"Guns in the Workplace" Lawsuit Filed

[silverspoon]

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;

Actually there is at least two if not more. There's the "big" one down on the near south side and another on the far north west side. There may even be more, it's surprisingly easy to meet both those standards when talking about research facilities.

 

[KG1]

If the employer in this case wanted to let the employee go because of the ND incident then they should've done so at the time and not the way they handled it by allegedly violating the law almost 2 months later.

Even though the employee was supposedly off duty he was apparently on his employers client's property and as the employer they would've been within the scope of "at will" IMO to fire him for that particular incident at that time.

The ND incident may have been the reason the employer implemented the policy but they ran afoul of the law by trying to enforce that policy.

As it stands now the previous ND incident has no bearing in the civil case that was presented because it was alleged that the reason for termination was because of an alleged perceived violation due to the employer's illegal policy.

I'm not even sure if the policy in and of itself was'nt a violation of the law because an employer can't even "adopt" a policy regulating any firearms that are secured in an employees personal vehicle according to the law if I am reading it correctly.

The employer screwed up two fold here by first "adopting" an illegal policy and then again by trying to "enforce" that illegal policy by making an inquiry of the employee as to whether or not they had any firearms prohibited by their illegal company policy in their personal vehicle.

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:

 

[daddymikey1975]

So just how many cameras were on him?

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

video is on their website. had to search for it. I dont get 59 either LOL

 

[Mike.B]

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.

(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;

I am going to look and make sure they do not qualify under this. If they do not I'd be happy to see them be educated of the laws they break. Even though I'm sure they are already aware.

 

[Birds Away]

+1 for the "hotshot gun lawyer". Ya gotta love the media.

 

[CathyInBlue]

99.999% sure Guy would have done that needed research to nip that possibility of getting egg on his face in the bud.

And I agree that ADM would have been entirely within their powers as an employer in an at-will state to terminate SnS immediately after the ND. They didn't do that, though. They instead chose to go a route that is proscribed with specificity by black letter law, and because of that, they're gonna get reamed out and raked over the coals.

God, I love mixing metaphors.

 

[cp009]

Can't wait to see the result of this. Looks pretty clear cut in the plaintiff's favor.

 

[bwframe]

If the employer in this case wanted to let the employee go because of the ND incident then they should've done so at the time...

...I agree that ADM would have been entirely within their powers as an employer in an at-will state to terminate SnS immediately after the ND...

Just playing devil's advocate here...

Is there law that specifies this idea that one must terminate immediately after an incident? I was under the impression that IN employers can terminate any time without need for cause?

To complicate things further, what if complaints came after the ND that built to the point of necessitating action? Complaints from apartment residents or fellow employees could take time to get to "it's him or us," right?

 

[Chesh97]

Glad to have Guy on our side!

 

[MooreALX]

Just playing devil's advocate here...

Is there law that specifies this idea that one must terminate immediately after an incident? I was under the impression that IN employers can terminate any time without need for cause?

To complicate things further, what if complaints came after the ND that built to the point of necessitating action? Complaints from apartment residents or fellow employees could take time to get to "it's him or us," right?

From what I read the company stated the illegal policy as grounds for dismissal, that combined with the fact that they are withholding unpaid wages is what is getting the company in trouble. From what I understand, if they simply fired him without giving a reason (and paid him for his work up until dismissal) the case would be much easier to defend.

 

[KG1]

Just playing devil's advocate here...

Is there law that specifies this idea that one must terminate immediately after an incident? I was under the impression that IN employers can terminate any time without need for cause?

To complicate things further, what if complaints came after the ND that built to the point of necessitating action? Complaints from apartment residents or fellow employees could take time to get to "it's him or us," right?

I believe you are correct but apparently the employee in this case says that he has proof that he was terminated under the guise of the illegal policy, that was adopted IMO because of the ND incident, which the employer tried to enforce after the fact instead of just outright firing him in the first place.

If they would have fired him at anytime for the incident or not even giving a reason at all then they would've been in the clear but they chose not to go that route and placed themselves into a civil action for handling it the way they did.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

I believe you are correct but apparently the employee in this case says that he has proof that he was terminated under the guise of the illegal policy, that was adopted IMO because of the ND incident, which the employer tried to enforce after the fact instead of just outright firing him in the first place.

If they would have fired him at anytime for the incident or not even giving a reason at all then they would've been in the clear but they chose not to go that route and placed themselves into a civil action for handling it the way they did.

They would not have had to fire him.

Their policy broke the law and opened the door to civil action. Sending out a memo sealed the deal - creating proof that they were breaking the law.

Proving that he was fired because of their policy just shows more damage.

They could have fired him for something else completely (or not fired him at all), and their policy would still leave them wide open for civil action.

 

[KG1]

They would not have had to fire him.

Their policy broke the law and opened the door to civil action. Sending out a memo sealed the deal - creating proof that they were breaking the law.

Proving that he was fired because of their policy just shows more damage.

They could have fired him for something else completely (or not fired him at all), and their policy would still leave them wide open for civil action.

That is correct. That's why I stated previously that their policy the way it was worded in and of itself is a violation of the new law.

I believe the employee ultimately took the civil action because he was terminated by the employer who was trying to illegally enforce the illegal policy. (double legal whammy)

But you are correct in saying that they could have faced legal action for implementing the policy regardless of what took place with the employee in this instance.

 

[Doug]

The Star article states or implies an employee can carry a firearm while working and an employer cannot prohibit an employee carrying or
ask an employee if he or she is carrying.
The article implies "carrying concealed" as it says the employer cannot ask about a firearm in a purse.
It seems to me that "transport" in the statute does not equal "carry" in the sense of "License to Carry Handgun" or keep in a purse, as the Star implied.

Comments?

 

[dwickstrom]

Dupe

 

[Doug]

The Star article states or implies an employee can carry a firearm while working and an employer cannot prohibit an employee carrying or
ask an employee if he or she is carrying.
The article implies "carrying concealed" as it says the employer cannot ask about a firearm in a purse.
It seems to me that "transport" in the statute does not equal "carry" in the sense of "License to Carry Handgun" or keep in a purse, as the Star implied.

Comments?

Found the code:

IC 34-28-8-9
Regulation or prohibition of firearm possession or carrying a firearm by employee; when authorized
Sec. 9. Notwithstanding section 6 of this chapter, this chapter does not prohibit a public or private employer from:
(1) regulating or prohibiting the possession or carrying of a firearm by an employee during and in the course of the duties of the employee on behalf of the employer or while on the property of the employer; or
(2) enforcing a regulation or prohibition adopted under subdivision (1).
However, a regulation or prohibition adopted under subdivision (1) may not apply to a firearm stored or transported in accordance with IC 34-28-7.

The Star is wrong.
An employer may ban an employee from carrying at work.

 

[IndyIN]

Actually there is at least two if not more. There's the "big" one down on the near south side and another on the far north west side. There may even be more, it's surprisingly easy to meet both those standards when talking about research facilities.

Yep, and it's good for folks to keep in mind that they might not be aware ( and some of their company HR folks might not be able to explain why).

 

[hdchaplain]

Go for it and I hope you win. I hope someday to be allowed to carry legally at places where there are children. After all, the current laws say we can't but that doesn't seem to stop the ones who want to kill the innocent.

 

[CathyInBlue]

Go for it and I hope you win. I hope someday to be allowed to carry legally at places where there are children. After all, the current laws say we can't but that doesn't seem to stop the ones who want to kill the innocent.

<Scooby-Doo> Huh? </Scooby-Doo>

Sounds like someone's been reading too many public comments on anti-gun/anti-carry opinion/hit pieces in news rags.

To be clear, there is no law which singles out places of child habitation as no-go zones. Schools, by name, yes. Licensed day care centers, by name, yes. Pre-schools, Head Starts, by name, yes. Museums, no. Zoos, no. Public parks, no. Playgrounds, no.

Therein lays the problem. The school prohibition is so wide-sweeping and absolute, yet so nebulous and ill-defined, that even after doing days of exhaustive research into a given venue and the applicability of the school zone prohibition thereto, even gaining permission of the owner/director/grand high poobah thereof to carry our legally carried personal protection sidearms there, we could show up only to find an impromptu school field trip is taking place there as well and we are suddenly, by the broadest reading of the letter of the law, felons.

 

[beararms1776]

What is ND? Is that where the employee files a negligent discharge?

Seriously though, employers fire decent employees all the time and for any reason. Eventually, what does that leave em with?