Tampa woman sues employer over gun rules - Page 3
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 02-25-2014, 04:23 AM   #21
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 945
Liked 750 Times on 385 Posts
Likes Given: 346

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CzarChasm View Post
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:



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
I disagree.
Section 1. This section may be cited as the “Preservation and Protection of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in Motor Vehicles Act of 2008.

Section 1 defines that 790.251 pertains to "Motor Vehicles".

Section 3. LEGISLATIVE INTENT; FINDINGS.—This act is intended to codify the long-standing legislative policy of the state that individual citizens have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, that they have a constitutional right to possess and keep legally owned firearms within their motor vehicles for self-defense and other lawful purposes,


Section 3 defines that 790.251 pertains to Motor Vehicles.

Section 4. (2) Any agreement by an employee or a prospective employee that prohibits an employee from keeping a legal firearm locked inside or locked to a private motor vehicle in a parking lot when such firearm is kept for lawful purposes.

Because Section 4. (2) (e) left out the words Motor vehicle or Parking lot does not negate the fact that 790.251 is clearly about Parking lots and motor vehicles as Section 3 LEGISLATIVE INTENT defines.
__________________
mseric is offline  
2
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2014, 05:08 AM   #22
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 mseric View Post
I disagree.
Section 1. This section may be cited as the “Preservation and Protection of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in Motor Vehicles Act of 2008.

Section 1 defines that 790.251 pertains to "Motor Vehicles".

Section 3. LEGISLATIVE INTENT; FINDINGS.—This act is intended to codify the long-standing legislative policy of the state that individual citizens have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, that they have a constitutional right to possess and keep legally owned firearms within their motor vehicles for self-defense and other lawful purposes,


Section 3 defines that 790.251 pertains to Motor Vehicles.

Section 4. (2) Any agreement by an employee or a prospective employee that prohibits an employee from keeping a legal firearm locked inside or locked to a private motor vehicle in a parking lot when such firearm is kept for lawful purposes.

Because Section 4. (2) (e) left out the words Motor vehicle or Parking lot does not negate the fact that 790.251 is clearly about Parking lots and motor vehicles as Section 3 LEGISLATIVE INTENT defines.
I understand your rationale, but please tell us what a judge is supposed to do when the language clearly talks about the inside of a business and puts both patrons and employees on equal footing? Is the judge supposed to evaluate the case based on the law as-written, or are judges supposed to divine out of clumsy language what the legislature would've said if they weren't so clumsy in their writing? I believe the judge should go with the as-is law, and if it means enough to the legislature after this case wins on that basis, they can amend, repeal or write a whole new law if so desired.

Regardless, the early reactions were that "she doesn't have a case" etc. I tend to agree that (4) 2(e) was meant to protect only visitors and patrons inside the building, but since it's written the way it is, it can hardly be said that the case is baseless or frivolous.

Maybe saying the bank "is toast" was a bit premature, but it is not a slam dunk with that language in there. And then think about this; (4) 2(e) says that it is intended to protect a visitor's or patron's "constitutional rights" to carry inside of a business even when a property owner who doesn't want guns on their property, right? What about the equal protection of employees' constitutional rights then? Law can't give rights to one group of qualified people, but deny them to another group with the same qualifications, in this case the quals being that both groups have permission slips.

I think she's got a fair chance of going forward on multiple grounds.

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
Old 02-25-2014, 05:15 AM   #23
The Apocalypse Is Coming.....
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 28,735
Liked 21583 Times on 12248 Posts
Likes Given: 53672

Default

most every company i have ever worked for had a company policy handbook, that the employee was suppose to read and sign as condition of employment. that being said, she had to be aware of what company policy was in regards to guns on the premises. she violated company policy, so IMO the company was within their rights to terminater her employment.

__________________
Axxe55 is offline  
2
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2014, 05:23 AM   #24
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 945
Liked 750 Times on 385 Posts
Likes Given: 346

Default

Quote:
And then think about this; (4) 2(e) says that it is intended to protect a visitor's or patron's "constitutional rights" to carry inside of a business even when a property owner who doesn't want guns on their property, right? What about the equal protection of employees' constitutional rights then? Law can't give rights to one group of qualified people, but deny them to another group with the same qualifications, in this case the quals being that both groups have permission slips.
The law can't, but as a business owner I can. I can set policy for my employees as a requirement for employment. For example, dress code, I can set policy that my employees look respectable, clean shaven, etc. As a customer I can't tell you to get out because you have bad breath or haven't shaved for a week, but I can sure tell my employee to get cleaned up or get out.
__________________
mseric is offline  
3
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2014, 07:17 AM   #25
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Jacksonville,FL
Posts: 2,831
Liked 1767 Times on 988 Posts
Likes Given: 1302

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Axxe55 View Post
most every company i have ever worked for had a company policy handbook, that the employee was suppose to read and sign as condition of employment. that being said, she had to be aware of what company policy was in regards to guns on the premises. she violated company policy, so IMO the company was within their rights to terminater her employment.
Axxe, she was the branch manager. To get that job she not only had to know the policy manual, she had to know how her company wanted her to enforce the policy manual.
__________________
Doc3402 is offline  
3
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2014, 11:31 AM   #26
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
John_Deer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 5,157
Liked 1602 Times on 1096 Posts
Likes Given: 556

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CzarChasm View Post
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:



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
Banks have the right to set up security procedures. Banks have a well thought out security procedure to get everyone home safely and cut losses to a minimum. The woman was trying to set up her own security procedures on her terms which is grounds for termination. This case has nothing to do with the gun in her car. The case is about a companies ability to establish safety protocol.

If she just had a gun in her car and remained silent there would be no lawsuit.
__________________

Nothing in the affairs of men is worthy of great anxiety - Plato

John_Deer is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2014, 11:09 PM   #27
The Apocalypse Is Coming.....
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 28,735
Liked 21583 Times on 12248 Posts
Likes Given: 53672

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc3402 View Post
Axxe, she was the branch manager. To get that job she not only had to know the policy manual, she had to know how her company wanted her to enforce the policy manual.
was not aware she was a branch manager. she most definately should know the policy handbook. i can even see where she might even be in a position to make sure other employees knew the company policies as well.

still sounds like she decided to disregard the company policy and got terminated. also IMO, it's irrelevent if she had a carry permit or not. having a carry permit is not an exemption from following company policy, unless it's stated that it's an exemption.

just like some establishments have a no animals policy to enter, with an exemption for a service animal, like those the blind use or similiar types of needs.
__________________
Axxe55 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2014, 11:14 PM   #28
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Jacksonville,FL
Posts: 2,831
Liked 1767 Times on 988 Posts
Likes Given: 1302

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Axxe55 View Post
was not aware she was a branch manager. she most definately should know the policy handbook. i can even see where she might even be in a position to make sure other employees knew the company policies as well.

still sounds like she decided to disregard the company policy and got terminated. also IMO, it's irrelevent if she had a carry permit or not. having a carry permit is not an exemption from following company policy, unless it's stated that it's an exemption.

just like some establishments have a no animals policy to enter, with an exemption for a service animal, like those the blind use or similiar types of needs.
I found something else out. She was seen with the gun and a co-worker blew the whistle on her. A corporate investigation followed, and she was terminated. That's what she gets for wanting to be Jane Wayne.

I wonder if she finally realizes that concealed means concealed.
__________________
Doc3402 is offline  
3
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2014, 11:21 PM   #29
The Apocalypse Is Coming.....
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 28,735
Liked 21583 Times on 12248 Posts
Likes Given: 53672

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc3402 View Post
I found something else out. She was seen with the gun and a co-worker blew the whistle on her. A corporate investigation followed, and she was terminated. That's what she gets for wanting to be Jane Wayne.

I wonder if she finally realizes that concealed means concealed.
concealed means concealed, without a doubt. and IMO, even if she had a carry permit, it's still not an exemption from company policy.

she can fight it, and by retaining a lawyer, it looks like she is going to try. but i just can't see her winning this case. she violated their policy by having a gun in the workplace. she was fired for violating policy. she knew the rules that were in place and decided to disregard those rules.
__________________
Axxe55 is offline  
2
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2014, 11:33 PM   #30
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Jacksonville,FL
Posts: 2,831
Liked 1767 Times on 988 Posts
Likes Given: 1302

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Axxe55 View Post
concealed means concealed, without a doubt. and IMO, even if she had a carry permit, it's still not an exemption from company policy.

she can fight it, and by retaining a lawyer, it looks like she is going to try. but i just can't see her winning this case. she violated their policy by having a gun in the workplace. she was fired for violating policy. she knew the rules that were in place and decided to disregard those rules.
That's my opinion, too.

Way back when, before Florida became a shall issue state I had a permit because of my short stint as a LEO. Florida said in the 10-D-66 code that firearms were not allowed on ambulances, rescue trucks, or any other medical transport vehicle. This was the code, but for some strange reason it never made it over to the statutes governing EMS. Did I carry on my person? Heck, no. It wasn't the law, but in a round about way it was our policy.
__________________
Doc3402 is offline  
Axxe55 Likes This 
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 11:49 AM
Employer superceding my 2A rights? KBlue Legal and Activism 34 06-07-2010 06:09 PM
Woman Sues Google for Bad Directions gregs887 The Club House 14 06-01-2010 09:52 PM
Why is it that a single woman is thinner then a married woman? opaww The Club House 4 05-31-2010 10:16 PM
can my employer really do this? spittinfire The Club House 14 06-17-2009 06:49 PM