Employers can forbid guns, a judge rules, issues an injunction against OK law.

[Old Fart]

Guys, I just need some quick advice. I am commuting 180 miles every day on the interstate and I would like to carry with me in the event that I end up stuck on the side of the rode at 5:30 in the morning. My employer has a policy against weapons in the parking lot. Since I don't know what my employer would do if they searched and found a weapon in my car I have opted to not carry. I understand what an employer can/would do and may not be legal, but I am not interested in being unemployed while lawyers figure it all out.

Just to make sure.......your place of employment isn't one of the places that are excluded in this law is it?

 

[ExtremistPullup]

Guys, I just need some quick advice. I am commuting 180 miles every day on the interstate and I would like to carry with me in the event that I end up stuck on the side of the rode at 5:30 in the morning. My employer has a policy against weapons in the parking lot. Since I don't know what my employer would do if they searched and found a weapon in my car I have opted to not carry. I understand what an employer can/would do and may not be legal, but I am not interested in being unemployed while lawyers figure it all out.

Is it a votech, P.S, or military base? can you park off property?

do they do random searches employee cars?

 

[WhiteyMacD]

Might want to read this...

Everyone is correct, so far, in references to as long as its not restricted area according to SDA, it is unlawful for an employer to bar employees from having a personal firearm in their vehicle (cant be company car) on company property.

Now, I will speak to you from a perspective involving Ethic and Legal aspects of Human Resources in Oklahoma. Oklahoma is an employ at will state, if they find out you have a firearm in your car, you can still be terminated for it. I was a HR/Legal minor in college and I can tell you that what they teach isnt how you have to follow the law, but how you get around it. Since OK is employ at will, if you do something that, legally, they cant enforce, they can and will find another way.


So, my advice, if you do it, keep it hush hush. Absolutely noone, and i emphasize NOONE, needs to know what you have in your car.

 

[TallPrairie]

NOT legal advice, but Whitey's post made me think of this:

If an at-will employee was terminated, and the employer offered some pretextual legitimate reason for firing, but the employee could produce evidence showing that the employer really fired him because of a legally stored gun in the employee's car, then the employee might be able to sue the former employer for damages under the common law doctrine of "discharge against public policy," which is an exception to the at-will employment doctrine.

The OK parking lot statute imposes criminal penalties for enforcing a no-guns-in-vehicles policy. That seems like strong evidence that "public policy" in OK would be harmed by allowing discharges for this reason.

Anyone have more perspective on this idea?

 

[WhiteyMacD]

NOT legal advice, but Whitey's post made me think of this:

If an at-will employee was terminated, and the employer offered some pretextual legitimate reason for firing, but the employee could produce evidence showing that the employer really fired him because of a legally stored gun in the employee's car, then the employee might be able to sue the former employer for damages under the common law doctrine of "discharge against public policy," which is an exception to the at-will employment doctrine.

The OK parking lot statute imposes criminal penalties for enforcing a no-guns-in-vehicles policy. That seems like strong evidence that "public policy" in OK would be harmed by allowing discharges for this reason.

Anyone have more perspective on this idea?

You get into the realm of infinite hypotheticals. Technically you are right, the discharged employee could start legal actions against the employer. However, it would be a difficult case if the employer was diligent about producing "legal" reasons for termination. You gotta keep in mind, most corporations have a lot more resources to dedicate to legal issues than Joe Individual. Im guessing the most you could hope for would be a settlement.

Edit to Add: Keep in mind, the legitimate reasons are only for legal purposes. In at will states, there doesnt have to be a reason for termination. However, a good, or should I say shady HR will find legitimate reasons so counter claims invloving things like EOE, civil rights, etc (disparate impact) can be thwarted.

 

[abajaj11]

You get into the realm of infinite hypotheticals. Technically you are right, the discharged employee could start legal actions against the employer. However, it would be a difficult case if the employer was diligent about producing "legal" reasons for termination. You gotta keep in mind, most corporations have a lot more resources to dedicate to legal issues than Joe Individual. Im guessing the most you could hope for would be a settlement.

Edit to Add: Keep in mind, the legitimate reasons are only for legal purposes. In at will states, there doesnt have to be a reason for termination. However, a good, or should I say shady HR will find legitimate reasons so counter claims invloving things like EOE, civil rights, etc (disparate impact) can be thwarted.

I can see a lot of lawyers salivating at the prospect of suing employers who MAY have violated the law and fired someone because of discrimination against their personal carriage of firearm.

I think most employers will just not fire for this reason once they know it's a crime. And believe me....the legal departments of employers already know.

 

[MLR]

NOT legal advice, but Whitey's post made me think of this:

If an at-will employee was terminated, and the employer offered some pretextual legitimate reason for firing, but the employee could produce evidence showing that the employer really fired him because of a legally stored gun in the employee's car, then the employee might be able to sue the former employer for damages under the common law doctrine of "discharge against public policy," which is an exception to the at-will employment doctrine.

The OK parking lot statute imposes criminal penalties for enforcing a no-guns-in-vehicles policy. That seems like strong evidence that "public policy" in OK would be harmed by allowing discharges for this reason.

Anyone have more perspective on this idea?

The only cases I have heard of was when the person who was terminated was a member of a protected class. They then claim they are being fired because of their particular class and not for whatever their employer claims. If you are not a member of any protected class you are pretty much up the creek.

Michael

 

[cw821]

You might try sending an anonymous letter with the referenced law to your HR dept. Do it from your city of employment, not where you live. Probably won't help, but certainly cant' hurt any.

 

[dra1965]

My employer still is requiring us to unload our gun and leave it in our glove box of the locked car!

 

[neginfluence04]

unfortunately I work for a CASINO so I guess I'm S. O. L. and will have to keep it to myself if I carry or not.