Tampa Woman Sues Employer Over Gun Rules

She ought to. I worked for a company that really put the employees safety first .
At night you had to walk out with a buddy, but guns were A big no no. With that being said, it may be unconstitutional, but it all boils down to the paperwork she signed, and I'd be willing to bet it mentioned firearms
 
I thought the same, but apparently it doesn't come down to the papers being signed.

Here is Florida Statute 790.251(3)(e)
(e) No public or private employer may terminate the employment of or otherwise discriminate against an employee, or expel a customer or invitee for exercising his or her constitutional right to keep and bear arms or for exercising the right of self-defense as long as a firearm is never exhibited on company property for any reason other than lawful defensive purposes.

Depending on how the court reads that (it's awfully murky) it could be that an employee can't discriminate based on papers signed any more than they can ask about your age or fire you for your ethnicity or religion.

It will be interesting to see how it goes.

EDIT: They'll also have to read into what is considered "exhibited". Was a firearm exhibited if it was accidentally seen by somebody? I'd say no, unless it was done through an act of the carrier. Exhibited to me implies an act of showing or otherwise displaying, versus a word like "exposed". It would seem to be written so that a person couldn't be fired for carrying a firearm at their place of business unless it was displayed to a customer, pulled in anger, etc. in which case you would want to fire that employee.
 
It's not discrimination if a company policy is made known to you and you agree to the terms by signing.

That's a contract. The unlucky lady won't have anything to stand upon (legal pun intended).
 
Dakota, I think you left out some important info regarding 790. 251. Does not the entire 790.251 pertain to Vehicles and parking lots?

790.251 Protection of the right to keep and bear arms in motor vehicles for self-defense and other lawful purposes; prohibited acts; duty of public and private employers; immunity from liability; enforcement.—

Section 3.
(3) LEGISLATIVE INTENT; FINDINGS.—This act is intended to codify the long-standing legislative policy of the state that individual citizens have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, that they have a constitutional right to possess and keep legally owned firearms within their motor vehicles for self-defense and other lawful purposes, and that these rights are not abrogated by virtue of a citizen becoming a customer, employee, or invitee of a business entity. It is the finding of the Legislature that a citizen’s lawful possession, transportation, and secure keeping of firearms and ammunition within his or her motor vehicle is essential to the exercise of the fundamental constitutional right to keep and bear arms and the constitutional right of self-defense.

Section 4.
(4) PROHIBITED ACTS.—No public or private employer may violate the constitutional rights of any customer, employee, or invitee as provided in paragraphs (a)-(e):

(e) No public or private employer may terminate the employment of or otherwise discriminate against an employee, or expel a customer or invitee for exercising his or her constitutional right to keep and bear arms or for exercising the right of self-defense as long as a firearm is never exhibited on company property for any reason other than lawful defensive purposes.

Section 4 (e) left out the words Parking lot and Vehicle, so does that mean 4 (e) implies more, as in the employer's place of business/building?
 
Does the titling of 790.251 affect the language? Or is it a summary?

There is the findings and intent section

(3) LEGISLATIVE INTENT; FINDINGS.—This act is intended to codify the long-standing legislative policy of the state that individual citizens have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, that they have a constitutional right to possess and keep legally owned firearms within their motor vehicles for self-defense and other lawful purposes, and that these rights are not abrogated by virtue of a citizen becoming a customer, employee, or invitee of a business entity. It is the finding of the Legislature that a citizen’s lawful possession, transportation, and secure keeping of firearms and ammunition within his or her motor vehicle is essential to the exercise of the fundamental constitutional right to keep and bear arms and the constitutional right of self-defense. The Legislature finds that protecting and preserving these rights is essential to the exercise of freedom and individual responsibility. The Legislature further finds that no citizen can or should be required to waive or abrogate his or her right to possess and securely keep firearms and ammunition locked within his or her motor vehicle by virtue of becoming a customer, employee, or invitee of any employer or business establishment within the state, unless specifically required by state or federal law.
Click to expand...

So, I think another important thing to reconcile here is the question of whether or not (3)(e) can stand on its own or must necessarily mean that it is included only in the scope previously suggested.

It would seem a large oversight to substitute vehicle/parking lot for company property. I could see it properly argued either way.

The woman may not have two legs to stand on, but I think she's got at least one. Enough to discover interesting findings rather than be immediately shut out, in my opinion.
 
She says she knowingly broke the rules, that they were clear rules prohibiting carrying of a gun at/in work which she said she did. As the rules do not appear to be illegal she does not appear to have a winnable case.

If she was dumb enough to let others know that she was carrying and breaking the rules of employment, then she is dumb enough to get fired.
 
She's allowed to have it in the parking lot, as long as no one sees it. There isn't anything protecting her inside the building.

The bank doesn't need much of a reason to fire her anyway. Unless they discriminate against her in some way, they can fire her for just about anything.

I sympathize with her, because I could see myself in the same boat. But if I carry at work, I've made the decision that my life is more important than my job, and would have to accept the consequences.
 
Gov Scott; Florida U/C .....

When Rick Scott was elected Florida Gov, he made many business law & policy changes. As noted, Florida is a "right to work" state. Employers can cut employees for nearly any reason. New changes to the state U/C(unemployment) system means a company or business owner can deny $$$-benefits for nearly any reason too. :mad:
BTW; FL has one of the lowest rates in the US(48th out of 50). U/C has a max of $275.00 per week. :rolleyes:
 
When Rick Scott was elected Florida Gov, he made many business law & policy changes. As noted, Florida is a "right to work" state. Employers can cut employees for nearly any reason. New changes to the state U/C(unemployment) system means a company or business owner can deny $$$-benefits for nearly any reason too.
BTW; FL has one of the lowest rates in the US(48th out of 50). U/C has a max of $275.00 per week.
Click to expand...

Then don't be unemployed. I've worked in FL since 1987 and have never found a reason to be unemployed more than a week.

I would say "Rick Scott for President", but I know there are some people who enjoy living in states with high taxes and generous welfare programs. So I'm happy to keep him here, and allow them to live the way they prefer to live.
 
I can see the point. At my job, there is a clearly worded sign in the lobby that disallows carrying of any weapon on the premises or to store them in a car on the parking lot. This rule is stated as being in effect despite any license or privilege a person holds. This rule was not in place when I got my job, FWIW.

What strikes me about this is that the company holds an FFL. We have sold shotguns that were stored on the premises, with the systems we make, to LE customers. We have LE personnel on the premises all the time- our customers- who conspicuously carry on the premises. One of of our employees also is a state policeman. And we even have a fully automatic weapon on the premises for live fire demonstrations on one of our products.

It seems a touch...well...of a double standard.

Anyway. I can see why she'd want to sue.
 
Yes the titling of that statute does mean something, it says right up front it pertains to motor vehicles which takes it out of any other realms. I seriously doubt she has any legal case whatsoever.
 
Florida; employers....

Florida like other US states isn't exactly a "hey so what" choice. :rolleyes:
It's not always simple or easy to get a new job or change jobs.

Some employers(not just Florida) are inept, unfair & unethical.
In 2008, I had a security employer who never paid staff/employees on time or correctly. :mad:
He'd make lame excuses or avoid answering texts/calls. After the 3rd straight payperiod, I gave my notice & quit.
This woman may not have a valid civil action case due to the company SOPs but she could find a new employer who understands her 2A beliefs.

Clyde
 
I sympathize with her, because I could see myself in the same boat. But if I carry at work, I've made the decision that my life is more important than my job, and would have to accept the consequences.
Click to expand...

And this is the responsible/mature attitude to have if you are going to knowingly break the rules.
 
Pizza delivery....

I talked to a delivery guy in a apt complex who told me he's been robbed 16 times!
I'd think after 2 armed robbery incidents, Id either buy a concealed gun or find another line of work.
As noted, if you knowingly violate a company rule or SOP & get axed over it then you have to accept it.
In 2012, I had a dispute with my employers/property owners over carrying guns.
I had repeated, documented death treats & incidents with violent-unstable subjects doing on my security posts.
I wouldn't regret saying or doing what I did in 2012 if given a second chance.

Clyde
PS; FWIW, one of the more aggressive & hostile subjects I constantly dealt with was later arrested on drug/gun charges. He's now in a state prison until 2015.
 
Double Naught Spy + 1

When I break the rules that I personally feel are not just, I am prepared to pay the consequences. She signed a "Condition of Employment" document, agreeing to "all" it's terms. Obviously her word means nothing to her. ... :rolleyes:

I wonder if anyone has asked; how "she" revealed that she was carrying. Then it states that in part, it was for the protection of others. Give me a break. ... :rolleyes:

Be Safe !!!
 
but she could find a new employer who understands her 2A beliefs.
Click to expand...

Maybe not. i would not hire a person who wilfully broke the rules of a previous employer. This woman was the branch manager of a bank. She was charged with enforcing company policy in her branch.

If your're going to take a a companys salary then be loyal to that company. If you can't be loyal then quit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top