"Guns in the Workplace" Lawsuit Filed

[Hammerhead]

Wait, there was an ND involved? Hadn't seen that before.

Doesn't change the suit, but that wasn't brought up before.

Glad nothing bad happened.

 

[jkwparrott]

A public or private employer doing business in Indiana may not: (1) require an applicant for employment or an employee to disclose information about whether the applicantor employee owns, possesses, uses, or transports a firearm or ammunition, unless the disclosure concerns the possession, use, or transportation of a firearm or ammunition that is used in fulfilling the duties of the employment of the individual

So when my employer has a question on my insurance forms asking if I own a gun I can refuse to answer that question?

 

[CathyInBlue]

Yes. Without penalty.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

So when my employer has a question on my insurance forms asking if I own a gun I can refuse to answer that question?

Always remember: you are living in an employment at will state. So, unless your employment is protected by some contract or statute, you may be terminated for any or no reason. (The smart ones will give you no reason).

 

[IndyIN]

I think it's also helpful to read the entire IC. There is one BIG company headquartered in Indianapolis that meets two of the exceptions (underlined). My point is that every individual needs to be well informed prior to taking action.

Indiana Code 34-28-7

IC 34-28-7-2
Regulation of employees' firearms and ammunition by employers
Sec. 2. (a) Notwithstanding any other law and except as provided in subsection (b), a person may not adopt or enforce an ordinance, a resolution, a policy, or a rule that:
(1) prohibits; or
(2) has the effect of prohibiting;
an employee of the person, including a contract employee, from possessing a firearm or ammunition that is locked in the trunk of the employee's vehicle, kept in the glove compartment of the employee's locked vehicle, or stored out of plain sight in the employee's locked vehicle.

(b) Subsection (a) does not prohibit the adoption or enforcement of an ordinance, a resolution, a policy, or a rule that prohibits or has the effect of prohibiting an employee of the person, including a contract employee, from possessing a firearm or ammunition:
(8) on the property of a person that is:
(A) subject to the United States Department of Homeland Security's Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards issued April 9, 2007; and
(B) licensed by the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations;

 

[Jack Burton]

My work violates these policies. They tell you that you have to fill out a form with the "safety officer". With them it is more like filling out your resignation.

Pm me and I'll send them a copy of the lawsuit. This will keep you out of the loop but still notify them that the hammer might be coming.

 

[the1kidd03]

Gonna be coverage on Fox in the next few minutes

 

[alexanjl12]

So when my employer has a question on my insurance forms asking if I own a gun I can refuse to answer that question?

The place I work at in Carmel has a company policy stating that you must notify security if you have plan on having a weapon in you vehicle on company property. Now I know they are breaking the law

 

[themadmedic]

Gonna be coverage on Fox in the next few minutes

LOL "hot shot lawyer" made my wife crack up.

 

[SaintsNSinners]

I looked fat

 

[daddymikey1975]

If there was an accidental discharge "while chained in the employee's vehicle".. where is the damage to said vehicle ??

 

[daddymikey1975]

I looked fat

Camera always adds a few (twenty?) pounds from what I've heard

 

[Bill of Rights]

"Honey, does this gun make my butt look fat?"

"No, your butt does that all by itself!"



(No offense meant to anyone here, just a "funny" I heard that I thought was applicable. )

 

[Hammerhead]

Camera always adds a few (twenty?) pounds from what I've heard

So just how many cameras were on him?

Kidding...I don't get 59 so I didn't see the story.

 

[bwframe]

Indiana man tests new gun laws after being fired for having an AR-15 - fox59.com

The report said that ADM is in charge of security for the apartment parking lot where the ND happened.

 

[Got SIG?]

"On July 6, Jordan was showing the AR-15 he had in his trunk to coworkers, including an ADM supervisor, while he was off-duty and not on company property but at an apartment complex. Somehow, the weapon accidentally discharged." I realize that this is not part of the suit, but for the love of all that is Holy, could these statements please be stated correctly; an irresponsible gun owner failed to treat every weapon as if it is loaded and then proceeded to make matters worse by pulling the trigger. If that is not what happened the suit should be against the AR manufacturer for making a defective firearm. But we all know the weapon is not at fault. And yes, I know the man should not have been fired for having a weapon in his car. I get all that, I just feel that articles that speak of guns accidentally going off, or bullets hiding in chambers, make the bulk of the public more nervous about our rights than they need to be. Just my little rant. Guy - I wish you the best on this case - kick butt, and take names!

 

[CathyInBlue]

Indiana man tests new gun laws after being fired for having an AR-15 - fox59.com

The report said that ADM is in charge of security for the apartment parking lot where the ND happened.

Coefficient of Relevance to SnS's lawsuit: zero.

He was off-duty.

 

[bwframe]

Coefficient of Relevance to SnS's lawsuit: zero.

He was off-duty.

I'm just saying that according to the report the employer is claiming different things than what have been stated in this thread. They are also claiming that part of the reason for the termination was due to the police reported ND.

 

[jsharmon7]

There have been a few threads on this so I may have missed it. Was the only reason given by ADM simply for having the rifle in his personal vehicle? If his termination was only for that reason, then this should be a pretty simple case.

 

[MrsGungho]

There have been a few threads on this so I may have missed it. Was the only reason given by ADM simply for having the rifle in his personal vehicle? If his termination was only for that reason, then this should be a pretty simple case.

If memory serves correct, yes that was the only reason given to the employee. Now they are saying something differently.