Disney Fires Guard For Protesting Policy, (W/Active Poll)

OrlandoSentinel.com
After protesting gun rule, Disney guard is fired
Scott Powers

Sentinel Staff Writer

July 8, 2008

Walt Disney World fired a security guard on Monday after he protested the company's decision not to allow people with concealed weapons permits to keep guns in their cars on Disney property.

Disney terminated Edwin Sotomayor, 36, of Orlando for violating three Disney employee policies, essentially for failing to cooperate with an internal investigation, said spokeswoman Zoraya Suarez. Sotomayor vowed to continue his fight.

At issue is Florida's new law that allows people with concealed weapons permits to keep firearms in their vehicles in employee parking lots.

Disney advised its employees late last month that the theme-park resort is exempt from that state law, and that they may not bring firearms onto the property. Disney stated that its gun policy is based on safety concerns for visitors and employees.

Sotomayor alerted local media last week that he intended to challenge Disney's claim of an exemption to the new law by bringing a gun to work, locked in his vehicle. When he showed up for work at Disney's Animal Kingdom on Friday, he declined to let Disney authorities search his car. Disney suspended him pending an investigation, then fired him Monday.

Sotomayor expressed distress about the end of his 13-year career at Disney, but not regret. He said he expects the security guards' union, Security Police & Fire Professionals of America Amalgamated Local 603, to challenge his termination, and he intends to continue his own challenge of Disney World's gun policy.

"I am not going to stop this fight," he said. "This is going to end somewhere good."

The security guards' union, Local 603, would not comment, referring inquiries to Disney World.

The security guards' union, Local 603, would not comment, referring inquiries to Disney World.

Click to expand...

I'll be suprised if the Union get's involved. Nobody messes with Disney. Nobody.

People just have no idea just how much Disney resembles a legallized mafia sanctioned by the state of Florida.

That is the truth.

Potentially the most significant piece of legislation passed by the Florida legislature in the twentieth century was the special act, chapter 67-764 of the Laws of Florida (“chapter 67-764”), which created the Reedy Creek Improvement District (“District” or “RCID”). The District includes approximately 25,000 acres (thirty-nine square miles) of land, almost all of which is owned by Disney. The District is controlled by a five-member board of supervisors (“Board”), who are elected by the landowners in the District. Each landowner is entitled to one vote for each acre owned. Because Disney owns virtually all of the acreage within the District, Disney’s votes determine who is elected to the Board, thereby giving Disney de facto control of the District.

The RCID is granted nearly a full array of governmental powers by chapter 67-764. Among other things, the District is authorized to construct, operate, and maintain public utilities, including “plants and facilities for the generation and transmission of power through nuclear fission,” telephone and other communications systems, and airports. The District is also authorized to issue bonds, including “general obligation bonds,” and perhaps most important, the District and all development within the District is specifically exempt from the zoning and other regulations of Orange and Osceola Counties, in which the District is located.

Read this, you will be amazed that a company has this much power in the USA.

Disney did some very shrewd negotiating, no?

Even without Disney's power, I doubt the guy would get his job back.

It may be a technicality, but he wasn't fired for having a firearm in his car, he was fired for not cooperating with his employer. He'd be in a better stance if he had the gun, allowed them to search and fire him for it, and then fight to say they couldn't fire him for that reason (if indeed they couldn't).

I think it's been shown a number of times that as a condition of employment, companies have the right to search the employees vehicles. I'd be very surprised if the unions backed him on this.


Is there any way Disney could be exempt from State law?

divemedic,

I'm 27 pages into that PDF, and I'm blown away by Disney's power in Florida.

Even without Disney's power, I doubt the guy would get his job back.

It may be a technicality, but he wasn't fired for having a firearm in his car, he was fired for not cooperating with his employer. He'd be in a better stance if he had the gun, allowed them to search and fire him for it, and then fight to say they couldn't fire him for that reason (if indeed they couldn't).

I think it's been shown a number of times that as a condition of employment, companies have the right to search the employees vehicles. I'd be very surprised if the unions backed him on this.


Is there any way Disney could be exempt from State law?

Click to expand...

He was refusing to cooperate with an employer who was in the process of violating State law. That isn't a terminable offense even in an at-will employment.

Little do you know about Unions. They are required to back him unless they want to shell out the equivalent of his wages and bennies until his retirement age. I've seen it happen.

All I can say is that the Mouse runs O-town. I hope when I retire I don't have to work there to supplement my income like so many old poops here.

They can and do get away with everything. Florida is a 'right to work' state (meaning you can't be forced to join a union), or put in more realistic terms, a 'right to slave' state. The Unions are pretty powerless here, as in most places anymore with globalization and illegal immigration.

It may be a technicality, but he wasn't fired for having a firearm in his car, he was fired for not cooperating with his employer. He'd be in a better stance if he had the gun, allowed them to search and fire him for it, and then fight to say they couldn't fire him for that reason (if indeed they couldn't).

Click to expand...

Actually, assuming the law applies to Disney, ss 790.251 states:

(b) No public or private employer may violate the privacy rights of a customer, employee, or invitee by verbal or written inquiry regarding the presence of a firearm inside or locked to a private motor vehicle in a parking lot or by an actual search of a private motor vehicle in a parking lot to ascertain the presence of a firearm within the vehicle. Further, no public or private employer may take any action against a customer, employee, or invitee based upon verbal or written statements of any party concerning possession of a firearm stored inside a private motor vehicle in a parking lot for lawful purposes. A search of a private motor vehicle in the parking lot of a public or private employer to ascertain the presence of a firearm within the vehicle may only be conducted by on-duty law enforcement personnel, based upon due process and must comply with constitutional protections.

Has Disney gotten so big they think state law doesn't apply to them?



*

Should Disney employees with concealed-weapons permits be allowed to keep their guns in their cars while at work?

Yes. All other employees are able to. (18479 responses)

82.1%

No. It's too dangerous for visitors. (3841 responses)

17.1%

Not sure (175 responses)

0.8%
o 22495 total responses (Results not scientific)

Why did he even say anything? He should have kept his mouth shut and kept it in his vehicle anyway.

Has Disney gotten so big they think state law doesn't apply to them?

Click to expand...

It doesn't.

Why did he even say anything? He should have kept his mouth shut and kept it in his vehicle anyway.

Click to expand...

This is how rights are protected. Someone has to go to court to make it stick, and the only way to get standing was for a company to take action against a would be plaintiff.

I giggle a little. I've had a gun in my car on numerous occasions in Disney's parking lots. hehehe

I regularly carry a weapon in Disney's parks and attractions.

Why did he even say anything? He should have kept his mouth shut and kept it in his vehicle anyway.

Click to expand...

he wanted 15 mins of fame.

Jesus TAB, do you ever stop accusing the people who stand up for gun rights as "wanting their 15 minutes of fame" ????

Get off it. First the GA Representative in the airport, now this... everyone who stands up for a Gun right is just self-indulged huh?

yeah when people actually stand up for thier rights with out making a public spectical saying " look at me, look at me, I'm doing this for every ones rights." before they actually take a stand on gun rights. People looking for attention do that, people that do things, and attention finds them do it for rights.

All I can say about Disney is that they haven't gotten a dime of my money in 15 years......and I have three young daughters!

I have little control over what grandma buys them for Christmas, but they don't get a dime from me.

yeah when people actually stand up for thier rights with out making a public spectical saying " look at me, look at me, I'm doing this for every ones rights." before they actually take a stand on gun rights. People looking for attention do that, people that do things, and attention finds them do it for rights.

Click to expand...

Do you honestly think the guy being quiet would accomplish anything?

Not with Disney.

The only chance in hell he has of actually pulling this off is to let all of Florida now so they start screaming and complaining and whinning and start attracting the attention of politicians.

If he keeps quiet Disney buries him. Easily.

Any employer would have fired him for making public statments like that.

he knew what he was doing, he didn't care, he wanted the attention... any bets on rather or not he had a lawyer lined up before he made those statments?

Disney is claiming they're exempt because of the fireworks they use everyday. There's something about nuclear plants and places that handle "explosives" being exempt in the written law. So they aren't completely ignoring the law, just bending it to suit. It will have to go to trial for a decision.