Employers and your guns

I stumbled across this via a Bing search

http://hr.blr.com/HR-news/Performan...ky-employers-policy-on-guns-in-vehicles-prot#

Basically while KY law says an employer can't prohibit you from keeping YOUR legally permitted firearm in YOUR car, you have to "disclose" it to the company so they can determine if it's an "approved" firearm. What a shame. Or did I misunderstand the article?

Wow, the court really stretched on that one! I would be interested in knowing if this policy allows for the company to refuse certain types of firearms, and if they do, if the court would rule against that. I will say that I think it is very irresponsible to leave ANY firearm unattended in plain view.

willy1094 said:

Wow, the court really stretched on that one! I would be interested in knowing if this policy allows for the company to refuse certain types of firearms, and if they do, if the court would rule against that. I will say that I think it is very irresponsible to leave ANY firearm unattended in plain view.

Click to expand...

It would really help if you indicated whether that comment about types of firearms was supposed to be sarcastic. The alternatives are disquieting.

Apparently state law says employees can store firearms in their POV while parked at work, and the company comes up with a policy saying employees have to tell the company if they are going to do that so the company can approve of the employee following state law.

Next thing you know the company will want employees to notify them that they are going to comply with the requirement to come to a full stop at a stop sign before the company will allow them to do that on company property.[/sarcasm]

stay safe.

skidmark said:

It would really help if you indicated whether that comment about types of firearms was supposed to be sarcastic. The alternatives are disquieting.

Click to expand...

Was this directed toward me? Just in case it was, nothing I posted was sarcastic. I also wonder if the defendant being Ashland Oil swayed the court's opinion.

The court's memo is here;
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...uploads/sites/14/2014/02/MullinsvMarathon.pdf

Most of the charges were based on the statues ... since the statues do no prohibit the company demanding a form of disclosure then I think that the court ruled correctly.

The guy mentioned the Mitchell case ( http://abelllaw.typepad.com/files/m...tories-no.-2009-ca-1885-september-24-2010.pdf ) ... and this pretty much sums up the at-will/wrongful discharge relationship well.

But also premised the exception to the at-will employment to only the statues only may have been an error ... but lets face it, courts are loath to open up the exceptions to the at will employment. I would have also argued that telling an employer what guns one owns would create a safety risk to the employee, thereby violating his rights in that aspect and attacking the legal sufficiency of an employer's right to know or right to ask.

The conspiracy aspect ... sounds like bad pleading, making only conclusions instead of stating facts. A common error but one that is easily avoided.

His best count was the wrongful discharge. If he can file a new case since he was fired 8 mo. after filing this case is unk ... maybe his amended complaint covered this .. and res judicata may be a good defense to a suit.

I don't see any appeal in the case that was dismissed.

Getting wrongful discharge case past a motion to dismiss/summary judgment is not easy; its not hard either ~ one has to assume with every complaint filed that a motion to dismiss/summary judgment will be filed and tailor the complaint to preemptively squash any such attempt ... they ALL file a motion to dismiss and summary judgment in wrongful discharge cases. So if you don't write a very detailed complaint in a wrongful discharge case, it gets hard to get the case to trial ~ write a highly detailed complaint and one should be fine (assuming its a good case to begin with).

I did not see the objection to the motion for summary judgment ... so I'm doing a little guessing based on the court's memo...

No person, including but not limited to an employer, who is the owner, lessee, or occupant of real property shall prohibit any person who is legally entitled to possess a firearm from possessing a firearm, part of a firearm, ammunition, or ammunition component in a vehicle on the property.

No person shall make any inquiry into the location or any other detail of a firearm, part of a firearm, ammunition, or ammunition component within a vehicle that is parked, entering or leaving the property. No person, including but not limited to an employer, who is the owner, lessee, or occupant of real property shall create or inforce any executive order, administrative regulation, policy, procedure, rule, or any other form of document relating to this section.

Is this a good start?

gutshot said:

Well yes, it is a "good start", but mine was much more comprehensive. Yours does not even mention rolling eyes or displaying exasperation. You know that these two things are bound to happen. It appears we will have to cover every base. BTW Willy, any updates on carrying at your job.

Click to expand...

I can't believe I left out eye rolling. Lol. They are checking KRS and then supposed to write a memo. I guess I was the first to say anything (employee), at least that is what I was told. At least it is still in forward motion. Now it will just be a lot of "are we there yet?" until I get an answer.

willy1094 said:

I can't believe I left out eye rolling. Lol. They are checking KRS and then supposed to write a memo. I guess I was the first to say anything (employee), at least that is what I was told. At least it is still in forward motion. Now it will just be a lot of "are we there yet?" until I get an answer.

Click to expand...

And you did not put in in big type ... hard to read:uhoh:

But as I noted and others did ... the employer did not "skirt" around the law, he did what the law allowed. Sucks? Sure. Welcome to employment in the USA

No person, including but not limited to an employer, who is the owner, lessee, or occupant of real property shall prohibit any person who is legally entitled to possess a firearm from possessing a firearm, part of a firearm, ammunition, or ammunition component in a vehicle on the property.

An employer that fires, disciplines, demotes, or otherwise punishes an employee who is lawfully exercising a right guaranteed by this section and who is engaging in conduct in compliance with this statute shall be liable in civil damages.

Click to expand...

I'm at a loss as to how the citizen lost his case.