Carrying concealed against Employer's Policy

[alsaqr]

A very large and well known company in Savannah GA recently randomly swept their parking lot and everyone who even had a firearm in their vehicle lost their job.

Years ago the new manager of the Weyerhaeuser plant in SE Oklahoma asked the local police to search every vehicle in the parking lot. Every employee who had a gun in his/her vehicle was terminated.

The OK legislature passed a law allowing guns in the vehicles of employees in parking lots. The same law relieved the company of any tort liability. Weyerhaeuser appealed to the federal court system on OSHA grounds. Whirlpool and Ramsey winch joined in the appeal.

The federal appeals court for the 10th Circuit threw out a lower court ruling.

Holding:

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has upheld the validity of the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act (“OSDA”) and the Oklahoma Firearms Act (“OFA”), laws that allow employees to store their guns in their vehicles on company parking lots. In particular, the Tenth Circuit disagreed with the holding of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma that the these state laws are pre-empted by the "general duty" clause of the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act (“OSHA”). According to the Tenth Circuit, OSHA has not indicated in any way that employers should prohibit firearms from company parking lots. The Tenth Circuit noted that the OSHA is aware of the controversy surrounding firearms in the workplace and has consciously decided not to adopt a standard. Thus, the Tenth Circuit explained that while these laws may “have a ‘direct and substantial effect’ on worker safety, they cannot fairly be characterized as ‘occupational’ standards, because they regulate workers simply as members of the general public.” In this regard, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the district court’s decision interferes with Oklahoma’s police powers. In so stating, the Tenth Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of permanent injunction.

http://www.lawupdates.com/summary/t...lowing_employees_to_keep_guns_in_parking_lot_

 

[Red Wind]

Red Wind, I don't think the FL City govt facility would now be allowed to prevent you from having a gun in your personal vehicle.

I hope you are correct. Of course the Government buildings and vehicles almost certainly remain OL.

I will check with one of my old buddies at The City who has a CCW. I was lucky. I knew the owner of the warehouse across the street from that City parking lot (they have a half dozen or or more), and for all those years, I was able to carry to work and not worry about my firearm creating a severe career job problem, by parking in his private lot just 100 feet away.

Thank you for that updated information.

 

[mstreddy]

Red Wind, You are correct, the FL law only protects the possession in the vehicle, it is not for CCW on your person, or in a company vehicle. So, basically it allows you to have the gun in your car, park at the business facility and prevents the entity from prohibiting it. Note, there are some exceptions, but those exceptions do not apply to local govt facilities.
Here are the exceptions:

(7) EXCEPTIONS.—The prohibitions in subsection (4) do not apply to:
(a) Any school property as defined and regulated under s. 790.115.
(b) Any correctional institution regulated under s. 944.47 or chapter 957.
(c) Any property where a nuclear-powered electricity generation facility is located.
(d) Property owned or leased by a public or private employer or the landlord of a public or private employer upon which are conducted substantial activities involving national defense, aerospace, or homeland security.
(e) Property owned or leased by a public or private employer or the landlord of a public or private employer upon which the primary business conducted is the manufacture, use, storage, or transportation of combustible or explosive materials regulated under state or federal law, or property owned or leased by an employer who has obtained a permit required under 18 U.S.C. s. 842 to engage in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in explosive materials on such property.
(f) A motor vehicle owned, leased, or rented by a public or private employer or the landlord of a public or private employer.
(g) Any other property owned or leased by a public or private employer or the landlord of a public or private employer upon which possession of a firearm or other legal product by a customer, employee, or invitee is prohibited pursuant to any federal law, contract with a federal government entity, or general law of this state.

 

[Bula]

I say don't risk it.

 

[AnselHazen]

I have for years redacted portions of company policy handbooks with a black sharpie. The ones they make you sign and turn back in. I've never had it questioned. I don't think HR reads them after they get it back.

 

[Frank Ettin]

I have for years redacted portions of company policy handbooks with a black sharpie. The ones they make you sign and turn back in. I've never had it questioned. I don't think HR reads them after they get it back.

There would be no need for HR to read them. They know what's there, and it's almost a certainty that your redactions would not be given any legal effect.

 

[Candyman87]

My company strictly prohibits firearms on their property.

I work in New Jersey, so no concealed carry there. With handguns, I must drive from my house to the range, range to my house with no unnecessary deviation.

Long guns are another story. I've brought my shotgun to hit the trap range after work. I parked across the street at my buddy's apartment to circumvent their policy.

I'm not risking employment over it. Luckily my building has good security and you cannot get in without proper credentials. Doors lock automatically.

However, my company's policy is no weapons... there's been some grey area over knives in the past. Because of that, I carry a small Case pen knife that seldom comes out of my pocket. If someone thinks that's a weapon, they're reaching. I can barely open an envelope with it.

 

[RPRNY]

The second post answered the OP question in it's entirety.

To be clear, if a written policy, then the employee could refuse search but would be subject to discretionary termination and all other things being equal would have no grounds to claim wrongful termination.

 

[steveracer]

It's not really a legal issue. Do you want to sue a company for wrongful termination because of their gun policy, and then work for said company? If I worked for a company with this policy, in a state where violating that policy would not be a criminal offense, I would violate is every day.
Of course, it could mean risking my job, but if I had an employer so set on making victims of their workforce, I would happily take my resume elsewhere.
I can't picture a losing scenario here: Should you need your CCW in an armed conflict, are you going to cite company policy from the hospital bed? From the wheelchair?

 

[357to44]

I have a specific question about state-government-as-employer, where search of a person is not in the HR policy. Courts and prisons that have metal detectors installed can screen their employees daily. Let's concentrate on the others, e.g. colleges. Does anyone know about places where only open carry is prohibited, accepting the reality of non-enforceability of detecting concealed weapons?

 

[RPRNY]

Search is not the issue. If possession / carry is prohibited but consent to search not explicit in policy, one can refuse a search request but still be terminated with cause.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I have for years redacted portions of company policy handbooks with a black sharpie. The ones they make you sign and turn back in. I've never had it questioned. I don't think HR reads them after they get it back.

There would be no need for HR to read them. They know what's there, and it's almost a certainty that your redactions would not be given any legal effect.

Right, signing most handbooks does not mean that you agree to abide by the rules, only that you have been informed of the rules. That you took the time to mark out the parts you don't like would only give credence to the fact that you read the particular passages and hence knew that you would be violating the rules.

 

[outlawjw]

In AL if a no firearms sign is posted for it to pertain to any but open carry their has to be a guard that is supplied with means to protect & if a ccwis found the sign poster has to give the ccw carrier the chance to put his weapon in his vehicle which has to be locked if on their property.

 

[outlawjw]

Parking lot searches are relegated to unlocked vehicles or those where firearms are in plain view.

 

[Blackbeard]

Think of it this way: Drinking is legal (if you're over 21). If you drink at work you can be fired.

Same thing.