My company's parking lot

[MechAg94]

My company won't go looking for you, but if you say something or someone else complains, they will ask to search your vehicle. You can either let them or refuse. According to them, refusal is grounds for immediate dismissal. It is an employment issue, not a legal issue.

 

[Car Knocker]

Depends on where you work I suppose, but I've never had a problem leaving when I was sick. *shrug*

But getting sick just as they want to search your car? Wouldn't fly in the corps I worked for.

 

[jcramin]

Well why would you give them a reason to search your car ? If you dont give them a reason why not just keep it in your car ? Does your company do random auto searches ?

I have carried a gun in my car/truck for 15 years now and just in the last 3 months finally got my carry permit.

J

 

[badbowtie]

I have the same problem I don't have anywere to park of site from work within like 1 mile I am not allowed to have a gun on their property which I really disagree with I have been carrying mine in my veichle for like a year and hope they don't search the truck.

 

[johnny blaze]

I am not telling anyone to break their company's policy, but having said that, have you thought about making some kind of a compartment that would be hard to find if they did search the car? I can think of many areas of a vehicle that would be prime spots for hiding.
Chances are, if you do not give them reason, they probably will never search your car.

 

[Elza]

johnny blaze: have you thought about making some kind of a compartment that would be hard to find if they did search the car?

I’ve thought about this as well. My idea is to get an old, removable-front radio/tape player. The kind where you could pop the front and take it with you to (theoretically) keep thieves from taking your radio. Gut the radio and use the box as a hiding place. Break off the “push-to-remove” button so it takes a sharp object to remove the front. I doubt that they would disassemble your sound gear during a search.

 

[Professor K]

You could always hide it in your car. Inside the seat, inside a hollow book, old radio slot, c'mon, you must have been a teenager before. Remember what worked for hiding stuff back then, and there you go.

And besides, how can they search your car if it's locked. Unless you commit a grave crime there, and in that case, the police will search it anyway.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I'll bet the company that searches the car doesn't strip search you!

I wonder what would happen if you had a lockbox and 'didn't have' the keys.
-Your fired
-Lawsuit... I submited to a search, I just didn't have the keys...

Um, no. Submitting to a limited search would not be seen as compliance. You are still failing to submit to a search by the excuse of "I just didn't have the keys..." If the company has the right to search and you fail to fully comply, you lose.

 

[expvideo]

I think you're missing the point. I have a safe in my car and I am capable of hiding it. I also know that a search of my car is not likely and if I just don't say anything I will be fine.

That is NOT why i'm fighting this. I'm fighting it on principle. I park in a different lot and walk to work, so i'm not violating policy. The policy is simply unjust. I'm fighting this because it's a violation of my rights.

I don't want to know how to hide the gun or what I can do to keep from being searched. I was looking for legal data. That's why this is in the legal section, not stratagies and tactics.

 

[Tim James]

United Sportsmen of Florida just forwarded this, but I'm trying to find out if it's true. A quick Google search didn't turn up anything. The lawyer's name and title do appear under some sort of meditation group in Orlando, so maybe he exists.

Forwarded Message:
Subj: Personal Private Property Protection Act
Date: 3/20/2007 11:51:28 AM Eastern Standard Time
To: [email protected]
Sent from the Internet (Details)

Dear Ms. Hammer:

I am an attorney in Orlando, Florida. I understand that you are supporting the proposed Personal Private Property Protection Act introduced to the Florida Legislature this year. I wanted to bring a matter to your attention that relates to this Bill.

I represent Doug and Linda Gray, a husband and wife who were both employed by the Walt Disney World Company. They worked similar shifts, and traveled to work together. The Grays had to begin their commute before sunrise, and had to travel through some less than safe areas. In fact, they had been accosted on their commute to work in the past. They contacted law enforcement about this and were advised that they should purchase a firearm for their own protection during their commute. Based on this advice, Mr. Gray purchased a revolver to protect he and his wife. When the Grays arrived at work, the revolver was locked in their vehicle.

The Grays were both hired by Disney on November 13, 1996. They met at Disney during the final entry interview process, and were later married. Just 17 days before their 10th anniversary of employment at Disney, they were both terminated. While Mrs. Gray was being asked about an absence from work, she responded that her husband was unable to attend, and she didn't feel safe traveling into work without him. Upon further questioning, Mrs. Gray revealed that Mr. Gray had the firearm in their vehicle for their protection. Disney had the vehicle searched, and the firearm was found, locked in the vehicle where the Grays indicated it was. Both Mr. and Mrs. Gray were terminated. Additionally, Disney had the Orange County Sheriffs issue a trespass warning against Mr. and Mrs. Gray, so that neither could step foot on any Disney property again.

I attempted to intervene on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Gray. However, Disney would not allow me to participate in their review of this incident. Disney claimed that they had a zero tolerance policy with respect to firearms on their property. They would not listen when they were told that the revolver belonged to Mr. Gray, and that Mrs. Gray had never even handled the same. They would not listen when they were told about the Grays' commute and how it was dangerous for them to travel to work at the times they were scheduled.

Moreover, Disney showed no leniency toward the Grays whatsoever. The punishment for Mrs. Gray was the same as for Mr. Gray, because she knew that he kept a firearm in the vehicle and the vehicle was titled in both of their names. Disney did not take the Grays' years of service into account when they were terminated. Disney did not take into account the fact that the Grays voluntarily reduced their hours in the post-September 11, 2001 tourist slump, so that Disney would not have to lay off as many employees. Disney would not even withdraw the trespasses against the Gray so that they could bring their grandchildren to the parks when they visited on vacation. Mr. Gray was originally granted unemployment compensation, but Disney fought that as well and now Mr. Gray is obligated to pay back the unemployment benefits he was paid.

Doug and Linda Gray are good people. They had recently bought a house and were working hard to pay for the same. They worked for Disney for almost 10 years, and they no plans to change their careers. Unfortunately, it is not a perfect world. The Grays had been threatened by criminals on their commute to work during the pre-dawn hours. Mr. Gray purchased a firearm for the sole purpose of protecting himself and his wife so that they could continue to show up for work at Disney. However, when Disney discovered that there was a firearm in its parking lot, Disney fired these hard working, long time employees without hesitation, without remorse, and without any recourse. When Disney was given the opportunity to show leniency, it failed to do so.

In short, Mr. Gray lost his job because he wanted to protect himself and his wife when they were traveling to and from work. Mrs. Gray lost her job simply because her husband wanted to keep her safe during their commute. Their lives have been thrown into upheaval because they were willing to take responsibility for their own safety. Certainly Disney did nothing to keep them safe during their commute; to the contrary, in complete disregard for the safety and welfare of its employees, Disney prohibits employees, such as the Grays, from protecting themselves while traveling to and from work.

The Grays understand that there was no law preventing Disney from terminating them as it did. However, they have asked me to share their story with you and with the Florida Legislature, so perhaps other good citizens of Florida are protected from similar actions in the future.

If I can provide any additional information on this topic that would be useful to you or the Florida Legislature, please do not hesitate to contact me. Until then, I remain,

Very truly yours,

Ernest J. Myers, Esq.
Orlando, FL 32801

Florida has been debating this issue. I think I mostly come down on the libertarian side where companies can do whatever the hell they want (no black people, no gays in their theme park, must sacrifice a goat to continue working) and both parties can just agree to disagree, but individuals are more than welcome to complain loudly about it until companies decide to change their policies. You may not be able to go to a lawyer about things like this, but I think it's morally acceptable to protest a company who does things that you feel are wrong, despite being within their rights.

 

[SteveS]

If you are serious about fighting this or at least getting advice that is true, you need to contact an attorney in your state.

That being said, in the absence of contrary state law, this is essentially correct (IMO):

in most states that is correct. an employer cannot make you submit to a search in violation of your 4th Amendment right. however, your employer in most states can legally fire you for refusing to submit to such search if they decided to enforce it. with most companies it is written in their policy manual and you usually have to sign something when you first get hired stating that you understand and agree to abide by such company policies.

The 4th amendment is only a barrier to state actions or actions done for the state. Your emplyer does not need probable cause, a warrant, or even a reasonble suspicion. As someone mentioned, most searches are done when employers suspect that an employee took something that belonged to the company. I doubt that searches for guns are very common.

The reason employers are not overly concerned about defending themselves against fired employees under these circumstances is that the employee will most likely lose. From what I have seen, most successful lawsuits by employees have involved some kind of breach of the employment contract or discrimination (age, gender, race, etc.).

 

[glummer]

Tim James

I think I mostly come down on the libertarian side where companies can do whatever the hell they want (no black people, no gays in their theme park, must sacrifice a goat to continue working) and both parties can just agree to disagree, but individuals are more than welcome to complain loudly about it until companies decide to change their policies.

I used to incline that way, too, but lately I think there is a flaw in that logic; companies are NOT libertarian, in any sense whatever. (Note that I refer to companies, not individual persons.)
Companies, corporations, etc, are all artificial legal entities created by law; not natural persons, or organizations voluntarily created by natural persons. It follows that such organizations have no inherent, natural rights of any kind whatsoever. Their “rights” are what ever the law says they are. I see no ethical/moral objection to limiting their scope of action in this case.

You may not be able to go to a lawyer about things like this, but I think it's morally acceptable to protest a company who does things that you feel are wrong, despite being within their rights.

As in, one may have the legal right to crap in one’s pants, but anyone downwind has a valid reason for protest. And maybe even a valid reason to ask for a change in the law.

 

[tulsamal]

And besides, how can they search your car if it's locked. Unless you commit a grave crime there, and in that case, the police will search it anyway.

Did you not see the link I put up to the case in Oklahoma? Those were people working in a rural area area far from "city crime" or anything like that. People that had worked for the same company for 10, 20, or even more years. The company brought in drug dogs and took them through the company parking lot. The dogs were cross-trained to be explosive dogs so they scented some guns. Employees were contacted and told to open their cars to be searched or be fired. They found the shotguns, they fired the employees. Nobody committed any crimes. And I'm sure those people in a very rural part of Oklahoma thought they would NEVER get their cars searched. But they did and they got fired and lost all benefits.

It should be illegal for a company to act in such a manner. Which is what the OK legislature thought as well. The new law passed easily. And then was blocked from taking effect in Federal court. Which is where we still are today.

http://www.nrapublications.org/first freedom/Conoco.asp

Gregg

 

[ctdonath]

Glummer has a key point: people have inalienable rights; businesses do not.

I'm getting tired of legal entities having more rights than I do (ex.: a corporation can get NFA guns without CLEO signoff, but people can't).

There is a reasonable assumption that one who invites another onto their property will politely keep out of private areas of the guest. No running secret drug tests from the washroom drain, no pawing thru contents of wallets, etc. - at least not without cause.

While employers can terminate employment for any reason, there are a host of reasons an employee can subsequently sue for "wrongful termination". Surely some of those reasons apply to this situation.

 

[SteveS]

While employers can terminate employment for any reason, there are a host of reasons an employee can subsequently sue for "wrongful termination". Surely some of those reasons apply to this situation.

You do not have an inalienable right to a job, nor do you have an inalienable right to keep your job once you have one. Employees in most states can sue for contractual reasons if they were hired under a contract. They can also sue for discrimination under various state and federal laws protecting certain classes. There can also be claims that an employer did not follow their own procedures for firing an employee.