Test case for Indiana law?

[mbills2223]

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.

Is an employer asking him if he owns a gun the same as an employer requiring that he disclose that information? At least, is it the same in a court of law? Serious question, I don't know and I figured you may know a thing or two about that for some reason...

 

[MikeDVB]

Is an employer asking him if he owns a gun the same as an employer requiring that he disclose that information? At least, is it the same in a court of law? Serious question, I don't know and I figured you may know a thing or two about that for some reason...

I can only assume saying, 'I do not wish to answer that question,' would be treated the same way as, 'I would like to exercise my Fifth Amendment rights.' Neither is an admission of anything but that's almost never how it's interpreted.

 

[AA&E]

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 was my initial thought as well. I don't think the employee ends up anything but unemployed in all of this. The employer has all the power in Indiana. You can be fired for any, or no, reason.

 

[AA&E]

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..

Discrimination? Being a firearms owner is not likely to fall under discrimination. If fired for being Jewish? Ok. Black? Absolutely. I'd be surprised if there is a protection here. I'd like there to be, but doubt one exists.

 

[SteveM4A1]

Discrimination? Being a firearms owner is not likely to fall under discrimination. If fired for being Jewish? Ok. Black? Absolutely. I'd be surprised if there is a protection here. I'd like there to be, but doubt one exists.

You want gun owners to be a protected class? You've been reading too many Kirk Freeman opinion pieces.

To all those that believe gun owners should be a protected class, will you be philosophically consistent when others want to add more protected classes? I think not.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

You want gun owners to be a protected class? You've been reading too many Kirk Freeman opinion pieces.

To all those that believe gun owners should be a protected class, will you be philosophically consistent when others want to add more protected classes? I think not.

This^^^^

 

[KLB]

You want gun owners to be a protected class? You've been reading too many Kirk Freeman opinion pieces.

To all those that believe gun owners should be a protected class, will you be philosophically consistent when others want to add more protected classes? I think not.

​Only those that I agree with, of course

 

[Roadie]

Discrimination? Being a firearms owner is not likely to fall under discrimination. If fired for being Jewish? Ok. Black? Absolutely. I'd be surprised if there is a protection here. I'd like there to be, but doubt one exists.

I did not say that being a firearm owner would fall under discrimination. I said:

other laws that can be violated and supersede "at will".. such as discrimination, AND asking if the employee owns guns..

There are discrimination laws
There are laws against asking an employee about firearms

 

[ChalupaCabras]

I remember hearing when hospital staff/nurses were being let go if they didn't quit smoking. Not just at work mind you, but on their off time, if they tested positive for nicotine use or were caught smoking off property they could be fired.

How did any of those cases turn out? I imagine this could be comparable...

I think that may have been about health insurance... If you don't log onto the providers website, declair that you are a smoker, and volunteer to pay increased healthcare costs by a certain date they will fire you for "defrauding" the company.

I could be mistaken, but we have had that same issue where I work, and it is still enforced.

 

[david890]

I remember hearing when hospital staff/nurses were being let go if they didn't quit smoking. Not just at work mind you, but on their off time, if they tested positive for nicotine use or were caught smoking off property they could be fired.

How did any of those cases turn out? I imagine this could be comparable...

There is no Constitutional guarantee for drug use, legal or illegal, so I believe (IANAL) the hospital is within their rights to demand cessation, even off the job.

IMHO, it looks bad for a health care business to have employees who are obese and/or indulge in known harmful drugs such as nicotine. Why nicotine continues to be legal escapes me (other than the $$$ given to politicians by the Tobacco lobby). It's a very potent poison (it used to be found in many pesticides, but absorption through the skin proved too toxic for home use), and there's no known health benefit. If one uses that fact - no known health benefit - then it should be classified as a Schedule I drug by the DEA and outlawed, same as marijuana!

 

[david890]

To all those that believe gun owners should be a protected class, will you be philosophically consistent when others want to add more protected classes? I think not.

This is how I feel when I hear people cry about "Christian persecution" and "Christian rights". Push too hard for Christian prayers at public events or Bible verses on state monuments, and one day you'll find verses from ALL religions, including Satanism, on those monuments. I see some people absolutely out of their minds when a "Festivus Pole" gets put up next to a Creche at Xmas, but that's how the game is played! Equal protection for all sometime means no one gets to say anything.

Have a read of Matthew 6:6. Faith isn't about having the biggest team, shouting the loudest or demanding your views take precedence over all others.

 

[Libertarian01]

To All,

Employment rights are very much protected under many Federal laws even IF the State of Indiana does not go any farther. Just because Indiana is a "right to work" state does NOT mean that EEOC, NLRA, Title VII or any of a host of Federal laws magickally disappear.

However, for an employee to protect their rights under the law they must jump two (2) hurdles:

#1) Know their rights and their protections;
#2) Have the financial and testicular resources to wage a fight.

In this case there does exist Indiana state legal protection, but that means nothing without the former employees willingness and financial strength to fight. Gun owners and CC/OC carriers do tend to have, in my opinion, a higher willingness to fight, but that does not mean he will do so. However, most people do not look for fights. They just want to show up, do their job, go home, and get paid.

The only other way a fight like this gets waged is if a special interest group such as SAF, GOA, or the NRA approach this person and take on the case for them.

Personally, I believe that the employers authority should stop where "doiong the job" stops. By agreeing to work for an employer the employee is stepping up to perform a specific job to the specifications of the employer. OUTSIDE of the parameters required to do the job the employers authority should stop. The employer has no need for the purposes of doing the job to know what is in my car, my wallet, or my personal life. We have allowed too much scope creep to occur regarding what the employer should be sticking their nose in.

Notice I am careful about using the word "authority" instead of "rights" because I do not believe companies have rights. Companies are not sentient organisms, they are legal constructs only. They exist only on paper. (Caveat: I am limiting this to corporations of all forms, AG's, LLC's and not DBAs)

I also acknowledge that my beliefs are in conflict with current American jurisprudence. I can only hope that the United States legal system will eventually come around to my way of thinking and correct their error.

Just remember, a person who is unwilling to fight for their rights realistically doesn't have any.

Regards,

Doug

 

[hooky]

There is no Constitutional guarantee for drug use, legal or illegal, so I believe (IANAL) the hospital is within their rights to demand cessation, even off the job.

IMHO, it looks bad for a health care business to have employees who are obese and/or indulge in known harmful drugs such as nicotine. Why nicotine continues to be legal escapes me (other than the $$$ given to politicians by the Tobacco lobby). It's a very potent poison (it used to be found in many pesticides, but absorption through the skin proved too toxic for home use), and there's no known health benefit. If one uses that fact - no known health benefit - then it should be classified as a Schedule I drug by the DEA and outlawed, same as marijuana!

So you obviously took Bloomberg's side when he banned trans fats and outlawed big gulps, right? You need to be consistent if you want the .gov to decide what you can legally put into your body.

 

[indykid]

Just a thought about gun owners being a protected class. Isn't that what the second amendment guarantees? As I read the constitution, firearm owners are one of the few protected classes per the constitution.

 

[SteveM4A1]

Just a thought about gun owners being a protected class. Isn't that what the second amendment guarantees? As I read the constitution, firearm owners are one of the few protected classes per the constitution.

Reread the second amendment. It states only that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed by the government. What hidden meaning do you believe it states?

 

[Robjps]

There is no Constitutional guarantee for drug use, legal or illegal, so I believe (IANAL) the hospital is within their rights to demand cessation, even off the job.

IMHO, it looks bad for a health care business to have employees who are obese and/or indulge in known harmful drugs such as nicotine. Why nicotine continues to be legal escapes me (other than the $$$ given to politicians by the Tobacco lobby). It's a very potent poison (it used to be found in many pesticides, but absorption through the skin proved too toxic for home use), and there's no known health benefit. If one uses that fact - no known health benefit - then it should be classified as a Schedule I drug by the DEA and outlawed, same as marijuana!

Some times i eat a cupcake because it tastes good, are you coming after it also?

 

[actaeon277]

Some times i eat a cupcake because it tastes good, are you coming after it also?

 

[AA&E]

Reread the second amendment. It states only that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed by the government. What hidden meaning do you believe it states?

Does it state infringment protection only from the government? I don't recall that stipulation. If there is a negative attachment to my exercising a constitutional right, I'd suggest that is an infringment. No?

 

[SteveM4A1]

Does it state infringment protection only from the government? I don't recall that stipulation. If there is a negative attachment to my exercising a constitutional right, I'd suggest that is an infringment. No?

You don't seem to understand the purpose of the Constitution or Bill of Rights.

 

[rw496]

I don't think we're a quantum leap away from extending the doctrine of unconstitutional conditions to private employers. Coercing an employee to give up a fundamental right in exchange for continued employment when the right is not even rationally related to the employment....not too unbelievable