They just chose to separate the employee.

The employer still reserves the right to terminate, and IMO is not violating SB 411 or anything else. It sucks, but that is how I am reading it.

If they terminate an employee for storing their firearm in their vehicle while working then it is a violation of SB411. It's pretty clear. The employer can regulate certain aspects of carrying but can not so where it violates that law (says it right there in the bill). In particular the storing of their weapon in their vehicle while they are working. It says it can not make it a "condition of employment". Period. "Separating" the employee is the same as "terminating" the employee, or "firing" the employee. Busting out the Thesaurus does change the actions.

Yes this is an "at will" state. However that does not mean they can "legally" terminate you for being "black", "catholic", being in the military, etc. etc. as they are protected classes (SB411 made people who are storing their firearm in their vehicle "protected" from termination for that reason).

As another poster pointed out, an employer "can" fire you for anything, even for being in one of the protected classes. The difference is that the employer is not protected from civil suits when they do so.

Which is why some other posters have suggested the employer "lie" about why they terminate someone (if it is for being one of the protected classes).

Now if he was fired for "posting" about having a gun that does not seem like it would fall into the "protected" category. People have been fired for facebook posts and what not if the employer felt it showed them in a bad light. Such terminations have been upheld in other states. The thing is that is not what the OP is relating and is a different conversation altogether.

If the OP actually has a recording as well as the memo AND he can find a lawyer then I would not be surprised if an offer complete with non-disclosure agreement is made (and probably accepted).

 

[rimfire_crazed]

Ciyou probably has more on his plate than he cares for right now, the IndyStar just reported that he is taking over Charlie White's case, alleging that Cari Brizzi's incompetence materially effected the outcome of the trial.

 

[LEaSH]

I'd have to go back and read it again, but I believe he was celebrating because he found another job

Yeah I get it.

But does it sound like he's suffering any sort of hardship to you? These posts will be read by the other side too.

Carrying oneself with aplomb, and behaving careless are different things.

 

[Bunnykid68]

If they terminate an employee for storing their firearm in their vehicle while working then it is a violation of SB411. It's pretty clear. The employer can regulate certain aspects of carrying but can not so where it violates that law (says it right there in the bill). In particular the storing of their weapon in their vehicle while they are working. It says it can not make it a "condition of employment". Period. "Separating" the employee is the same as "terminating" the employee, or "firing" the employee. Busting out the Thesaurus does change the actions.

Yes this is an "at will" state. However that does not mean they can "legally" terminate you for being "black", "catholic", being in the military, etc. etc. as they are protected classes (SB411 made people who are storing their firearm in their vehicle "protected" from termination for that reason).

As another poster pointed out, an employer "can" fire you for anything, even for being in one of the protected classes. The difference is that the employer is not protected from civil suits when they do so.

Which is why some other posters have suggested the employer "lie" about why they terminate someone (if it is for being one of the protected classes).

Now if he was fired for "posting" about having a gun that does not seem like it would fall into the "protected" category. People have been fired for facebook posts and what not if the employer felt it showed them in a bad light. Such terminations have been upheld in other states. The thing is that is not what the OP is relating and is a different conversation altogether.

If the OP actually has a recording as well as the memo AND he can find a lawyer then I would not be surprised if an offer complete with non-disclosure agreement is made (and probably accepted).

I am pretty sure he said he followed policy and quit storing his weapon in his car, which means he was fired for following company policy, not violating it.

 

[thebishopp]

I am pretty sure he said he followed policy and quit storing his weapon in his car, which means he was fired for following company policy, not violating it.

Yep I believe he said the same thing. I guess they assumed he still wasstill storing it in the car. Heck they may have been wanting to get rid of him for awhile but figured this was the way they could do it (big mistake if the OP actually has the memo and recording).

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

I think the moment they sent out that memo, a civil action could be brought against them.

We could play semantics all day long, and if he cannot prove that is the reason he was fired, he would not be able to show as much actual damage - but he would not have to be fired to bring civil action against them.

Indiana being an at-will state is irrelevant. If someone sexually harasses you at work, civil action is the recourse, fired or not. If they fire you because of a prohibited action, then you just have more actual damages to claim.

 

[SaintsNSinners]

A. The celebration with liquor was for finding another job, btw nutliquor and bourbon is OK

B. I didnt brag about having a gun in my truck at work
C. Yes Supervisors knew I had an AR I coonfingered theirs and they coonfingered mine. Prior to the email everyone knew, had one or other long gun and didn't care.

D. Yes I removed it after recieving the email of the new policy
E. Yes I was fired violating a policy even though I didnt and knew the policy illegal
F. Yes I have a recorded phone call in which my termination was made clear : Violating the new policy
G. Yes I have a copy of the email, with all headers and footers. Proving violation of SB411

H. There is a reason I didnt name names, or companys, but It doesnt matter anyway the Email and phone call are all I need. Hard to disprove otherwise.

I have my own lawyer on retainer but am currently looking for the best employment attorney for this. My attorney mainly does child support and family law, estates and such