Guess the ND in the parking lot was not important?

[bigretic]

Anyone read the paper today?
Lawsuit tests Indiana 'take your gun to work' law » Evansville Courier & Press
Never saw this mentioned in the other threads.
Change anyones opinion?
I understand the "reason cited" for firing, but i don't think this new info is going to sit well with a jury.
Flame away.

 

[Que]

No, my opinon is not changed.

 

[rockhopper46038]

The ND isn't germane, any more than a negligent discharge that happened at the 1500 or a gun range would be.

 

[Bunnykid68]

ND had nothing to do with why he was fired, otherwise he would have been fired the same day

 

[Classic]

The ND was not on company property anyway.

 

[bigretic]

The ND was not on company property anyway.

That would be a "my bad" on reading fast. Thanks for pointing that out.
My thinking and reason for posting is that - in the way I see lawyers spin things in the course of their job is that the "stated" reason will be spun to some sort of other meaning.
While based on the facts at hand I do not think "by the law" the firing was fair, I do think it could be justified in "the court of opinion" and real court for that matter. The Devil's advocate in me just can't let go of the idea, but I also do not have all the info.
You own a security company. Armed on the Job or not, do you feel comfortable employing a guy that jacked off a round in a parking lot? There's a bunch of craptastic what if's there.
By the letter of the law, I say there is no question, but i tell you, don't count on it.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Jordan was fired Sept. 1 and was told it was because he had in his vehicle a firearm not authorized by ADM.

Again he was fired for the stated reason that he had a firearm in his vehicle, not for the negligent discharge.

 

[sepe]

That would be a "my bad" on reading fast. Thanks for pointing that out.
My thinking and reason for posting is that - in the way I see lawyers spin things in the course of their job is that the "stated" reason will be spun to some sort of other meaning.
While based on the facts at hand I do not think "by the law" the firing was fair, I do think it could be justified in "the court of opinion" and real court for that matter. The Devil's advocate in me just can't let go of the idea, but I also do not have all the info.
You own a security company. Armed on the Job or not, do you feel comfortable employing a guy that jacked off a round in a parking lot? There's a bunch of craptastic what if's there.
By the letter of the law, I say there is no question, but i tell you, don't count on it.

I agree with the bold but as a business owner, if you're going to terminate someone you have to be smart enough not to cause yourself a law suit.

 

[j706]

Anyone read the paper today?
Lawsuit tests Indiana 'take your gun to work' law » Evansville Courier & Press
Never saw this mentioned in the other threads.
Change anyones opinion?
I understand the "reason cited" for firing, but i don't think this new info is going to sit well with a jury.
Flame away.

Mine was. I would have fired him on the spot. There is absolutely no excuse for a negligent discharge.

 

[buckstopshere]

If I was on that jury, it wouldn't matter one bit to me. My opinion hasn't changed at all. He wasn't on company time or property and he was fired for possessing the weapon in his car on company property. Clearly a violation of the law and his rights.

 

[MrsGungho]

and he was fired almost 2 months AFTER the ND... so no, it didn't change my mind.
If they had fired him for the ND, I would hope they would have done it immediately and not waited 2 months.

 

[Expat]

If I am a non gun owner on the jury, I can see it becoming an issue. The guy has demonstrated the he doesn't understand safe gun handling. There is going to be fear of a reoccurrence with possibly someone getting hurt or killed. Being on notice of the prior incident, they may fear being liable for such an incident. I don't think it is as clear cut as we think.

 

[actaeon277]

If I am a non gun owner on the jury, I can see it becoming an issue. The guy has demonstrated the he doesn't understand safe gun handling. There is going to be fear of a reoccurrence with possibly someone getting hurt or killed. Being on notice of the prior incident, they may fear being liable for such an incident. I don't think it is as clear cut as we think.

That's if it comes out in court.
Bringing it in would be challenged. What does the AD/ND have to do with a termination that is quoted as violating their policy? And the policy itself is against the law.

 

[SSGSAD]

No, my opinon is not changed.

ME neither .....

 

[BravoMike]

I would have fired him on the spot. There is absolutely no excuse for a negligent discharge.

Even if there was something mechanically wrong with the gun? I'm not saying that's what happened here, I'm just not going to jump to conclusions.

 

[Amattern]

No the ND has nothing to do with the case now. I do feel he is being a complete asshat on suing the company though. He knows why he was let go, he is using what they stated to try and get an undeserved payday. This is the exact reason the US is going down hill as fast as it is. Its all about getting what you can, even if you don't deserve it.

 

[bwframe]

I don't think you can make a judgement at this time. We have heard only one side of the story. A story that left out an important fact until the media reported it. What else might be left out of the story as we know it?

 

[downzero]

I understand the "reason cited" for firing, but i don't think this new info is going to sit well with a jury.

Never going to go to the jury if it is uncontested that he was fired in violation of the law. Google "summary judgment."

 

[downzero]

No the ND has nothing to do with the case now. I do feel he is being a complete asshat on suing the company though. He knows why he was let go, he is using what they stated to try and get an undeserved payday. This is the exact reason the US is going down hill as fast as it is. Its all about getting what you can, even if you don't deserve it.

How do you expect the law to have any deterrent effect against employers if there is no enforcement? You think laws are just like magic pixie dust and enforce themselves?

Further, you think civil actions in expectation that your fellow citizens will comply with the law are destroying our country?

 

[downzero]

If I am a non gun owner on the jury, I can see it becoming an issue. The guy has demonstrated the he doesn't understand safe gun handling. There is going to be fear of a reoccurrence with possibly someone getting hurt or killed. Being on notice of the prior incident, they may fear being liable for such an incident. I don't think it is as clear cut as we think.

How is any of that relevant to the issues actually presented if the security company concedes that they fired him because he had an AR-15 in his car, which would be illegal?

They might not need a reason to fire him, but they still cannot fire him for a discriminatory or illegal reason.