• 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.

Employee Fired For Having Gun…IN HIS OWN HOME

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,337
Location
Valhalla
"Under the guise of “zero tolerance”, gun hating private community Lakes of the Four Seasons (LOFS) has fired a seasonal landscaping employee of 21 years because he was a gun owner. And no, I don’t mean that he was carrying a gun while working, nor did he have a gun in his car on LOFS property.

"Thanks to the forward thinking of the State of Indiana, not only is the LOFS actions immoral and unethical but they are also ILLEGAL.

"It is that last part that has brought on the lawsuit by Ferlaino against the Property Owners Association. According to Ferlaino’s attorney, Marissa McDermott:

The association violated Indiana’s “take your gun to work law,” which was amended in 2011, because it required Ferlaino to divulge information about owing a gun and fired him because he’s a gun owner.
"Also, even if Ferlaino had brought his gun to work and left it secured in his car, the law forbids employers from punishing employees who exercise that option.


"Not only is Ferlaino is seeking actual and punitive damages, attorney fees etc. he’s also asking a judge to order the property owners association to refrain from engaging in similar practices with regard to other employees.


http://bulletsfirst.net/2014/10/09/company-fires-employee-gun-home/
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,170
Location
earth's crust
I don't think he will win. Public exceptions to the at will doctrine of employee terminations have never, nowhere, included such an exception to the at-will employee rule.

If you can recall, in CT, in the permit application and subsequent Board of Firearm Permit Examiners' (the admin agency hearing permit denial appeals/BFPE) I objected to the requirement of disclosing an applicants employer information just because that an employer CAN fire an employee just for owning guns.

The BFPE agreed with me when I refused to place this information down on their questionnaire response (other members here have also followed my lead w/o having their appeal dismissed); however, they still claimed that I did not complete the permit form filed with police and denied the appeal solely because of an "incomplete application". So I still have work to do there ... the full board refused to accept the secretary of the board's decision on their questionnaire requirements and to apply the reasoning to the permit application itself. In fact, during my hearing they refused to accept or even acknowledge that the secretary of the board even made such a decision regarding their own questionnaire even when shown that this occurred. It made for a contentious hearing.

Gun owners should never tell their employers that they own guns; even if current management is OK with it, management can change overnight. As a manager, I always advise people talking over lunch or just in normal conversations to insure that their discussion of guns cannot be overheard by other employees or managers as some are anti-gun and will cry about you being a gun owner. They should treat their conversations as top secret.
 
Last edited:

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,170
Location
earth's crust
Well, it's a free country. Anyone who wanted to carry and own firearms should go on in doing so for as long as it's registered and not used for illegal activities. The company has to confirm first if the employee is involved in criminal activities.

It's essential for us to learn how we can protect ourselves from criminals especially these days when crime rate is skyrocketing. I can't afford guns and firearms. But I've invested in learning self defense techniques. I've found cool ones in Popushi the other day. I've subscribed to themat popushi.com/survival-tips. They have some really cool guides that are so easy to follow.
The general rule of employment is this: your boss can fire you for ANY or NO reason. You can quit for any or no reason.

Do I agree with an employer should have the ability to fire you simply because you own a gun? Nope.

But I'm just highlighting what the law IS, not what I desire it to be.

The employer does not have to show that you have been (or even has any question) involved in criminal activities.

Oh, you own a gun? You're fired ! Perfectly OK in today's world.

Don't like that? Get an employment contract signed between you and your employer (hint: employee manuals generally don't count in every state I have looked at unless their provisions are incorporated into an actual written contract).

There are exceptions to the at-will aspect of employment (like complaining to OSHA and the like) but I have never seen a state that has this exception for gun ownership. We are free to lobby the legislature for one .. courts abhor expanding the exceptions.
 
Last edited:

HPmatt

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
1,460
Location
Dallas
Good thing the guy wasn't a muslim and they didn't ask him if he owned or had access to any sharp knives.
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,575
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
Well, it's a free country. Anyone who wanted to carry and own firearms should go on in doing so for as long as it's registered and not used for illegal activities. The company has to confirm first if the employee is involved in criminal activities.

It's essential for us to learn how we can protect ourselves from criminals especially these days when crime rate is skyrocketing. I can't afford guns and firearms. But I've invested in learning self defense techniques. I've found cool ones in Popushi the other day. I've subscribed to themat popushi.com/survival-tips. They have some really cool guides that are so easy to follow.
Federally, there is no firearm registration. In Indiana, where the article is about, there is no firearm registration.
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,575
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
Indiana is not an at will employment state. It is a right to work state

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk
Those are virtual synonyms.

'At Will' simply means that employers do not need a reason to release someone.

'Right to Work' simply means the same thing, but workers can also not be required to join a union to remain employed where a CBA is in place.


I am an 'at will employee,' in a 'right to work' state.
 
Last edited:

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,912
Location
North Carolina
"Ferlaino's conversation with his co-workers violated the company's "no tolerance policy,"

It would appear that he was not fired for owning a firearm, but for discussing firearms at work. Apparently it is against their policy.
 

twoskinsonemanns

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
2,326
Location
WV
I had that same question about the conversation policy. Efforts to reach out to their management have gone unanswered at the time of this post.
 

ICBM

Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2014
Messages
76
Location
McCordsville, IN
Reason for termination

NO, he can win this case IF he can prove they fired him because his gun ownership, like a letter of termination explaining why (which they don't legally have to give in this state actually, but they might have screwed up and did so anyway).

And you can't be fired for ANY reason. In some cases, while under contract, when receiving certain benefits like a pension, or for civil rights reasons (race, color, creed, religion, etc.)

Also, you need to remember that it is easier to prove a case in civil than it is in criminal court, because its burden of evidence (which he might have) versus "beyond a reasonable doubt."

The limiting factor is generally court costs, unless you have a lawyer contracted on a contingency basis that you win.

But yes, it CAN be difficult to sue in an "at will" state, if they give you no reason for termination.
 
Top