Disney Employee Suspended For Bringing Gun To Work

[HeavyDuty]

Not when there is a state law to the contrary. You can't violate state law just because it might be good for your business.

The law went into effect last week, we'll see if Disney's challenge of the law is successful.

IMO he didn't let it go far enough to beat Disney. If he had allowed the search and then had action taken against him for having the gun in the car, he would have had a much stronger case. As it is, Disney can claim he was suspended for not allowing a search.

Question: Is Florida an "employment at will" state?

 

[ak645]

The law states an employer can not perform a search of a private vehicle to search for firearms.Only the police can and that requires probable cause.An employer may not even inquire whether or not an employee has a firearm in said vehicle.Furthermore the law states that the Florida AG may represent an employee suspende/terminated for firearm in vehicle.Any policy against employees having firearms in their vehicles is superseded by the new law.

There is an exception for companies dealing with explosives but,unless I'm mistaken,that must be their primary business.

http://laws.flrules.org/node/4470

Andy

 

[HeavyDuty]

Andy, all Disney has to say is that they wanted to check his trunk for Minnie's panties, and he's toast.

 

[divemedic]

You are all incorrect here: ss790.251

(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.

The only question is whether or not the exemption for explosives applies to fireworks.

This brings to mind a question regarding using law enforcement as security, but I will start another thread on that.

Edited to add:
The exemption to the law, IMO does not apply to Disney, but I may check into it:

(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.

The exemption has two parts: Disney uses explosives in the form of fireworks, but that is not their primary purpose. The second part states that they should be engaged in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in explosive materials on the property. I don't know if Disney is importing, manufacturing, or dealing in fireworks, but merely transporting and using them.

 

[Sebastian the Ibis]

Disney is not the Brightest Company in the Barrel I had a friend that worked there for years and was fired when:

1. Some bigwig comes and tells him to repaint a stage because some VIPS are coming the next day and it has to be perfect, or else he is fired.
2. There is no paint and none is expected for a couple of weeks.
3. He goes to Home Depot to get the paint (at his own expense) and sneaks it in contrary to company policy since that is what everyone had been doing in situations like this, since they never have the paint that is needed.
4. After painting the stage, the supervisor comes down to fire him for using unauthorized paint.
5. He explains the situation to his supervisor, who says it is not his problem and fires him.

 

[AntiqueCollector]

This is a contractual issue, NOT a firearms issue. If he didn't like the conditions of his employment he coul have either 1) complied with them by parking off site or 2) found employment elsewhere.

Freedom is not exclusive to firearms. It also includes the ability to run your business how you see fit.

That battle was lost by businesses nearly a century ago. The state may regulate anything from the pay of employees to requiring handicapped accessibility against the will of a business. Disney can't have their employees sign a contract saying they'll work for below minmum wage or be fired, and likewise under the new law, they can't ban guns in employees' personal vehicles (note that fact: the vehicle belongs to the employee not the employer).

 

[divemedic]

I was fired from there because I am a firefighter, and my manager's daughter's house burned down when I was on duty. I was at the fire, so I guess he blamed me.

 

[ak645]

"Andy, all Disney has to say is that they wanted to check his trunk for Minnie's panties, and he's toast."

Sorry,can't figure out the quote function here.

Disney has as much as said they were searching for firearms.Their defense is the explosives exemption.I don't think that'll fly because explosives are not their primary business.You were probably correct in an earlier post that it would have been smarter to let them search and terminate for a firearm violation rather then for refusing a search.

FWIW I would not be bringing my gun to work just yet.Some business groups have already filed suit challenging the new law.If it's overturned,as a similar law in Oklahoma was,this guy's up the creek without a paddle.

Andy

 

[bubba1]

You were probably correct in an earlier post that it would have been smarter to let them search and terminate for a firearm violation rather then for refusing a search.

I disagree... the fact that so many deputies were on hand waiting for this guy shows you who's side the sheriff is on - letting them search the car would've been a bad idea. They would have found some pretext to arrest him and seize the firearm.

 

[XD_fan]

Why are deputies helping enforce a private companies ban? How can the deputies justify searching vehicles without probable cause?

 

[armedandsafe]

Do you think Disney employees should be allowed to bring guns to work?
Choice Votes Percentage of 7558 Votes
Yes 6999 93%
No 559 7%

They are getting STOMPED in this poll.

Pops

 

[HeavyDuty]

Why are deputies helping enforce a private companies ban? How can the deputies justify searching vehicles without probable cause?

From higher up:

ss790.251:

(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.

 

[zxcvbob]

where's that poll?

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Disney Employee Suspended For Bringing Gun To Work

bubba, did you read the article? Your thread title indicates that you did not. They did not suspend the guard for bringing a gun to work. The reason for the suspension was explicitly stated in the article you provided...

They asked him if they could search his vehicle, and when he refused, he was suspended and banned from the property.

 

[divemedic]

Actually, that is exactly what happened. The guard announced to the press that he would be testing Disney's theory that they were exempt from the law, and that he had an attorney and would be bringing his gun to work.

That is why they met him in the parking lot.

HEAVY DUTY-

The law says it must be done "based upon due process and must comply with constitutional protections," which tells me that PC or a warrant is required. Since the person here had a CCW and was in compliance with the new law, what was the reason for the search?

 

[ak645]

The law says it must be done "based upon due process and must comply with constitutional protections," which tells me that PC or a warrant is required. Since the person here had a CCW and was in compliance with the new law, what was the reason for the search?

The Big Ear Boys claim they are exempt from the law due to the explosives exception.I disagree but that's for the lawyers to figure out.My impression is those who are legitimately exempt do not need probable cause to perform a vehicle search.

Andy

 

[bubba1]

Double Naught Spy: Thread title is the same as the news article's title.

 

[DWFan]

Good luck fighting Mouseland. Everyone from employees to customers to legislators have tried various actions against that juggernaut and not been successful.

 

[MechAg94]

Who asked for the search and who was going to do it? The employer or the local law enforcement? Is refusing to consent to a local law enforcement search the same as consenting to your employer searching?

 

[HeavyDuty]

HEAVYDUTY-

The law says it must be done "based upon due process and must comply with constitutional protections," which tells me that PC or a warrant is required. Since the person here had a CCW and was in compliance with the new law, what was the reason for the search?

Not contesting that, I was only responding to the question asking why deputies were present.

 

[Green Lantern]

Double Naught Spy: Thread title is the same as the news article's title.

Quite so....you may have read the article, 00, but not the title apparently.

Anyhoo, guess I WAS mistaken on my assumption that employers CAN ask to search for whatever they please , but just can't fire you for guns...

 

[Boomer]

Has the law enforcement agency that conducted the search stated what the probable-cause basis of the search was?

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Double Naught Spy: Thread title is the same as the news article's title.

Yes, but it is obviously wrong, so why repeat the error? We get to make the thread titles when we post.

 

[ants]

We're only reading part of the new Florida law. We need to read the whole thing.

The new Florida state law provides exemption for employers primarily engaged in explosives,
OR on propery owned or leased by employers who have obtained a permit required under 18 USC s. 842 to engage in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in explosive materials on such property.

Under this specific provision, the employer is not required to be primarily engaged in the business of explosives, if the employer has obtained a permit required under 18 USC to engage in that business.

If Disneyworld has that permit, then they are exempted from the new Florida law.

 

[Ed N.]

This displays one of the great fallacies in this whole issue.

Had he merely had the handgun concealed on his person, say with an IWB holster or a SmartCarry, he'd still be employed. He could've said, "Sure, search my car." There is no enforceable policy that could make him consent to a frisk or a strip search.

And with a CCW permit, he would have been breaking no law.

Employers who insist on prohibiting guns in employees' cars merely make it a better option for the employees to carry guns on their persons.

I kinda doubt that's their intent.