Test case for Indiana law?

[mbills2223]

If you can be fired for practically anything in Indiana, how is this going to stand up? He wasn't fired for possession of a firearm on their property, just for espousing ownership. I'm interested in seeing how this plays out, but if Indiana is "at will", how does this not apply? Sure he has the Right to keep and bear, but what about their employer Rights? Gonna be an interesting case.

This...At will means at will.

 

[Roadie]

This...At will means at will.

No, it doesn't..
Not when there are other laws that can be violated and supersede "at will".. such as discrimination, and asking if the employee owns guns..

 

[MikeDVB]

Interesting.

 

[actaeon277]

I thought that most here were of the logic that a private business should be able to hire/fire as they see fit. Race, religion, etc were all fair game. I guess not.

INGO is not monolithic, just as all police are not the same.

I think the HOA should be able to do what it did, while I disagree with what they did.
Of course I also think employees should all not go in as a protest, and homeowners not pay for a month.

 

[Denny347]

considering that even asking if he is a gun owner is a violation of state law, I think he has a pretty clear case.

Cite please.

 

[TopDog]

Tagged, this is going to be interesting.

 

[actaeon277]

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...ay-go-gov-daniels-parking-lot-2-0-signed.html

Maybe this?

Cite please.

 

[philo]

This...At will means at will.

You can be fired for no reason or for a bad reason, but not for an illegal reason. Courts see this fairly often.

 

[MikeDVB]

You can be fired for no reason or for a bad reason, but not for an illegal reason. Courts see this fairly often.

You can be fired for an illegal reason too if 'no reason' is given. You would have to prove that you were fired for something illegal which can, at times, be hard to do.

 

[Libertarian01]

You can be fired for an illegal reason too if 'no reason' is given. You would have to prove that you were fired for something illegal which can, at times, be hard to do.

To MikeDVD,

To address this his lawyer may look at the timing of the questioning of his supervisor. Obviously I don't know the details of the case but there is a legal theory called "temporal proximity." Basically, it says that if you have been doing good work for years and on a certain day X happens, then within a very brief time frame you are terminated that is within the temporal proximity to prove that event X was the cause of the termination.

Not a lawyer but a jury can conclude due to temporal proximity event X was the excuse. As to whether that is illegal is another question.

Regards,

Doug

PS - I would guess same day of termination as telling supervisor of ownership is REALLY GOOD temporal proximity.

 

[mbills2223]

Cite please.

Yes...cite please.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I thought that most here were of the logic that a private business should be able to hire/fire as they see fit. Race, religion, etc were all fair game. I guess not.

I can assure you that this notion is as dead as the Lost Cause movement.

 

[Denny347]

I can assure you that this notion is as dead as the Lost Cause movement.

I know, I was just pointing out some hypocrisy.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

They are just idealists more familiar with a sci fi book than a history book.

Part of the gun culture thinks that if they ignore the Civil War and the Civil War amendments hard enough, that time frame of history and those amendments will cease to exist.

 

[jedi]

So she is the Mayor's wife?

She is the Mayor of Hammond's wife. Why is she taking on a pro-2A case. Hum.. remember the Mayor of Hammond dreams of becoming the governor of Indiana. It would look good to have a "pro-2a" wife by his side. Plus I'm sure this case is easy money for her based on the new law (see below).

If you can be fired for practically anything in Indiana, how is this going to stand up? He wasn't fired for possession of a firearm on their property, just for espousing ownership. I'm interested in seeing how this plays out, but if Indiana is "at will", how does this not apply? Sure he has the Right to keep and bear, but what about their employer Rights? Gonna be an interesting case.

This...At will means at will.

No, it doesn't..
Not when there are other laws that can be violated and supersede "at will".. such as discrimination, and asking if the employee owns guns..

Per the article a new law was passed in 2011 which 'protects' a worker from being fired because they own a gun.
I'm not sure which IC it is but it has been talked about here on INGO. Basically your employer can NOT ask you about guns and then fire you because you have one. Similar to they can't fire you because of race, religion, etc..

 

[SteveM4A1]

I thought that most here were of the logic that a private business should be able to hire/fire as they see fit. Race, religion, etc were all fair game. I guess not.

I'm still here in this camp. I see nothing wrong with it personally.

But to your point; this is INGO, you can't expect consistency out of most here.

 

[philo]

You can be fired for an illegal reason too if 'no reason' is given. You would have to prove that you were fired for something illegal which can, at times, be hard to do.

You know, it's human nature, sometimes an employer, manager, supervisor, foreman, etc. can't keep their piehole shut about the reason for termination.

 

[MikeDVB]

Sure - I'm just saying it is possible to be fired for a protected/illegal reason. Not everybody is smart enough to do such a thing though.

 

[HoughMade]

Cite please.

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 applicant or 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; or


(2) condition 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:


(A) rights of the applicant or employee under this chapter; or


(B) otherwise lawful:
(i) ownership;
(ii) possession;
(iii) storage;
(iv) transportation; or
(v) use;


of a firearm or ammunition.


Ind. Code § 34-28-8-6 [emphasis added]

Here's a cite, so....now what? I am not a fan of restrictions on employers hiring and firing ability....but if we want to talk theory, that's one thing. If we want to talk reality, here's the law.

 

[dusty88]

I don't get excited about this stuff. An employer stupid enough to exclude gun owners doesn't deserve to have me, a good employee, working for them. I'd happily take my services elsewhere.

And the other reality is that no one owes you a job. If I don't like the way you roll your eyes sideways, I'm not obligated to pay you to work for me.

There may indeed be a violation in asking an employee a specific question, but IMO the government shouldn't have its nose in the employer/employee relationship.