Employer violation of FL law

[MedWheeler]

bearcreek writes:

I'm a bit confused as to why this is that much of an issue. Just ignore their rule and don't be stupid about where you handle the gun. The chances of there being a problem are infinitesimally small.

It's not as much the policy as it is the enforcement of it.

From the OP:

>>My previous job here in FL forbade its employees from keeping a gun in their car in the employee parking lot, and stated they reserved the right to search your vehicle. If they found the gun they would fire you.<<

Besides, most of us (myself included) are less tolerant of violations of laws put into place to protect our own constitutionally-secured rights.

 

[BlueHeelerFl]

Even though the chances of there being an issue are slim, when you need a need a job to pay the bills its hard not to be nervous.

 

[George P]

CURRENTLY, FL state gov't is VERY progun (that might change come November); if your employer is breaking state law; you have a few choices - go along and do/say nothing; violate their policy the violates state law and take your chances; push back and possibly win the battle but lose the war as they find another reason to fire you; retain a really great (and expensive lawyer)

 

[Spats McGee]

The following is from the NRA-ILA website detailing FL carry law:

"Employers may not prohibit their employees who are properly licensed under Florida law to carry a handgun, from storing any legally owned firearm inside a locked, privately-owned motor vehicle that is lawfully present in a parking lot maintained by the employer."

My previous job here in FL forbade its employees from keeping a gun in their car in the employee parking lot, and stated they reserved the right to search your vehicle. If they found the gun they would fire you.

Since that would violate FL what recourse would an employee have?

Simply put: The employee can sue the employer for violation of his or her right to keep a firearm in the car, pursuant to state law.

 

[Skgreen]

Pretty sure Lawyers and Insurance Companies have a part in what they want an Employee Manual to say. When it goes to press, rest assured the proofer has little or no knowledge of specific law.
As no one here knows my name or my place of employment, I have no fear of admitting I pick up firearms from my FFL during lunch break and they stay in my vehicle in the Company parking lot until I leave after 5. Rarely give it a second thought beyond perhaps someone stealing it,,,
Otherwise, I have an ~all-inclusive~ 'nunya business' policy of my own regarding several things, including possession of firearms at work.
Common sense would dictate that eluding to anyone at work that you may posses something or in any other way may be in violation of Company policy, regardless of that policy's legality, is pretty damned stupid,,,

 

[RickD427]

bearcreek writes:



It's not as much the policy as it is the enforcement of it.

From the OP:

>>My previous job here in FL forbade its employees from keeping a gun in their car in the employee parking lot, and stated they reserved the right to search your vehicle. If they found the gun they would fire you.<<

Besides, most of us (myself included) are less tolerant of violations of laws put into place to protect our own constitutionally-secured rights.

I'd like to hear from our JD members on this question:

Can an employer "Reserve" a right that they do not possess?

 

[George P]

No, but in a right to work state, they can sure come up with some other policy violation to fire you easily enough.....

 

[jdc1244]

No, but in a right to work state, they can sure come up with some other policy violation to fire you easily enough.....

Actually, in Florida, a ‘policy violation’ isn’t necessary.

Florida law considers those employed by others to be ‘free agents’ – one can leave his employer at anytime for any reason with impunity, no ‘notice’ or the like required.

Likewise, an employer in Florida can terminate employment for any reason, consistent with Federal law, no ‘good cause’ required.

Indeed, if an employer discovers you have a gun in your car, and it’s such an issue for the employer that he’s willing to pay unemployment compensation, the employer is at liberty to lay you off claiming your position was ‘eliminated.’

 

[MedWheeler]

jdc1244 writes:

Indeed, if an employer discovers you have a gun in your car, and it’s such an issue for the employer that he’s willing to pay unemployment compensation, the employer is at liberty to lay you off claiming your position was ‘eliminated.’

And it will be more "believable" if the employer doesn't immediately turn around and replace the released employee, something that would have happened in the scenario I mentioned in post 15 (an ambulance cannot run with only one crew member.)

Of course, if the employer really wants to stretch, they could simply "eliminate" another position elsewhere and move that person into yours.

 

[MedWheeler]

For those who asked, here is the section of the statute that addresses enforcement. It appears that the AG actually is to start civil and/or administrative action that seeks to compensate or otherwise "restore" the employee as determined appropriate, but the law also allows the employee to initiate litigation or other action on his or her own behalf. However, the aggrieved employee had better be aware that whichever party "wins" is entitled to their costs and fees involved in the action taken. One thing that isn't clear to me is if that applies only to actions "brought" by the aggrieved personally, or also to actions "commenced" by the AG's office.

Unlike Florida's state-law pre-emption clause, which provides for actual criminal proceedings to be potentially initiated against violators (example: county commissioners or city council members who try to further restrict gun-owners' rights beyond state law) there is no criminal penalty for violations of the law being discussed here.

ENFORCEMENT.—The Attorney General shall enforce the protections of this act on behalf of any customer, employee, or invitee aggrieved under this act. If there is reasonable cause to believe that the aggrieved person’s rights under this act have been violated by a public or private employer, the Attorney General shall commence a civil or administrative action for damages, injunctive relief and civil penalties, and such other relief as may be appropriate under the provisions of s. 760.51, or may negotiate a settlement with any employer on behalf of any person aggrieved under the act. However, nothing in this act shall prohibit the right of a person aggrieved under this act to bring a civil action for violation of rights protected under the act. In any successful action brought by a customer, employee, or invitee aggrieved under this act, the court shall award all reasonable personal costs and losses suffered by the aggrieved person as a result of the violation of rights under this act. In any action brought pursuant to this act, the court shall award all court costs and attorney’s fees to the prevailing party.

 

[rbernie]

but in a right to work state

'Right to work" means that you're not required to join a union, and is not relevant here. The expression that you're looking for is 'at-will', which means that there is no inherent employment contract between employee and employer, and either can terminate the relationship at any time for any reason, and need not even express the reason.

 

[George P]

'Right to work" means that you're not required to join a union, and is not relevant here. The expression that you're looking for is 'at-will', which means that there is no inherent employment contract between employee and employer, and either can terminate the relationship at any time for any reason, and need not even express the reason.

OK, wrong words, but same meaning in my mind. Here, even state government can let you go before your probation is up without even telling you why.

 

[P5 Guy]

Employment at will, is a more correct term. They have the will to employ you and terminate that employment at will, just as the employee has the will to accept the job or leave at will.
Really any employee can leave any job at anytime. Am I the only one that walked off a job?

 

[George P]

Except, if you make it through your probationary period in a civil service job like teacher, county, or state level employee, it is almost impossible to get rid of you. I see it here in the utilities as well. Took my wife 3 years to get rid of a problem employee, even with tons of documentation; some places are just like that - others will can you so fast your feet never touch the ground

 

[MedWheeler]

P5 Guy writes:

Am I the only one that walked off a job?

Nope (but, to keep it on thread-topic, there was a gun in my truck when I drove off.)