Tampa woman sues employer over gun rules - Page 2
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Firearms Forums > Legal and Activism > Tampa woman sues employer over gun rules

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-24-2014, 07:31 PM   #11
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: The Great North Woods
Posts: 2,565
Liked 2050 Times on 1072 Posts
Likes Given: 392

Default

she does not have a case here. this is cut and dry, you want to own a business and not allow firearms, that is your right. I support that, regardless of whether I like it or not

__________________
chloeshooter is offline  
Axxe55 Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2014, 08:17 PM   #12
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Jacksonville,FL
Posts: 2,823
Liked 1768 Times on 989 Posts
Likes Given: 1302

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by alsaqr View Post
i have mixed emotions on this one. OK has a law, tested in federal courts, that allows employees to have guns in vehicles parked in the company lot. This came about after the new manager of the Weyerhaeuser plant in SE OK went on a witch hunt and asked the local cops to search vehicles in the company parking lot. Several employes were fired because they had guns in their vehicles.

The OK legislature passed a law that allowed employees to leave their guns in their vehicles in the company lot. Some other companies joined the lawsuit and the law was overturned. The OK legislature re-did the law only to have it appealed on OSHA grounds. Some of those companies dropped out of this appeal because of threated of boycott of their products. The federal court said OSHA did not apply and that was that.
Florida has a similar law, but there are exceptions. School grounds, power plants, places dealing with explosives or fireworks as a primary income generator, and a few others. Other than those exceptions it is prohibited by law for an employer or any representative of that employer to even ask if you have a gun in the car.

We recently had a court case here in Florida concerning firearms in the cars in college and university parking lots. To sum it up, the universities and colleges were told they had no jurisdiction, and to leave it alone. A couple are threatening to appeal, but for the most part the others are going along with the ruling.
__________________
Doc3402 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2014, 08:31 PM   #13
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
manta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: UK.
Posts: 1,695
Liked 544 Times on 360 Posts
Likes Given: 169

Default

I think people should have a right not to allow firearms on their property if they don't want them. That includes employers and private citizens.

__________________
manta is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2014, 09:50 PM   #14
Moderator
FTF_MODERATOR.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
c3shooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Third bunker on the right,Central Virginia
Posts: 17,157
Liked 9507 Times on 4091 Posts
Likes Given: 1492

Default

From the article in the link-

She told the Tampa Tribune that she felt safer having the weapon with her at the Oldsmar branch bank so she could protect other employees from potential robbers.

THAT right there was what did it. NOT "I am being stalked by an abusive ex." NOT "I am afraid of being attacked on my way home from work."

Like most banks they have established policies to be followed during a robbery. She decided to establish her own. Whether I agree with that or not, her employer has the right to set rules for conduct within the workplace.

__________________

What we have here is... failure- to communicate.

c3shooter is offline  
5
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2014, 10:01 PM   #15
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
StogieC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 5
Default

There is nothing parking lot related in the statutory language they are using. While getting the license itself is a privilege currently under Florida law (we're in court on that), carrying once you have it is still a right.

Quote:
790.251
...
(4) PROHIBITED ACTS.—No public or private employer may violate the constitutional rights of any customer, employee, or invitee as provided in paragraphs (a)-(e):
...
(e) No public or private employer may terminate the employment of or otherwise discriminate against an employee, or expel a customer or invitee for exercising his or her constitutional right to keep and bear arms or for exercising the right of self-defense as long as a firearm is never exhibited on company property for any reason other than lawful defensive purposes.
It will be interesting to see how this one plays out.
__________________

Sean Caranna
Executive Director, Florida Carry, Inc.

StogieC is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2014, 10:27 PM   #16
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Jacksonville,FL
Posts: 2,823
Liked 1768 Times on 989 Posts
Likes Given: 1302

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by StogieC View Post
There is nothing parking lot related in the statutory language they are using. While getting the license itself is a privilege currently under Florida law (we're in court on that), carrying once you have it is still a right.



It will be interesting to see how this one plays out.
You missed something. The title of 790.251 is:

Quote:
790.251 Protection of the right to keep and bear arms in motor vehicles for self-defense and other lawful purposes; prohibited acts; duty of public and private employers; immunity from liability; enforcement.—
Once her firearm comes out of the car this statute does not apply.
__________________
Doc3402 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2014, 01:37 AM   #17
F4U
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
F4U's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 1,431
Liked 1097 Times on 652 Posts
Likes Given: 1

Default

I don't know Florida law on this but it seems she was wrong in the eyes of the law, your property your rules, my property my rules.

The company I work for (trucking co.) policy is no weapons on company property or in company vehicles, ie no concealed carry on company property or in company vehicles. The unwritten rule that was made pretty clear was "your hunting rifle or shotgun locked in your trunk or behind the seat in your truck that we can't see, we won't be looking for unless it is flagrantly on display". In other words don't ask don't tell in the parking lot. I have seen employees buy and sell guns from one another as long as it was discreet and not "in the face of management".

Most managers don't want this fight unless it is forced on them, then they will cling to company policy to cover their own a$$.

__________________
F4U is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2014, 01:56 AM   #18
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 333
Liked 64 Times on 41 Posts
Likes Given: 2

Default

She doesent have a case. Company have been fireing employees who bring guns to work all the time

__________________
robertusa123 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2014, 03:30 AM   #19
The Apocalypse Is Coming.....
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 28,709
Liked 21994 Times on 12402 Posts
Likes Given: 53672

Default

personally, i don't think she has a valid case that will win in court. though i disagree with many companies having a policy against firearms in the workplace, i will support that right because they should be allowed to set their own rules and policy. now what is in my vehicle is my business and none of theirs.

i have to agree with JTJ said though, that if a company wants this to be policy, they should be held liable for any damages if there was a violent incident to take place on their premises and people got hurt. by making this a company policy, and to abide by company policy, they have taken that right to self protection from me to be in compliance with those policies. yes, they should be held liable.

__________________
Axxe55 is offline  
2
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2014, 04:18 AM   #20
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Madison, AL
Posts: 64
Liked 56 Times on 30 Posts
Likes Given: 133

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by StogieC View Post
There is nothing parking lot related in the statutory language they are using. While getting the license itself is a privilege currently under Florida law (we're in court on that), carrying once you have it is still a right.

Quote:
790.251
...
(4) PROHIBITED ACTS.—No public or private employer may violate the constitutional rights of any customer, employee, or invitee as provided in paragraphs (a)-(e):
...
(e) No public or private employer may terminate the employment of or otherwise discriminate against an employee, or expel a customer or invitee for exercising his or her constitutional right to keep and bear arms or for exercising the right of self-defense as long as a firearm is never exhibited on company property for any reason other than lawful defensive purposes.
It will be interesting to see how this one plays out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc3402 View Post
You missed something. The title of 790.251 is:

Once her firearm comes out of the car this statute does not apply.
You're mistaken. The title of the code is not the controlling language, the provisions contained within it is. Section (4) Prohibited Acts:, #2(e) of 790.251 states very clearly:

Quote:
(e) No public or private employer may terminate the employment of or otherwise discriminate against an employee, or expel a customer or invitee for exercising his or her constitutional right to keep and bear arms or for exercising the right of self-defense as long as a firearm is never exhibited on company property for any reason other than lawful defensive purposes.

(Emphasis added)
The employer has already given a reason for firing her - her legally-carried gun, whether inside or out in her car in the parking lot. That precludes any other reason (or no reason) as the cause of termination under the Right to Work statutes.

The suit will go forward. With that code section as the foundation of her suit, she will likely win, only along with damages, the court will likely order the bank give her her job back as the firing is now a civil rights issue made clear by the above statute using the language "discriminate" and "constitutional rights" as applying to her right to carry both inside and out.

The only caveat I can think of would be if she actually did "exhibit" her weapon. If whoever reported it simply saw a bulge under her clothes, or "thought" they saw a gun in her purse, but the employee never did anything to actually "exhibit" the weapon, she's on the fast-track to win this one.

I am personally a property rights kind of guy. I think a property owner should be able to prohibit firearms anywhere within the boundaries of their property. The Florida legislature thought differently though, and it's right there in the code for all to see.

The bank should have never given a reason for her firing. They'd be completely in the clear if they hadn't. But they did, and have even reiterated the reason to the newspaper through interviews. They're toast.

CzarChasm
__________________
Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to Police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound.
CzarChasm is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
which are you? employee or employer? bobski The Club House 26 09-01-2013 12:49 PM
Employer superceding my 2A rights? KBlue Legal and Activism 34 06-07-2010 07:09 PM
Woman Sues Google for Bad Directions gregs887 The Club House 14 06-01-2010 10:52 PM
Why is it that a single woman is thinner then a married woman? opaww The Club House 4 05-31-2010 11:16 PM
can my employer really do this? spittinfire The Club House 14 06-17-2009 07:49 PM