Seems more to this story than is being revealed, IMO. There has to be some reason for conflict. Unfortunately, if its 'office politics', there's little the 'accused' can do. Seems Ms has decided her private knowledge is a facile lever to remove an impediment or enemy. Best to 'move on' -quickly with a clean resume - and cite 'policy differences' as the reason......
Legally, depending upon the state laws prevailing and local ordinances, the 'accused' is perfectly within his rights, so long as he doesn't take that gun to work. However this tale addresses an aspect of law in flux. That is, how much control over an employee's personal life does the company have as a condition of employment ? Increasingly, courts are finding a very great deal.......
The most obvious is health maintenance. Many company's have instituted pogroms against alcohol use, smoking, overweight, lifestyle, etc on the basis of their health care costs. While arguing about alcohol abuse, etc may not get much sympathy, what about skiing, scuba diving, racing, flying, skydiving, or the shooting sports ? All of these can/have/are proscribed by various companies/insurors across the nation as posing 'unneccessary risk'.
With the advent of increasing genome knowledge, the specter of genetic proclivity to certain diseases/ailments is raised. Theoretically one could be fired/not hired because a blood relative succumbed to pancreatic cancer, or heart disease......Greed knows no boundaries, nor recognizes any constitutional rights, it seems. >MW
