Any legal consequences of prohibiting firearms in the workplace?

[Frank Ettin]

We seem to be all over the block here -- discussing whether it's good policy for an employer to prohibit weapons and whether there's any good reason for him to do so. But let's remember that the OP's original question was

...If there was a counterbalancing liability--i.e. I could sue a company if they prohibited me from carrying my defensive weapon, then I get shot on their grounds--it might make for fewer reflexive "no weapons allowed" policies....

I propose the following answer to that question:

I am not aware of anyone successfully challenging in court an employer's "no weapons" policy. While employer practices that discriminate, or create a hostile work environment, based on gender, age, religion, national origin, race, disability and sexual orientation have been successfully challenged by employees, such challenges have been supported by specific statutory and common law prohibitions on such conduct when based on gender, age, religion, national origin, race, disability and sexual orientation. These are explicitly protected classes.

I'm aware of no statute or court decision making people who own guns or have a concealed weapons permit a protected class. Any legal challenge to an employer's "no weapons" policy would, it appears, be breaking new ground.

That in and of itself doesn't foreclose trying. New ground has been broken in the past. But it does mean that the success of such a venture is highly speculative and also high dependent on the law in the particular jurisdiction in which the challenge is brought.

[roy reali]

gender, age, religion, national origin, race, disability and sexual orientation. These are explicitly protected classes.

Apples and oranges. These are conditions one is born with or are inherited. No one is born with a gun attached to their hip.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by roy reali

Apples and oranges. These are conditions one is born with or are inherited. No one is born with a gun attached to their hip.

So, what's your point? My point is that in the real world these are bases upon which to hold an employer liable for discriminatory practices, but there is no parallel basis upon which to challenge an employer's "no weapons" policy. Or didn't you understand my post?

[divemedic]

Apples and oranges. These are conditions one is born with or are inherited. No one is born with a gun attached to their hip.

But one is, according to the Constitutional theory that this country was founded upon, born with a right to defend their own life. (Also, a persuasive argument can be made that sexual orientation is a learned behavior)

I open a small business on my property. I am also a pacifist, I do not want any weapons on my property. No government entity should dictate different to me. Yes, if someone is injured through any actions or inactions of mine, then we go to civil court. Then we leave up to a jury.

Fair enough, but that is not how it works. Businesses fall back on the defense that they have no control over criminals, even though the no weapons policy is what enabled the criminal in the first place.

As a business owner, say you want to chain your emergency exits shut because your employees are sneaking out to take unauthorized breaks, and you don't want some government agency dictating to you. If someone is hurt, then you go to court and let a jury decide. Should you be allowed to do so?

[Double Naught Spy]

Apples and oranges. These are conditions one is born with or are inherited. No one is born with a gun attached to their hip.

Religion isn't genetic and growing up in a gun culture can be inherited like religion, though it isn't a religion.

With that said, fiddletown makes a good point. A new basis would need to be established for such a suit to work.

At this point, with all of the workplace shootings where people were not defended with firearms (though who owned them and CC permits) and with all those who have been fired for having guns in the workplace against company rules (often because they managed to defend themselves against bad guys), I would be inclined to believe this would be a legal windfall for the NRA and/or whatever legal team wanted to challenge the issue given how clear cut some folks here think the law is on this matter, be it based in discrimination or on Constitutional law. There don't seem to be a lot of lawyers chomping at the bit for these cases and I don't see where the NRA is challenging any at this time (but maybe it isn't on their site?). If the NRA is involved in some of these challenges, maybe someone can post the links to the cases. If they have filed suit, the reasons for the suit will be public knowledge and likely the NRA will have made a press release to coincide with the suit.

So if the matter isn't so clear cut and suits are being filed across the country in support of forcing employers to allow employees to carry guns at work, why isn't this happening? It isn't as if the suit would need to be against a major corporation like Domino's that would have a large legal team and a lot of backing. Initial suits against smaller private companies would the way to go, but that doesn't seem to be happening either.

So far, all that has been strongly tried is getting companies to let employees leave their guns in their vehicles on the grounds of their employers.
http://www.wislawjournal.com/article.cfm?recID=72776
http://www.insidecounsel.com/Issues/...gislation.aspx

[roy reali]

It isn't as if the suit would need to be against a major corporation like Domino's that would have a large legal team and a lot of backing. Initial suits against smaller private companies would the way to go, but that doesn't seem to be happening either.

Big corporations and small private companies are different to me. Regulate one of them all you want, leave the other one alone as much as possible.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by roy reali

I agree, in public areas, there should be no carry restrictions towards those that have legal right to do so. In fact, if a person can legally own a firearm, I believe that no permit, license, or any requirement should be mandated by any government entity for that person to walk around armed.

Agreed! However, the OP includes the idea that if a private company prohibits law-abiding CCW then they should be financially liable for crime that injures employees and customers who might otherwise have defended themselves against attack for which the business owner did not provide protection from.

Originally Posted by roy reali

These are conditions one is born with or are inherited. No one is born with a gun attached to their hip.

As Double Naught Spy said religion is not genetic. However, I AM born with the God-given right of self defense and that may require the use of a gun.

Originally Posted by Double Naught Spy

With that said, fiddletown makes a good point. A new basis would need to be established for such a suit to work.

A couple of thoughts.

Legal precedents take time to develope. CCW really hasn't been around that long in the states (FL was first of any size in 1987) so it will take a while for the right cases to develope.

Second, the NRA HAS bashed Pizza Hut and other workplaces (urging boycotts and such) for firing drivers who defended themselves from attack. Also, the NRA has supported laws that restrict employers from prohibiting employees from storing guns in their cars and has passed those laws in several states.

So, I see this coming to a head legally as more and more people CCW. As you know you have to get the "right" set of facts in a case to set the precedent and that may come soon or take a while. Like Heller. One step at a time.

As the general public gets used to the idea more and more that folk should be able to defend themselves and workplace violence continues I could see the courts or legislatures going over to this idea that the right to self defense trumps employer "rights" and allow liability on those who refuse to let employees defend themselves. We'll see.

[divemedic]

I just find it extremely hypocritical to hear someone tell me that they don't want the government interfering in the running of their business, even though they are using government interference to protect their assets by having that business incorporated.

It seems to me that they are only interested in preventing government interference when the government is protecting the other guy.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by divemedic

...using government interference to protect their assets by having that business incorporated....

How is incorporation "using government interference"? The corporation as a form of business organization goes back several hundred years and has been recognized in both Common Law and Civil (Roman) Law. Each form of business organization has long recognized legal consequences.

The government does incorporate your business. You incorporate your business and then make certain public record filings so that others who do business with you know how you are organized and who you are, and so that the government can tax you appropriately.

[divemedic]

because a corporation is a fictional entity that is created by law (government) to shield the owner from personal liability for any bad decisions. This allows the owner to reap the financial rewards while taking very little risk beyond the limited amount of money invested in the corporation.

When I am an employee of your corporation, I am not entering an employment agreement with you, I am entering an employment agreement with a fictional entity created by the government for your financial benefit.

[Frank Ettin]

A corporation may be a fictional entity, but it has a solid, historical foundation. The corporate form goes back some 700 years and is a widely recognized and understood form of business organization.

At one time, corporations were formed by royal charter. Today, they are formed privately, without governmental action, except for the recording by a state agency of the documents forming the corporation. A modern corporation can be described as follows:

A corporation is a legal entity separate from the persons who own it or the persons who manage or operate it. In British tradition it is the term designating a body corporate, where it can be either a corporation sole (an office held by an individual natural person, which is a legal entity separate from that person) or a corporation aggregate (involving more persons). In American and, increasingly, international usage, the term denotes a body corporate formed to conduct business, ....

Corporations exist as a product of corporate law, and their rules balance the interests of the management who operate the corporation; creditors who loan it goods, services or money; shareholders that invest their capital; the employees who contribute their labor; and the clients they serve. People work together in corporations to produce value and generate income. In modern times, corporations have become an increasingly dominant part of economic life. People rely on corporations for employment, for their goods and services, .... for economic growth and social development.

The defining feature of a corporation is its legal independence from the people who create it. If a corporation fails, shareholders normally only stand to lose their investment ....

Despite not being natural persons, corporations are recognized by the law to have rights and responsibilities like actual people. Corporations can exercise human rights against real individuals and the state,[1] and they may be responsible for human rights violations.[2] Just as they are "born" into existence through its members obtaining a certificate of incorporation, they can "die" when they lose money into insolvency. Corporations can even be convicted of criminal offences, such as fraud and manslaughter.[3] Five common characteristics of the modern corporation, ... are:

* delegated management, in other words, control of the company placed in the hands of a board of directors
* limited liability of the shareholders (so that when the company is insolvent, they only owe the money that they subscribed for in shares)
* investor ownership, which Hansmann and Kraakman take to mean, ownership by shareholders.[4]
* separate legal personality of the corporation (the right to sue and be sued in its own name)
* transferrable shares (usually on a listed exchange, such as the London Stock Exchange, New York Stock Exchange or Euronext in Paris)...

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation emphasis added)

[jimpeel]

Actually, there have been several threads related to private companies banning employee carry or possession of firearms.

The AOL suit in Utah comes readily to mind and was discussed in several threads in L&P. A lawsuit was brought to bear which was discussed as well.

AOL won.

AOL Fires employees in Utah

AOL Lawsuit update

Businesses Watch AOL Employees' Gun Lawsuit

Judge rules in favor of AOL in case of employee gun ban

Judge rules in favor of AOL in case of employee gun ban (There were two threads w/ same title)

There were other cases and discussions as well.

Employer Weapons Policy

Is this legal? Parking lot question

Florida Attorney General taking Complaints of rights violations

[MedicineBow]

This has wandered far afield.

To summarize:

First, right now, if you are an employee, injured at work, then you receive compensation through the worker's compensation system. It doesn't matter if you get harmed by a bad guy or the roof caves in. So, yes, you have those rights...and it has nothing to do with whether you get to carry a firearm as an employee.

Second, if you are a visitor at a business, and (in summary) if the business doesn't take reasonable steps to protect you from reasonably foreseeable criminal activity, then you have recourse against that business. So, yes, you have those rights.

Now, if you want to pass regulations to force private parties to allow you to carry guns on the premises....well, write your representatives.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by MedicineBow

Second, if you are a visitor at a business, and (in summary) if the business doesn't take reasonable steps to protect you from reasonably foreseeable criminal activity

Haven't many courts ruled that violent crime is not reasonably foreseeable? What reasonable steps must a business owner take? My guess is not much. I know 7-11 says they did by installing cameras. LOL so they get a good picture of who kills you I suppose.

[divemedic]

I know that Morgan and Morgan (a large Florida attorney firm) have sued businesses for not lighting parking lot at night as a reasonable step to prevent crime. I have never heard of a business being successfully sued for a no firearms policy.

[DG45]

I'm not a lawyer so this is just my layman's opinion (which is probably worth what you're paying for it), but I think an avenue that might be pursued is to try to legally hold employers or a school (like Virginia Tech for example) to the same standard of screening for guns as an airport or a courthouse ; ie. they don't have to ban guns from their premises but if they do, they should be forced to accept the liability for that; i.e., they should be forced to do more than just put up a sign saying guns are banned on the campus or premises (which only has the effect of disarming the law-abiding and making them sheep for the slaughter). Instead these businesses or schools should be legally forced to either allow the law-abiding to have guns on campus for their own protection, or if not, then they could ban all guns in their business or campus, but if they did, then they should be forced to provide a REAL screen for firearms just like an airport or courthouse performs to guarantee that NO ONE gets onto that business or school property with a gun, not even a crazy or a criminal. (And if some crazy or criminal did get onto that business or school property with a gun and harm someone, then that school or business enterprise who failed in their duty to protect the employes or students they had disarmed should be liable for the most severe legal penalties.) The place to start the ball rolling on this would seem to be the state legislatures or on ballot propositions or even just by candidates for office making this a campaign issue. Any comments?

[Double Naught Spy]

Funny how we complain here about how we dislike more regulation when we think it has a negative impact against us, but we are more than happy to promote more regulation when we think it is for our benefit.

[Uncle Billy]

It seems to me that if it's legal for an employer to ban CC for his employees, and he doesn't, and one of them shoots someone (justified or not), then whomever got shot has grounds for an action brought against the employer for not trying to prevent him from being shot. Principles are one thing, legal exposure is another, which trumps principle most of the time.

I think the general public (i.e. the majority of people, more than half of whom aren't avid gun enthusiasts) aren't all that enthusiastic about a bunch of amateurs, with no training and questionable skills, who have a penchant for guns as their motivation, being allowed to go among us with deadly firepower they have enthusiasm for using. That idea frightens me too. Oh, they believe CC ought to be legal (mostly so they could do it if they chose to), but they concurrently have a legit fear of what that enables. That gets a corporate voice when lawyers get involved.

It's the two-pronged sword of our rights. The Founders were clear what our rights were to be, but they didn't think it necessary to speak of the attendant responsibilities, the motivation for living up to those responsibilities supposedly coming from an individual citizen's character, ethics and understanding. We have the rights, more or less, but how much to we live up to the attending responsibilities? Not so much, which is why CC as a Second Amendment right isn't without its perceived dangers.