It sounds grim, but we need to establish legal precedent that an employer is liable for your death if you are denied carry rights at work and are killed as a result.
I think that is important. Anytime someone forces an employee into a specific role of dependency they must rely upon others for, they are liable for providing a need. It is valid to hold an employer responsible when they specify that someone cannot provide for one of thier own needs at thier own discretion.
If an employee is killed by another employee, they're liable for allowing the killer to have a weapon.
Only if they have a policy that mandates people MUST be armed. Otherwise once again it is the discretion of the private individual as to whether they are armed or not and in no way related to a decision by the employer. If it is concealed then the employer was not presented with a discretionary choice on its presence. Therefore the employer had no part in the decision making process or the weapons presence.
So if an employer says someone must be armed, or cannot be armed, then they have legaly decided to take responsibility for that decision and can be held accountable, and should be held accountable for thier policy decisions. Otherwise what an individual has personaly is not the responsibility of the employer and they are only accountable for actions taken that are within the scope of the job. Or if it is not concealed then obviously it suddenly becomes discretionary.
This reminds me of a policy I once saw someplace that someone else dealt with. The employer of an individual mandated that no drugs were allowed, and that those necessary had to be checked with some personel in the location. Well this person had asthma and was dependent on a prescription inhaler. They needed it one day and the person it was checked with was unavailable. The company was held liable because they had mandated a policy that made him unable to fend for himself. Now if he had forgot it out in his car or something on his own, they would not be liable without that policy. It would be his decision and his responsibility. By making a policy that mandated how he takes care of one of his own personal responsiblities the company took responsiblity, and therefore legal responsiblity and liability for the threats to safety a policy mandated.
I see the tools of self defense falling under the same legal responsiblity. If a company has no policy on whether someone has an item or not then an individuals actions with them are thier own responsiblity and they are personaly liable and not the company unless what they do is within the scope of thier employment, like security etc..Otherwise a gun, a knife, a flashlight, or what they bring for lunch is not something the employer had a part in, and if it is concealed then they had no discretion in allowing or not allowing it.
Once they make a policy that determines items allowed or disallowed which are used for any purpose, in this case self defense, then they assume liability and responsiblity.
So if someone dies or is injured in a place with a policy that does not allow the tools of self defense, then the place not allowing such tools was responsible for thier defense, and is liable for not providing it.