• 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.

Milwaukee Uber driver fired for CCW

pkbites

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2006
Messages
760
Location
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, ,
I've been over seas for a few weeks so forgive me if I'm Johnny come lately regarding THIS story.

It seems that Wisconsin state statute 175.60(15m) is pretty clear on the employers rights:
(15m) Employer restrictions.

(a) Except as provided in par. (b), an employer may prohibit a licensee or an out-of-state licensee that it employs from carrying a concealed weapon or a particular type of concealed weapon in the course of the licensee's or out-of-state licensee's employment or during any part of the licensee's or out-of-state licensee's course of employment.

But wait! Then there is paragraph b that says:

(b) An employer may not prohibit a licensee or an out-of-state licensee, as a condition of employment, from carrying a concealed weapon, a particular type of concealed weapon, or ammunition or from storing a weapon, a particular type of weapon, or ammunition in the licensee's or out-of-state licensee's own motor vehicle, regardless of whether the motor vehicle is used in the course of employment or whether the motor vehicle is driven or parked on property used by the employer.

It appears to me that this clause was written specifically for such situations such as the Uber driver and I think he has a valid case against them.

What do you think?
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,337
Location
Valhalla
Is Wisconsin not an employee at will state where private businesses can make their own rules?
 

pkbites

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2006
Messages
760
Location
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, ,
Is Wisconsin not an employee at will state where private businesses can make their own rules?

Yes, you are correct. However certain laws seem to invalidate using the "at will" employment thing to get around them, hence the purpose of the law in the first place.

What good would it be to have laws saying an employer cannot prohibit something if they can simply turn around and use the at will employment to prohibit something making the law against prohibiting something pointless?
 

gutshot II

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2017
Messages
623
Location
Central Ky.
I've been over seas for a few weeks so forgive me if I'm Johnny come lately regarding THIS story.

It seems that Wisconsin state statute 175.60(15m) is pretty clear on the employers rights:
(15m) Employer restrictions.

(a) Except as provided in par. (b), an employer may prohibit a licensee or an out-of-state licensee that it employs from carrying a concealed weapon or a particular type of concealed weapon in the course of the licensee's or out-of-state licensee's employment or during any part of the licensee's or out-of-state licensee's course of employment.

But wait! Then there is paragraph b that says:

(b) An employer may not prohibit a licensee or an out-of-state licensee, as a condition of employment, from carrying a concealed weapon, a particular type of concealed weapon, or ammunition or from storing a weapon, a particular type of weapon, or ammunition in the licensee's or out-of-state licensee's own motor vehicle, regardless of whether the motor vehicle is used in the course of employment or whether the motor vehicle is driven or parked on property used by the employer.

It appears to me that this clause was written specifically for such situations such as the Uber driver and I think he has a valid case against them.

What do you think?
I think that the Wisconsin legistatute has made this a matter of "public policy" and that will trump (oh, I just love using that word) the "at will employment" practice.

Is he really an "employee" of uber or is he a "contractor"? This may be a dispute in "contract law" and not "employment law". That would change things considerably.
 
Last edited:

gutshot II

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2017
Messages
623
Location
Central Ky.
Is Wisconsin not an employee at will state where private businesses can make their own rules?
Yes, but they don't get to break the law. This law, or any law. Just because they can make their own rules doesn't mean they can sell cocaine or run a house of prostitution. Why? Because those things are against the law.
 
Last edited:

pkbites

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2006
Messages
760
Location
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, ,
Is he really an "employee" of uber or is he a "contractor"? This may be a dispute in "contract law" and not "employment law". That would change things considerably.
Or was he a "franchisee" ? Either way, can they break a contract if their stated reason for doing so is explicitly contrary to state law? There are other state statutes in Wisconsin (111.31 for example) that protect employees rights that I would assume over ride the "at will" employment doctrine.

This is something we must take seriously. Can you imagine how many employers would love to dictate what an employee can do in/on their own property, during their own time, etc? There are employees who sometimes work from home. Can an employer dictate what legal items can be in that home while they are working there on a computer?

Poo pooing this as an "at will" employment issue does not do us on this side of the gun rights issue any good.
 

gutshot II

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2017
Messages
623
Location
Central Ky.
Or was he a "franchisee" ? Either way, can they break a contract if their stated reason for doing so is explicitly contrary to state law? There are other state statutes in Wisconsin (111.31 for example) that protect employees rights that I would assume over ride the "at will" employment doctrine.

This is something we must take seriously. Can you imagine how many employers would love to dictate what an employee can do in/on their own property, during their own time, etc? There are employees who sometimes work from home. Can an employer dictate what legal items can be in that home while they are working there on a computer?

Poo pooing this as an "at will" employment issue does not do us on this side of the gun rights issue any good.
If he is not an "employee", the firing will not be "explicitly contrary to state law". If we are going by the exact wording of the law, we need to go by ALL of the "exact words".

As I said earlier, this could very well be an issue of "contract law".
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,912
Location
North Carolina
Is Wisconsin not an employee at will state where private businesses can make their own rules?
Uber drivers are not employees, they are subcontractors. It is going to be touchy if the driver decides to sue, as he probably violated the contract. For what it is worth I would have carried anyway also.

BTW PK how did they find out he was carrying?
 
Last edited:

pkbites

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2006
Messages
760
Location
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, ,
Uber drivers are not employees, they are subcontractors. It is going to be touchy if the driver decides to sue, as he probably violated the contract.
But if that clause of the contract violates a state statute, does that not make that section of it unenforceable?

I’m thinking the 2 guys in the story were either going to rob him or car jack him. After he drew a weapon and drove off neither apparently reported the incident, but the driver did. Had they not been up to no good I believe they would have reported a Uber driver pulling a handgun on them.
 
Last edited:

gutshot II

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2017
Messages
623
Location
Central Ky.
But if that clause of the contract violates a state statute, does that not make that section of it unenforceable?

I’m thinking the 2 guys in the story were either going to rob him or car jack him. After he drew a weapon and drove off neither apparently reported the incident, but the driver did. Had they not been up to no good I believe they would have reported a Uber driver pulling a handgun on them.
It wouldn't violate the state law if the driver was not an "employee". The law only applies to employees, not contractors.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,912
Location
North Carolina
It wouldn't violate the state law if the driver was not an "employee". The law only applies to employees, not contractors.
That is the way I see it, he voided the contract when he violated a clause of the contract, it is not the same as being an employee. As I stated I would have carried also, but unless questioned, or someone actually got ventilated I would have followed the advice of some good attorneys, and kept my big mouth shut. If the two were criminals they were not going to the police, he was not harmed, and did not shoot so there was no need for him to. At the most contact an attorney if the police decide to question the driver.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,337
Location
Valhalla
--snipped-- At the most contact an attorney if the police decide to question the driver.
I will cooperate fully after I have contacted my attorney who will then speak for me.

Then KYBMS! Completely, totally w/o reservation. Not a single utterance.
 

pkbites

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2006
Messages
760
Location
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, ,
That is the way I see it, he voided the contract when he violated a clause of the contract, it is not the same as being an employee. As I stated I would have carried also, but unless questioned, or someone actually got ventilated I would have followed the advice of some good attorneys, and kept my big mouth shut. If the two were criminals they were not going to the police, he was not harmed, and did not shoot so there was no need for him to. At the most contact an attorney if the police decide to question the driver.
But going to the police isn't what did him in. He also reported the incident to Uber himself.

He thought he was going to be robbed/car jacked, and he pulled a firearm on someone and felt he was justified in doing so. Yes seek legal advice but after that I don't blame him for reporting the cops. But that's me. Whether or not he should have told Uber I vote no.

Anyone know of anyone who works from home (for a company, not self employed)? Would that company have the right to tell you no firearms, liquor, tobacco, or kugen be in that dwelling?
 
Last edited:

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,912
Location
North Carolina
But going to the police isn't what did him in. He also reported the incident to Uber himself.

He thought he was going to be robbed/car jacked, and he pulled a firearm on someone and felt he was justified in doing so. Yes seek legal advice but after that I don't blame him for reporting the cops. But that's me. Whether or not he should have told Uber I vote no.

Anyone know of anyone who works from home (for a company, not self employed)? Would that company have the right to tell you no firearms, liquor, tobacco, or kugen be in that dwelling?
It is not telling, it is the contract conditions, subcontractors live with this all the time. It is not unusual for contractors to ban the use of alcohol, and smoking for subcontractors in the building industry. Neither activity is illegal but they are the terms of the contract. If the new homeowners come in and the home smells of smoke then there are penalties in the contract. They often also limit what vehicles are around the property while under construction. This is especially the case in gated communities.
 

pkbites

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2006
Messages
760
Location
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, ,
It is not telling, it is the contract conditions, subcontractors live with this all the time. It is not unusual for contractors to ban the use of alcohol, and smoking for subcontractors in the building industry. Neither activity is illegal but they are the terms of the contract. If the new homeowners come in and the home smells of smoke then there are penalties in the contract. They often also limit what vehicles are around the property while under construction. This is especially the case in gated communities.
But I'm asking about people who work from their own home. There are people who sometimes instead of going to the office can stay home and do their work on their home computer. If they are actual employees would the employer be able to dictate what was in that dwelling during the paid hours the employee was working from home?
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,337
Location
Valhalla
Think we are suffering a bit too much thread drift. Notwithstanding that some would claim their vehicle was their home, such rules for employees (contract or otherwise) would be difficult to enforce.

I personally know a number of people who fit the loose description - some have alcohol in the home, one has a gun range in the basement.

If you have a specific legal question, contact an attorney competent in that area. Otherwise back on topic please.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,912
Location
North Carolina
Think we are suffering a bit too much thread drift. Notwithstanding that some would claim their vehicle was their home, such rules for employees (contract or otherwise) would be difficult to enforce.

I personally know a number of people who fit the loose description - some have alcohol in the home, one has a gun range in the basement.

If you have a specific legal question, contact an attorney competent in that area. Otherwise back on topic please.
And when it comes down to it I am sure the advice will include KYBMS.
 
Top