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

[Zoub]

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

Money in the bank. He can not retract that statement.

F'n dumb. By just doing that, it shows how unprepared he is as an owner to deal with this issue. His original decision was intended to protect his business but he clearly wrote it from the emotional/ego side of his brain and forgot there is no justification for violating an employees rights. The timing of all the events will make it hard to prove the OP was not fired purely on the assumption he had a rifle in his vehicle. Consulting with his attorney first before he wrote that policy and memo would have saved him a lot of time, heart ache and money.

Termination will stand. $100k will be deposited in OP's bank account in 12-13 months.

 

[thebishopp]

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.

Doesn't matter. They made a statement regarding his termination already. You can not "unring the bell" There is no "taksies backsies" after you realize the reason you did something was contrary to law so now you have to make something else up that IS legal.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

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

THAT'S FUNNY!

I did a double take when I read that on the Indystar page.

You may carry hand guns, but only the single action variety!

 

[KG1]

Money in the bank. He can not retract that statement.

F'n dumb. By just doing that, it shows how unprepared he is as an owner to deal with this issue. His original decision was intended to protect his business but he clearly wrote it from the emotional/ego side of his brain and forgot there is no justification for violating an employees rights. The timing of all the events will make it hard to prove the OP was not fired purely on the assumption he had a rifle in his vehicle. Consulting with his attorney first before he wrote that policy and memo would have saved him a lot of time, heart ache and money.

Termination will stand. $100k will be deposited in OP's bank account in 12-13 months.

This is pretty much the crux of the whole thing here.

I posted in another thread that IMO the employer screwd up two fold in this case. First by adopting an illegal policy regulating an employees firearms secured in their vehicle and second by trying to enforce that illegal company policy by making an inquiry of the employee as to whether or not they had any prohibited firearms per the illegal policy in their own personal vehicle.

I think the employer would've been okay if they had worded the policy differently by listing the prohibited firearms and stating that any employee removing those non approved firearms from their vehicle on company property or the property of company affiliated clients are subject to termination.

 

[coltaceguy]

All the major stations are now picking the story up

Lawsuit tests Indiana's 'take your gun to work' law - 13 WTHR Indianapolis

 

[justice4all]

I've read over the law a few times and im not seeing anything that that talks about if they can regulate the type of gun, just that they cant ask or tell not have gun. I've been talking to a friend that does security and she was telling me that they charge more for AR carry on site so I mean this guy was armed so they didnt tell him he couldnt have a gun in his vehicle just the type of gun which after seeing that his AR discharged while removing it from the vehicle sounds like they were trying to cover his ass along with theirs AND No freebies in the money field. I'm interested on this and will be watching to see how it unfolds.

 

[Roadie]

I've read over the law a few times and im not seeing anything that that talks about if they can regulate the type of gun, just that they cant ask or tell not have gun. I've been talking to a friend that does security and she was telling me that they charge more for AR carry on site so I mean this guy was armed so they didnt tell him he couldnt have a gun in his vehicle just the type of gun which after seeing that his AR discharged while removing it from the vehicle sounds like they were trying to cover his ass along with theirs AND No freebies in the money field. I'm interested on this and will be watching to see how it unfolds.

They DID tell their employees they could not have ANY rifle/shotgun in the car, not just specifically an AR..

The email sent to the employees has been posted..

“No employee other than police officers employed by ADM shall have, possess on their person or in their vehicles any rife/shotgun while on duty. If you have any questions feel free to email me directly. If you feel that this (sic) an unreasonable rule then ADM 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 ADM employees shell (sic) respond acknowledging this email. Thank you.”

 

[sepe]

They DID tell their employees they could not have ANY rifle/shotgun in the car, not just specifically an AR..

The email sent to the employees has been posted..

Even though I understand the law and that the ND wasn't on company property, I'd say I wouldn't have felt too comfortable if I had to work a shift with dude. I've shown people firearms quite a bit and the first thing I do is make sure it isn't loaded. If I was a coworker (or a resident at a complex he works) that I'd want him having an AR in his vehicle. But being an HR major in my last semester, the owner/HR shouldn't have given a reason for the dismissal. They've quite possibly screwed themselves pretty hard.

 

[Roadie]

Even though I understand the law and that the ND wasn't on company property, I'd say I wouldn't have felt too comfortable if I had to work a shift with dude. I've shown people firearms quite a bit and the first thing I do is make sure it isn't loaded. If I was a coworker (or a resident at a complex he works) that I'd want him having an AR in his vehicle. But being an HR major in my last semester, the owner/HR shouldn't have given a reason for the dismissal. They've quite possibly screwed themselves pretty hard.

Agreed. The Policy they sent out + the admission that he was fired for the gun issue = 2 MAJOR snafus on the employers part.

They could have easily fired him in such a way that "Employment At Will" would have made it VERY hard for him to prove WHY he was terminated..

 

[harb7676]

The accidental discharge sounds like incompetency. oh well this guy will walk away with money because his employer is just as incompetent..

 

[beachhead40]

i would have fired him too being armed security and showing off a gun and accidently dicharging it....... i wouldnt want him to accidently shoot a person while he was on duty

 

[MrsGungho]

i would have fired him too being armed security and showing off a gun and accidently dicharging it....... i wouldnt want him to accidently shoot a person while he was on duty

and firing him for that would have been fine. That, however, is not what he was fired for.

 

[GBuck]

i would have fired him too being armed security and showing off a gun and accidently dicharging it....... i wouldnt want him to accidently shoot a person while he was on duty

So much fail...

 

[Endofdays]

This thread was an amazing read of fail. As a HR Manager of 15 years, in 2012 Indiana, as a right to work state, you just don't get fired straight away unless you were just being a dumbass and a threat/disruption to the job. Just saying.

 

[daddymikey1975]

This thread was an amazing read of fail. As a HR Manager of 15 years, in 2012 Indiana, as a right to work state, you just don't get fired straight away unless you were just being a dumbass and a threat/disruption to the job. Just saying.

IANAL, but the way I understood 'right to work,' it was mostly tailored around unions and union workers. As an HR manager of 15 years, I would expect you to know the context of the law. I did find these tidbits for your reference though:

Q: Does a so-called "Right-to-Work" law guarantee me a job or the "right" to a job?

A: No. "Right-to-Work" laws have nothing to do with creating or providing jobs for workers?

Q: Does a so-called "Right-to-Work" law protect me from losing my job?

A: No. Indiana is an "at-will" employment state which means that you can be fired for any reason or no reason.

Q: So, under "at-will" employment my employer can fire me for no reason and the "Right-to-Work" law does nothing to stop this?

A: Correct. A so-called "Right-to-Work" law does not guarantee any right to "work" nor does it stop an employer from firing you under the at-will doctrine.

taken from here

And right here is the text of the right to work law for your reference as well. Might wanna study up.

 

[GBuck]

This thread was an amazing read of fail. As a HR Manager of 15 years, in 2012 Indiana, as a right to work state, you just don't get fired straight away unless your employer is an absolute moron and fires you specifically in disregard for a current statute. Just saying.

FTFY. No charge.

 

[Roadie]

This thread was an amazing read of fail. As a HR Manager of 15 years, in 2012 Indiana, as a right to work state, you just don't get fired straight away unless you were just being a dumbass and a threat/disruption to the job. Just saying.

You may have never fired anyone improperly, but that does not mean it doesnt happen..

 

[rat-man]

threads like this serve to remind me I made the right choices about being a private contractor.

 

[.38 Special]

How did they find out about this "secured" AR-15?

+1

 

[JettaKnight]

taken from here

"here" being a website run by a pro-union group with the title "Indiana Right to Work is Wrong". Me thinks your source is a bit biased.