• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Lost a dream job on principle

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
I guess you're right. Not being a lawyer, I am relying on the info put out a really long time ago, in a employment law college class regarding Title VII. If Prophet could gain standing, proving that Title VII applies to his situation, then the stage is set to place all employers on notice about infringing upon our self-defense right.
 

Prophet

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 29, 2008
Messages
544
Location
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
Update

This was the email I received around 6am Thursday morning entitled "Fair offer?"

If someone outside gym sees u and brings it up to me then I tell you and you can decide at that time to stop or we part ways.?

I told her I can live with that (and the "brings it up to me" is to be understood that they do so negatively) and that i'd see her tonight when I came into work.

Now, some of the positive remarks I had received here may be rescinded now that I have returned to that job but allow me to explain.

First, I didn't hold any animosity towards her, she just over-reacted to a non-issue and she made it quite clear that she wanted me to stay. She wasn't using her stipulation as an end around to avoid firing me. I believe that when she realized that no problem currently exists and that this is a firm belief i have and not a passing fancy she weighed whether losing me was worth something that might not be an issue at all. I don't believe she was bluffing though. I truly believe that she gave it some serious consideration and realized that she may be tilting at windmills. So she might not start packing heat and joining the GOA, but this act of acceptance seems to be, at the very least, a step in the right direction.

Secondly, this was the resolution to this issue that I would have preferred to happen from the outset. I don't need her to embrace MY beliefs, as long as she respects that i have them. And if it doesn't negatively impact her business then this is a non-issue. Of course, if clients actually start leaving the gym because they see me OC'ing out in the city then I do (since I am a business consultant by trade) understand at THAT time she may have to find a resolution by my capitulation or my termination.


All in all I am very happy with the overall outcome of this story. I stood by my principles, I went to bed soundly and with a smile on my face, and I awoke to news that my steadfastness in what I believed would not cost me.

Win, win.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
It is good that you currently retain your position at the gym.

It is not good that any customer, real or imagined, can report their displeasure at you exercising your right, lawfully, off-hours, to your employer. If the customer is permitted to decide who is and who is not fit to work at the gym because of the employee's lawful off-hours behavior, then it may only be a matter of time. Is the boss the only one that has a problem with you exercising your right? We shall see.

In any event, you have agreed to quit if 'a complaint' is lodged for your off-hours lawful behavior, rather than be fired for your off-hours lawful behavior. The burden is no longer on the boss, but on you.

She wins, you lose.
 

MKEgal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
4,383
Location
in front of my computer, WI
Aknazer said:
I don't know the laws regarding termination but if she has broken any laws it is likely to revolve around firing or threatening to fire him for exercising his rights outside of work. This would be akin to firing someone because of their religious preference regardless of what their on duty performance is like.
That was one of my first thoughts.
WI has a provision that nobody may face discipline of any sort at work for their "use or nonuse of lawful products" when not at work. It was written to protect smokers, but obviously applies to guns. I'm not having any success navigating the PA statute search engine to see if there's anything similar for you.

But there is the PA Constitution:
Article 1 Section 1: Inherent rights of mankind.
All men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent and indefeasible rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation, and of pursuing their own happiness.

Article 1 Section 21: Right to bear arms.
The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.
 

deepdiver

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
5,820
Location
Southeast, Missouri, USA
I respect your decisions and positions through the entirety of the story, Prophet!!

And yes, many employers DO have an interest in what you do outside of work. Various professional positions have contracts that include a morals clause. I own a business where we have fiduciary responsiblities and access to personal financial and other private information, much like bank employees. Employees with access to such information or with such responsibility must be above reproach in public. It is a relatively tight community and news travels fast as they say. Behaving in a manner that loses public trust could be devastating to my business and could lead to employee termination. How this applies to various employees in various businesses in various states is a matter of numerous employment and contractual laws but it is not BS in all cases that an employer has some say in outside of work behavior.

Prophet's situation is clearly different from my above example as his issue was not an original matter of employment/position and it is not clear if his boss is expressing personal feelings or a real concern of a business issue from her personal knowledge of her clientel. Regardless, IMO Prophet handled it well. He stood by his principles while remaining respectful and professional. His boss' reactions and resolution speak highly of him as an employee.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Is the job at the gym worth you disarming, would any of us acquiesce to this 'fair offer', or at a minimum not OCing? Some states have laws that do exactly what she is asking you to do. Disarm or conceal. It is unlikely that she is thinking in these terms. She has stated, unequivocally, that the only option is for you to disarm or quit.

Some folks rail against the state when the state does this. But that is the state and not a private citizen, so she is not infringing on your 2A right. She is holding your employment hostage based on her views of you carrying a gun.

It is all on you now. You have taken the emotional burden of firing a good employee for your off-hours behavior off of her shoulders. She can sleep at night knowing that you made (will make) the choice, not her when/if the time comes to make the choice.

Me, I'd walk, even in this economy.

Good luck Prophet, and carry on.
 

DocWalker

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
1,922
Location
Mountain Home, Idaho, USA
I respect your decisions and positions through the entirety of the story, Prophet!!

And yes, many employers DO have an interest in what you do outside of work. Various professional positions have contracts that include a morals clause. I own a business where we have fiduciary responsiblities and access to personal financial and other private information, much like bank employees. Employees with access to such information or with such responsibility must be above reproach in public. It is a relatively tight community and news travels fast as they say. Behaving in a manner that loses public trust could be devastating to my business and could lead to employee termination. How this applies to various employees in various businesses in various states is a matter of numerous employment and contractual laws but it is not BS in all cases that an employer has some say in outside of work behavior.

Prophet's situation is clearly different from my above example as his issue was not an original matter of employment/position and it is not clear if his boss is expressing personal feelings or a real concern of a business issue from her personal knowledge of her clientel. Regardless, IMO Prophet handled it well. He stood by his principles while remaining respectful and professional. His boss' reactions and resolution speak highly of him as an employee.

I don't disagree with your assesment but the question should be what would the liability be for an employer that "forces" you to be disarmed either at work or while off duty.

I believe the employer should be held as an libal for any injury as a result of the employers requirments. If a employee is shot and killed at work and the employee wasn't able to defend himself due to the requirements of being disarmed. The employer had a direct hand in the death of the employee. If they allowed a employee to carry and he was shot and killed then the the employer DIDN"T not allow the employee to defend himself and gave the employee every opportunity to survive.

I have been shot at work and that was here in the states while working in a hospital. All I had to defend myself with was....NOTHING, I had to run across a parking lot dodging bullets. Not a good day at work, my friend was shot in the chest while the gunman walked around cars shooting people that were trying to hide.
 

Eeyore

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2007
Messages
551
Location
the meanest city in the stupidest state
Concur 100%

All in all I am very happy with the overall outcome of this story. I stood by my principles, I went to bed soundly and with a smile on my face, and I awoke to news that my steadfastness in what I believed would not cost me.

Win, win.

This sounds like the ideal outcome to me. You kept a job you liked, you didn't compromise your principles, and even learned that your boss values and respects you enough that she was willing to soften her position rather than lose you. By accepting her offer, you in turn demonstrate that you are not so blinded by zealotry that you can't accept her and her opinions. Live and let live.

Of course, you're not out of the woods yet--there's still the potential for a negative comment to bring you right back to where you started. But at least you have an opportunity to continue to gently bring her around to your position in the mean time. Merely continuing to be a responsible person and dedicated employee is the first step, but only the first step.

Good job.
 

deepdiver

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
5,820
Location
Southeast, Missouri, USA
I don't disagree with your assesment but the question should be what would the liability be for an employer that "forces" you to be disarmed either at work or while off duty.

That is a great discussion. But I think the issue here was not carrying at all but OC v CC and moreso a boss dictating no OC outside of work.

I do have some sympathy for the boss' position. OC, while not legal in the city my offices are located in public, it is legal inside a business and on property controlled by that business. However, I do not generally allow OC in my office by emloyees because of our customers. I encourage and allow CC. MO law would allow someone even without a CC permit to carry in their car to work, and CC it into my office and during the day while either in the offfice, on the property or in their vehicle. I offer no opinion on their method of carry off the clock. I'm not rigid about it in the sense that if someone walked in took off their jacket and were OC at that point and then put their sidearm in their desk drawer, for example, as I often do dependinng on how I am dressed, that's not a problem.
 

DocWalker

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
1,922
Location
Mountain Home, Idaho, USA
That is a great discussion. But I think the issue here was not carrying at all but OC v CC and moreso a boss dictating no OC outside of work.

I do have some sympathy for the boss' position. OC, while not legal in the city my offices are located in public, it is legal inside a business and on property controlled by that business. However, I do not generally allow OC in my office by emloyees because of our customers. I encourage and allow CC. MO law would allow someone even without a CC permit to carry in their car to work, and CC it into my office and during the day while either in the offfice, on the property or in their vehicle. I offer no opinion on their method of carry off the clock. I'm not rigid about it in the sense that if someone walked in took off their jacket and were OC at that point and then put their sidearm in their desk drawer, for example, as I often do dependinng on how I am dressed, that's not a problem.

As someone that owed a buisness I understand and agree to a point. As someone that started with CC and now usally OC's I also understand your points and don't disagree and believe it is up to the owners to determain thier own policy's.

As someone that has worked with and for Law Enforcement I have to say OC is much more a deterent than CC though. I'm sure everyone slow's down or is a little more cautious when driving or passing a police car. Someone that owns a resterant might be a little more aware of his facility if he knows the heath inspector is coming for lunch. CC is fine and I still do it at certain events, but I do know it makes the bad guys pause and think twice before getting stupid when they know for a fact they are not the only armed people around.
 

Outdoorsman1

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2011
Messages
1,248
Location
Silver Lake WI
A Little Off Topic....

I realize there is no comparision to the OP subject, but "on principle" , Being single, I have "lost" a few opportunitites to develope relationships with ladies who I was interested in based on there not being comfortable or agreeing with the fact that I carry daily...

Just Sayin...

Outdoorsman1
 

DocWalker

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
1,922
Location
Mountain Home, Idaho, USA
I realize there is no comparision to the OP subject, but "on principle" , Being single, I have "lost" a few opportunitites to develope relationships with ladies who I was interested in based on there not being comfortable or agreeing with the fact that I carry daily...

Just Sayin...

Outdoorsman1

A relationship with a person that feels uncomfortable with you because of your beliefs of your right to carry is not a relationship worth having. They are a victim and will be all their life.
 

deepdiver

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
5,820
Location
Southeast, Missouri, USA
As someone that owed a buisness I understand and agree to a point. As someone that started with CC and now usally OC's I also understand your points and don't disagree and believe it is up to the owners to determain thier own policy's.

As someone that has worked with and for Law Enforcement I have to say OC is much more a deterent than CC though. I'm sure everyone slow's down or is a little more cautious when driving or passing a police car. Someone that owns a resterant might be a little more aware of his facility if he knows the heath inspector is coming for lunch. CC is fine and I still do it at certain events, but I do know it makes the bad guys pause and think twice before getting stupid when they know for a fact they are not the only armed people around.

I generally agree. The OC/CC decision for a business owner must be based on numerous factors including risk and deterrance. I made the decision I think best to balance all the factors. A different type of business, or maybe a different area, and my decision might very well be different. If OC preemption passes in MO, I certainly would never deny my customers the freedom to carry OC in my business.
 

gunns

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
270
Location
Minnesota
It is good that you currently retain your position at the gym.

It is not good that any customer, real or imagined, can report their displeasure at you exercising your right, lawfully, off-hours, to your employer. If the customer is permitted to decide who is and who is not fit to work at the gym because of the employee's lawful off-hours behavior, then it may only be a matter of time. Is the boss the only one that has a problem with you exercising your right? We shall see.

In any event, you have agreed to quit if 'a complaint' is lodged for your off-hours lawful behavior, rather than be fired for your off-hours lawful behavior. The burden is no longer on the boss, but on you.

She wins, you lose.

OC is right, you lost. She deliberately got you to volunteer to stop OC'ing if she got a complaint. Simply put, she knew she could have lost everything to a you in litigation. Though I applaud your behavior and your responses she completely manipulated you.
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
OC is right, you lost. She deliberately got you to volunteer to stop OC'ing if she got a complaint. Simply put, she knew she could have lost everything to a you in litigation. Though I applaud your behavior and your responses she completely manipulated you.

I highly doubt that. It is more likely she simply found a way to control his actions to some extent, and retain him as an employee. I don't believe there would be any solid ground to assume she would lose in court.
 
Top