Walgreen Sued over Violating "Guns in the Workplace" Statutes

[Glocker 400]

I love how drugstores make the sick people walk all the way to the back for their meds, while the healthy can buy their cigarettes and booze right by the front door.

Joe Dirt can explain this business concept. Drug stores win twice!

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jw7ajsKmbd4[/ame]

 

[LPMan59]

The local Walgreens is refusing to fill prescriptions. My wife's back specialist was telling her they've been calling to find out why a person is on medication and for how long, then they're refusing to fill.

That's because the dea is crawling over pharmacies due to the enormous amount of narcotics being prescribed. Kokomo is one place of interest.

From what I've read, it is no longer good enough that a physician be licensed and have a dea number. Be prepared, this will spread soon enough. They are cracking down big time after what has happened in FL.

 

[Rookie]

Odd how CVS isn't playing the same game.

 

[LPMan59]

Odd how CVS isn't playing the same game.

maybe they'd rather keep paying 10s of millions of dollars in fines?

how many stores did they close in Florida? How many pharmacists lost their licenses because they filled Rxs from pill mills?

Did you see the DEA raided offices on Wed in Kokomo? And the week before that they (re)raided 4 of William Hedrick's clinics.

 

[Rookie]

Didn't see that. Which offices?

 

[LPMan59]

Drs. Marilyn and Don Wagoner

http://kokomotribune.com/local/x1633476962/Little-information-available-on-Wagoner-clinic-raids

my bad, it was Thursday

 

[Rookie]

Well, that was a long time coming. They've been legal drug dealers for years. My BIL died from an overdose of Xanax and Oxycontin, care to guess who his doctor was?

 

[ModernGunner]

Guy, Walgreen's doesn't REALLY expect to win this, do they?

Personally, I hope the Plaintiff gets just a small 'token' payment from Walgreen's, as a 'slap on the wrist'...

Say, $10,000,000?

 

[Fenrir]

It's crazy what happened to this guy, but I think everyone needs to frame their argument in context to what actually happened. The person in the article was employed by Walgreens. Walgreens has a rule that all Walgreens employees know, and that is not to have fire arms on the premises.

For those of you who now wish to change pharmacies, please be aware that many of the big name pharmacies also have the same exact policy and even go further to exclude all customers even not to have firearms.

YMMV, but I've personally witnessed customers open carry in a Walgreens without harassment. If you want to open carry in a rough area Walgreens that has a security guard on site, common sense tells me that you may get questioned.

As much as I love the second amendment, I also believe that a company reserves the right to refuse service to anyone should it choose to do so (the same can't be said for the government since I can easily leave a company and never return). I am curious about this case and hope to follow it and see what the legal outcome may hold for Walgreens and the former employee.

 

[Sedanman]

As much as I love the second amendment, I also believe that a company reserves the right to refuse service to anyone should it choose to do so (the same can't be said for the government since I can easily leave a company and never return). I am curious about this case and hope to follow it and see what the legal outcome may hold for Walgreens and the former employee.

Yes, but you have to understand why it's so important for us to not do business with company's that don't share our values.

 

[92ThoStro]

Guy, Walgreen's doesn't REALLY expect to win this, do they?

Personally, I hope the Plaintiff gets just a small 'token' payment from Walgreen's, as a 'slap on the wrist'...

Say, $10,000,000?

Why would you expect it to be so clear and dry, with an easy victory?
I do not agree with the guy losing his job, or with the company policy, but I will explain this.
This is an at-will state. There are NO statutes protecting an employee's second amendment right to carry a firearm on company property. They can only have it in their vehicle, out of sight.
I do not work at Wallgreens, but I believe it is a chain store, with a corporate office.
I will read you my employers policy, as we have many of locations, WAY more than Wallgreens.

"Employees shall not bring guns, knives, or weapons of any kind onto Company Property"

This does include all properties owned by the company, and is not voided, if you are not on the clock.

"Employees shall not refuse an order of a member of management or supervisory personnel"

If Wallgreens does have the same company policy as we do, I do not see this employee getting his job back, or the case being won.

But Guy I hear is an excellent lawyer, and if he is taking this case, obviously he is doing it for a reason, so there must be some chance.

Did the employer state after the employee was suspended, that if they get rid of their weapon, they can continue working? That is the only thing that I can think of.

Hope you win!

But like I said, I don't think the company wrongfully terminated the employee, he violated company policy, in an at-will employment state.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

 

[JustinCase]

IMO, There are arguments to be made on both sides. I do support the right of an employer to set the terms for employment and fire an employee for violating those terms. But he was off duty at the time and therefore should have been free to exercise his 2A right. To me, it's two rights conflicting with each other and compromise settles conflicting rights. He could have avoided the whole mess by simply concealing his weapon and quietly going about his business. Instead, he chose to challenge the policy. While I admire his courage and resolve, I suspect that the court will side with the employer on this one. I'm rooting for Guy, though.

 

[LPMan59]

any updates on this one?

 

[Spike_351]

if he was off duty and at another location then company policy should have no effect since at that moment he was a customer and not on duty representing the company.

 

[merotek]

It is my understanding that Indiana is an "at will" state, meaning they can terminate anyone at any time for any reason barring a "protected status" such as race, religion, age, etc...

While carrying a firearm is a right, I do not think it qualifies as a "protected status".

It will be interesting to see what angle Guy uses and how this plays out.

I am not allowed to have a firearm at work, and even when I am off the clock, I leave it in the car... Would be nice to have another option.

 

[Spike_351]

It is my understanding that Indiana is an "at will" state, meaning they can terminate anyone at any time for any reason barring a "protected status" such as race, religion, age, etc...

While carrying a firearm is a right, I do not think it qualifies as a "protected status".

It will be interesting to see what angle Guy uses and how this plays out.

I am not allowed to have a firearm at work, and even when I am off the clock, I leave it in the car... Would be nice to have another option.

also in Indiana apparently they don't have to explain why they fired you either, meaning they can fire you based in race, religion and other protected areas and since they don't have to explain themselves who is going to know any different anyways. Even if asked they can lie about it.

 

[hoosierdoc]

also in Indiana apparently they don't have to explain why they fired you either, meaning they can fire you based in race, religion and other protected areas and since they don't have to explain themselves who is going to know any different anyways. Even if asked they can lie about it.

But it's also easy to make the case he was fired for violating this policy. They can lie and purjor themselves, but would you do that to save a company you worked for some $$$?

 

[inccwchris]

How exactly is that against the guns in the workplace statute? My understanding is that it allows an employee of a non legally exempt employer to keep a firearm in their vehicle, not be questioned about it and not be terminated for it. If the case is that the employee was off the clock and Wal-greens does not allow its employees to carry firearms into their stores on or off the clock, then it is not a case. Now if the case is being argued that since the policy is that employees may not carry or own firearms outside of work or keep them in their cars I could see a case being possible. However if the circumstances are exactly how Guy stated they were, then I believe there is no legal ground to stand upon. Guy would you be so kind as to enlighten us as to the violation you believe occurred?

 

[GuyRelford]

I cannot comment except to say that the matter has been amicably resolved by the parties.

Guy