AOL Fires employees in Utah

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Meiji_man:
Man you go away for a few hours...

Utah law states that employers CAANOT limit the employees right to legaly Carry in the work place. UNLESS the place has been posted as "secured". A secured work place means that it is posted as such, and that there is at least one employee armed during working hours. In the first post it is clearly stated that AOL is not a secured workplace.

Second. If an employer choses to restrict thier employee's rights, then the employer is responsible to have a secured locked box (see Al Gore) so the employee can lock the firearm up in a safe manner while at work. With out having to leave it in the car on public property.

[/quote]

Now that could be quite the different story, Meiji. Either I missed that, or that didn't come through clearly.

AOL in Virginia has pretty much the same politcies. Virginia law allows that stance by a company, and AOL is HQ'd in Virginia, I think.

Here's the real kicker, though. Even thought those gentlemen have CCWs for Utah, are rifles considered CCW weapons? If not, they may not be protected.

I could imagine a significant portion of the case revolving on this particular issue.

My former employer, Navy Federal Credit Union, also had a written "no weapons" in the work place policy.

There were many times, however, that I went to the CU after hours to withdraw or deposit money, acting not as an employee, but as a member. At those times, I was armed.

I always wondered what would happen if one of the "security guards" (they weren't armed, and most were older, retired military) noticed that I was carrying a gun.

Fired or not?

I had resolved, however, that if I were fired, it would be a court case. Never happened, I left NFCU, and am now working for a company that is a lot more laid back on the subject.




------------------
Smith & Wesson is dead to me.

If you want a Smith & Wesson, buy USED!
 
Quote: "Utah law states that employers CAANOT limit the employees right to legaly Carry in the work place. UNLESS the place has been posted as "secured". A secured work place means that it is posted as such, and that there is at least one employee armed during working hours."
Do any of you know if there is a law in Arizona that is the same or similar to the above Utah law?
 
AOL Fires Gun Owners



Date: 10/30/2000 1:01:00 AM
Written By: Sarah Thompson, M.D.
AOL Fires Gun Owners

by Sarah Thompson, M.D.
Director, Utah Gun Owners Alliance http://www.UTGOA.org



America Online, http://www.aol.com, has been known to gun owners for some time for their support of anti-gun organizations and policies. They’ve donated large sums of money to liberal, anti-gun Democrat organizations to support people like Dianne Feinstein, Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy.

More recently, they’ve canceled accounts for firearms related web sites on the grounds that such material is no different from “pornography”. Never mind that guns are entirely legal items owned by tens of millions of Americans. Never mind that AOL doesn’t seem to think that disgustingly offensive rock music is a problem.

Now, in another step towards the final elimination of gun owners from “civilized society”, AOL has fired three exemplary workers for having firearms in their cars in order to go shooting at a range on their own time!

The three employees are Luke Hansen, Jason Melling and Paul Carlson. All three worked as “partner technical consultants” at AOL’s Ogden, Utah facility, doing higher level technical support. The Ogden facility employs about 850 people, according to AOL’s web site, and “handles a range of technical, billing, third-party and sales calls”. According to Mr. Hansen, they had worked at AOL for two to four years, and all had good employee records and good reviews from their supervisors. Unfortunately (at least from AOL’s point of view), the three young men also enjoy shooting.

On September 14, 2000, Luke, Jason and Paul met after work in the AOL parking lot to go shooting at the gun range near Eden, Utah. In order to carpool to the range, Jason and Paul transferred their firearms from their own cars to Luke’s truck, a matter of carrying them a few yards. Jason transferred a .30-06 hunting rifle and a 9mm Smith & Wesson handgun. Both firearms were unloaded and in cases. Paul transferred a .45 long Colt “cowboy style” pistol and a 7.63 X .39 KBI. The Colt was in a holster, and both firearms were unloaded. The handguns had trigger locks in place. Luke’s firearms were in his truck and he never touched Jason or Paul’s firearms. At no time did they brandish or handle the firearms in a threatening or unsafe manner. Luke and Paul hold valid Utah concealed weapons permits, and Jason is in the process of obtaining one, so all three are familiar with safe handling and Utah laws.

Although all three of them worked during the subsequent three days, nothing about the firearms was mentioned. However, on Monday, Sept. 18, all three were fired for “violating AOL’s employee policy” which states that firearms are forbidden on company property, including the parking lot. According to Luke, although no one complained, an overzealous security guard saw the firearms on a video surveillance tape and reported the alleged violations.

AOL does have its firearms policy posted inside the front and back doors of the building, stating that firearms are not permitted in the building or in the parking lot, and all three employees were aware of this policy. However, they were also aware that AOL’s policy violates Utah state law. AOL states that it is a “secure facility”, although under Utah law secure facilities can be designated only by the legislature, and include places such as courts, airports, mental health facilities, and prisons. By definition, a place open to the public cannot be a “secure facility”, and AOL’s parking lot is open to the public. (Actually, it’s a group of marked stalls in a public parking lot.) In addition, a secure facility is required to provide locked safe storage for anyone lawfully carrying a firearm, and accept responsibility for stored firearms, something that AOL clearly was not equipped to do.

On a previous occasion about two months ago, the three men had also transferred firearms after work, and had been reported to management. At that time, Luke Hansen met with AOL’s General Manager, Sarah McElwee. At that time, he explained to Ms. McElwee that while AOL might be able to restrict firearms in the building, it could not restrict firearms in a public parking lot, and that AOL did not meet the criteria for a “secure facility”. Mr. Hansen says he thought the matter was resolved at the time, although no written changes were made to AOL’s policy. Ironically, Ms. McElwee’s husband is known for the very fine firearms he makes!

As a result of the firing, Paul is still looking for work. Jason, who has a wife and just bought a new home, has found a new job. So has Luke, who is expecting his first child in February.

It appears that AOL management, and especially Ric Waiters, the AOL manager who fired the three, want to force the issue of illegal, politically correct, gun bans. Fortunately for gun owners everywhere, Luke Hansen, Jason Melling and Paul Carlson are not going to take this lying down! They’re not willing to see their rights, or the rights of any other Utah gun owners destroyed by America Online. So they’ve decided to take on America Online, the 800 lb gorilla of anti-gun corporations.

As Luke wrote in a recent email: “If AOL is allowed to continue with illegal company policies like this, then ALL companies in Utah can adopt similar policies. Your employer can whittle away at your gun rights, and get away with it. The 3 of us have chosen to take a stand, because this is something that we feel very deeply about. We believe that this is truly an issue that affects ALL Utah gun owners and ALL Utah CCW carriers. These aren't just our rights that were violated, they are your rights too.”

The real issue here is whether gun owners are going to be demonized and excluded from participation in ordinary life, whether we’re going to become the last persecuted minority. Remember that most Americans in the “old South” didn’t assault African-Americans; they simply told them they couldn’t work in “white” businesses, attend “white” schools and churches, eat in “white restaurants” or live in “white” neighborhoods. Likewise, the Nazis first told Jews that they couldn’t work in German businesses, attend German schools, or otherwise participate in German society. Once the Jews had been isolated, so that ordinary Germans no longer interacted with them, it was much easier for the Nazis to convince people that Jews were an “inferior race” and a “public health menace”… and that they should be murdered for “the public good”.

If we allow ourselves to be isolated and demonized in the minds of our fellow Americans, then we too will one day find ourselves forbidden to interact with non gun owners. We too will find ourselves unable to find work, to send our children to school, to attend the religious services of our choice, or to eat in restaurants, shop in stores, or attend movies and sporting events. (In addition to this AOL case, there is a ballot initiative circulating to prohibit gun owners from entering schools and religious facilities in Utah.) Eventually we will find ourselves rounded up into concentration camps or stalked by “public servants” seeking to imprison or kill us.

So it’s critically important that we resist each and every attempt to isolate and persecute gun owners NOW – before it’s too late!

Last week, Hansen, Carlson and Melling filed suit against AOL for wrongful termination. They are being represented by James “Mitch” Vilos, a local attorney, firearms dealer, and author of the book Utah Gun Law: Good, Bad and Ugly, available at www.firearmslaw.com. Mitch is also the founder of the Utah Gun Owners Legal Defense (U-GOLD) fund.

AOL has so far refused to comment. Mace Molen, the Director of Human Resources has a message on his phone saying he’s “on vacation” until November 3.

Mr. Vilos believes the three have an excellent chance of winning their lawsuit. Like many freedom-loving states, Utah is a “right to work” or “at will” state, meaning that an employee can be fired at any time. However, Mr. Vilos points out that an employee may NOT be fired if doing so violates public policy. For example an employer may not fire an employee for being Catholic or Asian, because that would violate state and federal anti-discrimination laws.

How does this apply to the AOL case? According to Mr. Vilos, public policy is determined by the state constitution and state statutes.

The Utah Constitution clearly states, in Article I, Section 6: “The individual right of the people to keep and bear arms for security and defense of self, family, others, property, or the state, as well as for other lawful purposes shall not be infringed; but nothing herein shall prevent the Legislature from defining the lawful use of arms.” Clearly, Utahns have an indisputable individual right to keep and bear arms.

As noted above, AOL is violating Utah law by declaring its parking lot and building to be a secure facility, since the parking lot is open to the public and AOL does not provide the mandated safe storage.

It is not entirely clear whether or not an employer can restrict firearms in the workplace if the workplace is not open to the public, because Utah statute does not specifically address this issue. However, since a special statute was passed to permit churches to restrict firearms, it would seem that in the absence of such a statute applying to employers, they may not do so. And the Office of Legislative General counsel previously ruled that Governor Leavitt’s ban on firearms for state employees was illegal (although Leavitt still refuses to stop the ban, and our ultra-liberal attorney general isn’t interested).

Public policy in Utah supports the individual possession of firearms, as well as the right to carry firearms for lawful purposes including self-defense, hunting and target shooting. It therefore stands to reason that public policy would support three men who go to a range for the purpose of maintaining and improving their firearms skills. And because Utah has problems with traffic congestion and pollution, public policy supports the use of carpooling. Thus it seems that public policy supports the right of lawful gun owners to keep unloaded firearms in their cars and to carpool in order to use a shooting range on their own time. And as a matter of public policy, employers generally are not permitted to regulate their employees’ legal activities outside of work hours.

Therefore, Luke Hansen, Paul Carlson and Jason Melling are suing AOL for wrongful termination in violation of public policy and asking for declaratory relief. They are also asking for a jury trial, so their case can be judged by ordinary Utahns. And they’re asking for reimbursement of attorney’s fees since this is a matter of clarifying public policy.

By taking such a principled and courageous stand, these three men and their attorney are fighting for the rights of all gun owners against a virulent and well-funded anti-gun behemoth. They deserve the thanks and support of all gun owners.

What can YOU do?

1. Lawsuits take money! Although a formal legal defense fund for this case has not yet been started, Mr. Vilos says that funds can be sent to U-GOLD. Please include a note saying that you would like your donation to go to the AOL case. Donations are NOT tax-deductible. U-GOLD, 8773 S. 450 East, Sandy, UT 84070

2. Contact the AOL call center in Ogden, Utah: Mace Molen, Director of Human Resources, 801-622-7977, macemolen@aol.com, 2261 Grant Ave., Ogden, UT 84401

All parties involved ask that you please BE POLITE when contacting Mr. Molen. Your goal is to explain why AOL’s actions are wrong, or why you will no longer do business with AOL, but NOT to personally attack anyone!

3. Contact AOL member support – especially if you are an AOL subscriber. 1-800-827-6364. See above message about being POLITE! Remember that the AOL employees you talk to are just ordinary people with a job – not very different from Luke, Jason and Paul. You want them to understand that three of their fellow employees were treated illegally and unfairly and that the same thing could happen to them!

4. Tell your friends and relatives about AOL’s persecution of gun owners and ask them to complain to AOL. You might even want to send them the “Amerika Online” e-postcard, available at: http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?id=1400

Should you cancel your account with AOL? When I asked Luke Hansen, he said, “I’ll thank people who cancel their accounts, but I can’t ask them to do so. It’s an individual decision.”

This month AOL announced that they have reached 25 million members. But there are at least 80 million gun owners in the United States, a ratio of better than 3:1! AOL is huge and wealthy and powerful, but they’re not invulnerable! If gun owners take a stand, we can win!

For those of you who wish to keep supporting AOL, consider donating an amount equal to your monthly AOL fee to a pro-gun organization!

For those of you who do choose to switch internet service providers, remember that most large telecommunications companies (AT&T, Sprint, etc.) are just as anti-gun as AOL. Check with local providers, or check out KeepAndBearArms.com’s new internet service at http://www.keepandbeararms.com/webservices/access/default.asp.

Let’s teach AOL that persecuting gun owners is illegal, un-American and won’t be tolerated!

Copyright 2000, Sarah Thompson, M.D. Dr. Thompson is the Executive Director of Utah Gun Owners Alliance, www.utgoa.org. She also writes The Righter, http://www.therighter.com. She can be reached at Director@utgoa.org.

Click here to read Luke Hansen's own words about this event.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

KeepAndBearArms.com Note: I just spoke with Luke tonight (Sunday, Oct 29, 9:30pm) and verified this event. It's real, it happened. Luke and his friends filed a lawsuit against AOL last week, and some assistance is requested from anyone who chooses to support the case. We've offered Luke free internet access so he can step back from AOL to insure his privacy and to support him during this transition. We have extended this offer to one of the other two plaintiffs in the case who is still using AOL for internet access, as well. Our internet access reaches Ogden just fine, and who better to offer our internet access to than gun owners who just got shafted by AOL? ~~ Angel Shamaya, Director, KeepAndBearArms.com

Other AOL-related Links:

AOL Censors Out Second Amendment Rights
Adios, AOL
AOL and Beyond.
America Online -- It's even uglier than I had thought
AOL (Cartoon) by Kevin Tuma
AOL Cheer (Cartoon) by Kevin Tuma
Amerika Online (Cartoon) by A.F. Branco
Pro Gun Internet Access

Shop in a pro-firearm online shopping mall here.
Join our organization and get a ticket to possibly win a .50 caliber rifle here.
Build a banner for your website here.
Donate to our organization here.
Head back to our home page here.









QUOTES TO REMEMBER
The great virtue of a free market system is that it does not care what color people are; it does not care what their religion is; it only cares whether they can produce something you want to buy. It is the most effective system we have discovered to enable people who hate one another to deal with one another and help one another. --MILTON FRIEDMAN
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/newsarchives/XcNewsPlus.asp?cmd=view&articleid=827

Sorry bud but I am still using AOL
until KABA is available in my area.
It was free when I started.Who else should
I have gone with Anti-gun at&t or sprint or
bellsouth whose made fairly quiet contributions.
KABA has is in all the area's of TN except mine so Im sure it will happen soon.
No one here has mentioned or suggested other
ISP's that are pro-gun to any degress.
 
macemolen@aol.com

Good Afternoon,

It has come to my attention, the abusive
and insulting behaviour of AOL in the
matter concerning the firing of three
employees in Utah over an alleged
violation of company policy and their
actions following their hobby of shooting
and owning guns.

If this is the way that AOL will behave,
then there is absolutely no room for me
to support your company.

As an electrical engineer, and frequent
user of internet technology, i am
approached frequently by people who
are looking for advice in
selecting an ISP. I have in the past
recommened AOL due to the qualities
of its business plan and user friendly
systems.

In light of this incident in Utah, i will no
longer advise the use of AOL, further i
will now advise AOL subscribers to cancel
their subscription and employ an internet
company which is not going quash the
rights of citizens supported under the
2nd Amendment to the Constitution; the
Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

I will also divest myself in any investment
vehicles that employ any contact to AOL
or any business partners there of.

I will now longer stand for the demonization of the gun-owning
population of the United States. As
a consumer, i will vote with my wallet
as i'm sure you will understand.

Please consider who you are alienating
with your invasive and abusive company policy.

Thank you for your time.


------------------
~USP

"[Even if there would be] few tears shed if and when the Second Amendment is held to guarantee nothing more than the state National Guard, this would simply show that the Founders were right when they feared that some future generation might wish to abandon liberties that they considered essential, and so sought to protect those liberties in a Bill of Rights. We may tolerate the abridgement of property rights and the elimination of a right to bear arms; but we should not pretend that these are not reductions of rights." -- Justice Scalia 1998
 
This kind of crap just irritates the hell out of me.

My letter to AOL, written on their corporate site (http://corp.aol.com/contact.html) reminds them that they have a merger pending! Maybe they need to be reminded en masse!!

Roon

------------------
"Those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it."
 
What ticks me off about things like this, that no one has mentioned yet, is that some ninny at AOL had to turn these guys in (probably after seeing the uncased gun)to get them fired. The fact that people will act in this way is even worse than the AOL policy, in my opinion.
 
I have just killed my AOL account with a nasty gram to the management about thier policies.

I have just canceled my AOL account due to the practices of AOL that I do not agree with.

1) Luke Hansen, Jason Melling and Paul Carlson were fired against Utah state law. Although I personally support the company's right to dictate the standards of their work environment. AOL's draconian policies clearly show a lack of understanding of Utah's legal climate. And a lack of understanding of Federal law. Instead it attempts to create an environment that us both illegal and Unconstitutional.

2) AOL as chosen, and supports, an "ANTI-GUN" policy. My monitoring content and targeting certain sites while allowing others to stay up, AOL has adopted a very blatant political agenda. Although AOL hides behind a "Family Values" screen, the amount of advertising IM's I get from spammers advertising porn, encourages me to believe the AOL has little to do with "Family Values."

By Politicizing AOL, It loses it's ability to call itself a "simple business" and becomes a political entity. One that I do not care to be associated with. It is for this reason that I have ended my AOL account.

Sincerely
Charles R Dawson

CANCELLATION NUMBER


AND IT FEELS GOOD!!!


------------------
"Take your weapon with reluctance. Draw it with dread. Grieve for those who fall to your bullets. But make every shot count."-Robert Shea
 
I canceled my AOL account over a year ago. I told them they were anti-gun then. They tried to get me to come back on three separate occaisions. I took each occaision to carefully explain why (they were virulent anti-gun). I actually enjoyed dragging the conversation out. You could almost hear the person on the other end squirming in their seat.

Having said all that, I believe Utah is a right to work state. If true, that unfortunately means AOL (and any other employer) can fire an employee at will and without cause with no real legal ramifications to the company. Of course, it also means an employee can quit at any time for any reason and not be held liable either. Sucks either way. BUT, it does mean there is no "implied contract to work" in any scenario you might put forward. I may be wrong, but that's what a friend of mine who is an employment lawyer explained 'right to work' meant. I was forced out of a company in California. Long story, but the way a lawyer explained it to me then was "unless you've been there twenty plus years or were responsible for some form of proprietary product, your rights at a company are limited". That was before ADA. So who knows now??
 
Eventually we will find ourselves rounded up into concentration camps or stalked by “public servants” seeking to imprison or kill us.

Well, if we are to be taken there because we own firearms I guess we will have to take our firearms with us. Should get veeeeerrrry interesting after that.

------------------
Gun Control: The proposition that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own panty hose, is more acceptable than allowing that same woman to defend herself with a firearm.
 
Well, I have offered either Give or Find positions to these three guys.
All I need is resumes.

But it seems these guys are standing up and fighting.

BULLY FOR THEM!

These guys are standing up for US as well.
Lets give them all the support they need!
 
Ok little moral victory here.

Have you ever had to change your e-mail address? It's a pain.
So much for letting my voice be heard. But the nice person I talked with at AOL when I canked my account took my statement.


"*** ATTENTION ***

Your e-mail is being returned to you because there was a problem with its
delivery. The address which was undeliverable is listed in the section
labeled: "----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----".

The reason your mail is being returned to you is listed in the section
labeled: "----- Transcript of Session Follows -----".

The line beginning with "<<<" describes the specific reason your e-mail could
not be delivered. The next line contains a second error message which is a
general translation for other e-mail servers.

Please direct further questions regarding this message to your e-mail
administrator.

--AOL Postmaster

----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----
<macemolen@aol.com>

----- Transcript of session follows -----
... while talking to air-zb02.mail.aol.com.:
>>> RCPT To:<macemolen@aol.com>
<<< 550 macemolen IS NOT ACCEPTING MAIL FROM THIS SENDER
550 <macemolen@aol.com>... User unknown"




------------------
"Take your weapon with reluctance. Draw it with dread. Grieve for those who fall to your bullets. But make every shot count."-Robert Shea
 
I "had" an AOL account for my home-business. Like Meiji_man - I just fired 'em. Good luck to the guys in UT in overturning this nonsensical bullying.
 
AOL sucks donkey dongs. They were my ISP in the early 90's when they went to $19.95 flat rate unlimited access without even the remotest ability to service the demand they created. They almost put me under as an independent consulant. Then they were going to start selling their subscriber lists to anyone & everyone (yeah, I love spam - ). Not to mention the months of relentless telemarketing harassment after I cancelleed the service. I had to go to some rather extreme measures to get them to quit calling. I have ocacasionally been to events where Steve Case was speaking, and I entertained the fantasy of smashing him in the face or kicking him squarely in the balls on general priciple. I have had the pleasure of p*ssing on the hood of his car (at least the one he arrived in -). yeah, AOL, throw in their various 'community standards' and other fascist BS crap - eff'em with syphillitic (*^(&^&^%&^)(*(&%^&^ (that's me going apophlectic). grrrrr. M2
 
OGDEN -- Attorneys for three men fired by America Online for having guns in their vehicles parked at work are challenging AOL's contention that the parking lot belongs to the company.

The three, Luke Hansen, Paul Carlson and Jason Melling sued AOL for wrongful termination after the company dismissed them in September for violation of company policy which bans guns in the
workplace. Two of the men were off- duty and the third was on a two- hour approved break when they met in the parking lot at 2261 Grant Ave. and transferred guns to Hansen's car. The men planned
to go target shooting in Eden later.

Tuesday, attorney James D. Vilos argued against AOL's motion to dismiss the suit in 2nd District Court saying the company does not own but merely leases space from the city in the public parking
lot.

Furthermore, Vilos states, AOL may have had only a right to park in a certain number of spaces but no right to park in a specific or identifiable area.

"We haven't had a chance to do discovery," Vilos said. "That's one of the reasons why the courts should let this go forward."

Nicholas Graham, the AOL Inc. spokesman in Dulles, Va. could not be reached for comment Tuesday afternoon. The company has the right to respond to the men's motion before Judge Roger Dutson
decides whether to dismiss the suit or let it go forward.

The case will likely become a historic fight over a company's ability to restrict its employers' rights to bear arms.

"This particular issue has not been specifically decided in any state I'm aware of, including Utah," Vilos said.

Vilos is asking for a jury trial because he said Westerners understand the value of gun ownership.

"Westerners have a right to have their state legislature establish the public policy and not a 800-pound gorilla Internet provider trying to enforce East coast values on Westerners." he said.

The Salt Lake attorney is considered a gun rights expert and is the author of the book "Utah Gun Law: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly."

Vilos' motion also maintains that Utah law protects employees from termination when it constitutes a violation of "clear and substantial public policy."

In this case, Vilos said Utah's constitution show a clear public policy allowing Utah residents to possess, control and transport firearms without interference by government or private employers.

In earlier statements, Graham maintains that AOL's no-gun policy in the workplace is part of the standard employment agreement signed by its 15,000 employees.

Vilos hinted that AOL's no-gun employment policy is part of a company bias against gun ownership.

"This strong 'anti-gun' policy has drawn wide comment on the Internet. Internet articles and other communications indicate that AOL blocks, filters and censures communications relating to firearms
and prohibits users from advertising the sale of guns or ammunition treating them as pornography," Vilos' motion reads.

The attorney maintains that AOL's censorship is tantamount to a telephone company telling people they can't use their telephones to voice opinions about individual freedoms.

You can reach reporter Cheryl Buchta at 625-4229 or e-mail cbuchta@standard.net.
OGDEN -- Attorneys for three men fired by America Online for having guns in their vehicles parked at work are challenging AOL's contention that the parking lot belongs to the company.

The three, Luke Hansen, Paul Carlson and Jason Melling sued AOL for wrongful termination after the company dismissed them in September for violation of company policy which bans guns in the
workplace. Two of the men were off- duty and the third was on a two- hour approved break when they met in the parking lot at 2261 Grant Ave. and transferred guns to Hansen's car. The men planned
to go target shooting in Eden later.

Tuesday, attorney James D. Vilos argued against AOL's motion to dismiss the suit in 2nd District Court saying the company does not own but merely leases space from the city in the public parking
lot.

Furthermore, Vilos states, AOL may have had only a right to park in a certain number of spaces but no right to park in a specific or identifiable area.

"We haven't had a chance to do discovery," Vilos said. "That's one of the reasons why the courts should let this go forward."

Nicholas Graham, the AOL Inc. spokesman in Dulles, Va. could not be reached for comment Tuesday afternoon. The company has the right to respond to the men's motion before Judge Roger Dutson
decides whether to dismiss the suit or let it go forward.

The case will likely become a historic fight over a company's ability to restrict its employers' rights to bear arms.

"This particular issue has not been specifically decided in any state I'm aware of, including Utah," Vilos said.

Vilos is asking for a jury trial because he said Westerners understand the value of gun ownership.

"Westerners have a right to have their state legislature establish the public policy and not a 800-pound gorilla Internet provider trying to enforce East coast values on Westerners." he said.

The Salt Lake attorney is considered a gun rights expert and is the author of the book "Utah Gun Law: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly."

Vilos' motion also maintains that Utah law protects employees from termination when it constitutes a violation of "clear and substantial public policy."

In this case, Vilos said Utah's constitution show a clear public policy allowing Utah residents to possess, control and transport firearms without interference by government or private employers.

In earlier statements, Graham maintains that AOL's no-gun policy in the workplace is part of the standard employment agreement signed by its 15,000 employees.

Vilos hinted that AOL's no-gun employment policy is part of a company bias against gun ownership.

"This strong 'anti-gun' policy has drawn wide comment on the Internet. Internet articles and other communications indicate that AOL blocks, filters and censures communications relating to firearms
and prohibits users from advertising the sale of guns or ammunition treating them as pornography," Vilos' motion reads.

The attorney maintains that AOL's censorship is tantamount to a telephone company telling people they can't use their telephones to voice opinions about individual freedoms.

You can reach reporter Cheryl Buchta at 625-4229 or e-mail cbuchta@standard.net.
OGDEN -- Attorneys for three men fired by America Online for having guns in their vehicles parked at work are challenging AOL's contention that the parking lot belongs to the company.

The three, Luke Hansen, Paul Carlson and Jason Melling sued AOL for wrongful termination after the company dismissed them in September for violation of company policy which bans guns in the
workplace. Two of the men were off- duty and the third was on a two- hour approved break when they met in the parking lot at 2261 Grant Ave. and transferred guns to Hansen's car. The men planned
to go target shooting in Eden later.

Tuesday, attorney James D. Vilos argued against AOL's motion to dismiss the suit in 2nd District Court saying the company does not own but merely leases space from the city in the public parking
lot.

Furthermore, Vilos states, AOL may have had only a right to park in a certain number of spaces but no right to park in a specific or identifiable area.

"We haven't had a chance to do discovery," Vilos said. "That's one of the reasons why the courts should let this go forward."

Nicholas Graham, the AOL Inc. spokesman in Dulles, Va. could not be reached for comment Tuesday afternoon. The company has the right to respond to the men's motion before Judge Roger Dutson
decides whether to dismiss the suit or let it go forward.

The case will likely become a historic fight over a company's ability to restrict its employers' rights to bear arms.

"This particular issue has not been specifically decided in any state I'm aware of, including Utah," Vilos said.

Vilos is asking for a jury trial because he said Westerners understand the value of gun ownership.

"Westerners have a right to have their state legislature establish the public policy and not a 800-pound gorilla Internet provider trying to enforce East coast values on Westerners." he said.

The Salt Lake attorney is considered a gun rights expert and is the author of the book "Utah Gun Law: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly."

Vilos' motion also maintains that Utah law protects employees from termination when it constitutes a violation of "clear and substantial public policy."

In this case, Vilos said Utah's constitution show a clear public policy allowing Utah residents to possess, control and transport firearms without interference by government or private employers.

In earlier statements, Graham maintains that AOL's no-gun policy in the workplace is part of the standard employment agreement signed by its 15,000 employees.

Vilos hinted that AOL's no-gun employment policy is part of a company bias against gun ownership.

"This strong 'anti-gun' policy has drawn wide comment on the Internet. Internet articles and other communications indicate that AOL blocks, filters and censures communications relating to firearms
and prohibits users from advertising the sale of guns or ammunition treating them as pornography," Vilos' motion reads.

The attorney maintains that AOL's censorship is tantamount to a telephone company telling people they can't use their telephones to voice opinions about individual freedoms.

You can reach reporter Cheryl Buchta at 625-4229 or e-mail cbuchta@standard.net.
http://www.standard.net/stories/local/12-2000/ftp0170@local@27aolsuit@ogden.asp
 
If this be true, that AOL leases only a number of parking spaces in a public lot…. Looks to me like these three individuals are going to be rich. Don’t get me wrong, I support property owners rights to do as they wish on their own grounds…. Ie… your home… but here it looks like the three were fired just because of AOL’s bias against gun owners and not that they violated Company policy. Hope when they go to select the jury that they only allow gun owners to be selected. Their attorney also has a good point regarding AOL’s gun policy being the same as the telephone company telling people they can't use their telephones to voice opinions about individual freedoms. Since AOL is a provider of public information, it appears that there is a good suit based upon free speech.
 
I don't support owner's rights on any issue not relevant to the direct use of their property.

Your home is your castle but your business is not. A business is open to the public or sells to the public.

You cannot abridge rights on your property. You cannot decide at your business that you will discriminate in hiring.
Nor should you discriminate against gun owners.

Unless there is some specific technical reason why carrying a gun is unsafe on a location. Near an MRI or something like that, no gun bans should be permitted.

It is not infringing on your property rights to stop you from being a racial or gun bigot.
 
Hardball and others

already been boycotting AO hell since 1997, when their service was atrocious, and they misled me with a supposed 50 free hours that was more like 5. But everyone else should too, if you're not already.
 
Back
Top