Posted: 4/4/2002 5:58:21 PM EDT
| I work in a "bad part of town". Often work 50-60 hours plus, and have keys to our warehouse/office. Company policy dictates that firearms are not allowed on premises by employees (we have no signs that states concealed weapons are prohibited, so who knows with our customers). I always carry, and have my gun on my possesion after hours in our building. Say a guy decides to come in and "rob" the building and put my life in danger. If, god forbid I have to use my weapon, do I have legal recourse to sue my company if they decide to fire me? I'm not going to hold anybody to any answers of course, but just wondering on the opinions of the legal minded on this board. On a side note, the manager carrys a glock after hours and our drive carrys a ruger .44 redhawk. Thks |
| Don't know nuttin' about NC, but in most states you can't sue your employer for injuries sustained on the job, you can only make a worker's compensation claim. In NY there have been a few cases involving assault that allowed direct suit against the employer, but I suspect they are the exception rather than the rule. |
| If you are located in a "work at will" jurisdiction you have no legal recourse to keep your job in violation of your employer's policy. Your only protection would be under some type of descrimination theory, but unless you can sucessfully argue gun carriers are a protected class you are out of luck. If you can't aford to lose your job be careful. Having spent a career as an leo, I think the chance of your having to actually use the weapon is remote, but I don't wish to diminish your need for security. |
| Depending on NC law, you may be in violation of a criminial code in that state. If the law states that you can't carry on private property if the owner of that property says you can't. If you are aware of the policy and you are found to be carrying on company property you would then be commiting a crime under the law. |
|
VA-gunnut, I could be wrong, but from my ccw class, in N.C you cannot carry on private property with a cw if it is posted (in my case, no such signs are evident at work), and I doubt my company would raise a "stink" if a customer who spends 500k/year with us actually "carried" on our property. Its also somewhat a unique situation becuase I am management, the person who I report to is in another state, and the "home" office is about 400 miles away. Robertesq1, you're point is well taken. I did have to laugh to an extent though, because a friend who is also an leo stopped by the office to see me at night (he saw my car in the parking lot and wanted to make sure everything was allright). He came in and we caught up on some "gun talk", and before he left, he asked me in a serious tone "you do have you're weapon with don't you?" (nice to know he at least cares about me!) Seriously though, we are located right behind the city bus station, and somtimes we get some "strange people" looking for money. I guess I'm thinking about the guy from 7/11 who fought off his robber and then was dismissed from the company becasue he didn't follow company procedure to submit (he stated he feared for his life and thought he would die if he didn't fight (what actually became of that case? anybody know?) Guess I'm lucky. I do need the job (money), but I would survive easily without it. |
| I forget what company fired like 4 people for having rifles and pistols in their cars in the company parking lot. They were avid shooters and were off to the range after work. The Security camera caught them as they looked over each others weapons in the lot and they were canned the next day. It was company policy that no Firearms were allowed on Company property. I think it was AOL, but I'm not sure. |
|
Right, AOL fired a bunch of people, from a Utah location, who had guns in their cars in the parking lot. 13f, you would probably lose your job, and you probably would not be successful in suing them. However, you might make a case by claiming that the manager and driver both carry as well -- you might be able to claim that the policy wasn't being enforced properly. You might get them fired if you "out" them, though, and that still might not help you at all. |
|
I am in the same boat, I work for the university where I live. I was accused of carrying a weapon which they could not prove, but was told that I was now made aware of the policy and if caught violating the rule I would be fired. I talked to my lawyer, and his answer was that I was not in violation of any law since I have a permit to carry. But he said that when I accepted the job I agreed to follow company policy. I was told I could raise a stink and carry a piece and fight it,but I would lose my job and their would be no legal recourse open to me. [rolleyes] |
|
We can't Make employers violate the Enviormental ACts... We can't Make employers Violate the Sherman Anti-trust act... We Can't make employers violate an equal-oppourtunity employer status... WHY THE HELL CAN EMPLOYERS VIOLATE THE SECOND ADMENDMENT? Just asking...[uzi] [soapbox] |
|
Quoted: WHY THE HELL CAN EMPLOYERS VIOLATE THE SECOND ADMENDMENT? quote] Remember the Second Amendment applies to the Government, not to private individuals. An employer or property owner has every right in the world to not allow firearms on their property, or in their place of business. Although I don't think a court would buy it, it does seem unfair to tell employees that they can't bring guns to a business in a bad part of town, yet not provide some kind of security. I guess you've always got the right to quit and work somewhere better. |
|
Aimless I was just making a point at how businesses can pick and choose which laws they want to obey and which not... I do think you have a point, in the fact that you stated it is unfair for a business to deny a constitutional right and then not provide any security... for this reason if some employee were attacked while on the Job, I think there could be a reasonable tort liability for the denial of a right, then no security... I am no legal expert. -Chuck |
|
Quoted: I do think you have a point, in the fact that you stated it is unfair for a business to deny a constitutional right and then not provide any security... for this reason if some employee were attacked while on the Job, I think there could be a reasonable tort liability for the denial of a right, then no security... I am no legal expert. -Chuck Insofar as tort liability is concerned, how can someone be held liable for the intervening criminal acts of third parties? (I assume the employer has not voluntarily undertaken a duty to protect him). you wouldn't allow gun makers to also be held liable for the criminal acts of thugs who use guns, would you? An employer has property rights. For the government to tell an employer he has to allow people to carry guns on his property (which a court [the government] would be doing if it held the employer liable) would be a violation of the employer's property rights. |