Guns In The Work Place And In Parking Lots
BY Herschel Smith
8 years, 9 months ago
This issue has special interest for me, since my own employer prohibits the carrying of weapons in the work place, but also knows that it cannot prohibit the carry of weapons in the public parking lot adjacent to my place of work.
On a personal note, I’ve pressed this issue up the chain of command, to no avail. They want to maintain, how do they say it, “a safe work place.” So in order to effect this end, they prohibit self defense and show us those idiotic active shooter videos where they enact an active shooter event and show you what to do.
It’s embarrassing to watch it, and it’s even more embarrassing to work for a company where they show such juvenile rubbish. So the recommendations? Hide under desks and be very quiet. If the shooter sees you, throw potted plants at him. Run. Run very fast. Wait for law enforcement to show up 15 minutes later – after 100 people have already perished. Then when the dust settles but people are still in mourning, the company gets to go to court or negotiate with lawyers over those 100 preventable deaths, and give away a billion dollar class action settlement. That’s the way that would work out. Only lawyers could dream up something so stupid. All in the interest of a safe work place. A jury will know what I’m talking about, because most of them have seen the same idiotic video.
A Universal Orlando worker who was fired after someone stole a gun from his car at work has sued his former employer.
Dean Kumanchik’s lawsuit was filed in Orange County Circuit Court on Thursday. According to a copy of the complaint sent by his attorney, Universal fired Kumanchik the day before Christmas. A ride technician who earned more than $30 an hour, Kumanchik had worked at Universal more than 20 years.
The lawsuit gives this account: A licensed concealed weapons holder, Kumanchik regularly took his gun to and from work and kept it locked in his vehicle. He parked in an area accessible to both employees and the public. In December, someone broke into his vehicle and stole the gun. He reported it to police. Upon learning what had happened, Universal immediately fired him.
Kumanchik’s lawsuit asserts that Universal violated an eight-year-old law allowing Floridians with concealed-weapons permits to keep firearms locked in their cars at work.
A Universal spokesman said the company does not comment on pending litigation.
Orlando’s big theme parks have previously claimed they are exempt from the law, however.
After the law went into effect, Universal cited an exemption for school property as a justification for its ban. Orange County Public Schools runs an alternative education program called the Universal Education Center on the property.
Claiming that exemption is “nonsense,” Kumanchik’s attorney Richard Celler said. “In our opinion the school they claim is some little building way out of the way, nowhere near the premises or parking lot where he was performing work.”
After the law went into effect, Walt Disney World cited an exemption for property owned by an employer who has a permit for explosives. Disney has such a permit for the fireworks used in its theme parks.
The notion of a “school” on the property is an accidental feature of the decision to fire the employee, and not the reason Universal has a policy against guns. They reflexively fired him because of discriminatory policies, and then the lawyers hunted for some justification for what they did in the law. They landed on the fortuitous wording of a “school” on the property (in some cataloged training literature or procedures, or maps they give employees), which is likely nothing more than a training center, something all corporations have. A jury will know what I’m talking about. I can guarantee you that the legislature didn’t have corporate training centers in mind when they used the word “school.” My own state prohibits weapons on school property and playgrounds as well. Do you think “playgrounds” includes pick-up games of football after work in the nearest open field?
One commenter has this to say:
Florida is an at-will employment state without the Covenant of Good Faith Exemption. That means employers do not even have to pretend to be fair when they fire you. You can do everything right, follow orders to a T, excel in every way, and the boss can give you the axe with no justification at all. Sucks to be employed in Florida, but Universal is within its legal rights.
He thinks he’s smart, but this isn’t even nearly right. I’m an at will employee too, but the company cannot discriminate against, for example, the elderly, or black workers, or women, and claim that something like that is justifiable due to at-will employment contracts. That’s why corporations offer attractive separation packages to workers in their 60’s rather than firing them outright and claiming the existence of at-will contracts. The jury will know exactly what I’m talking about. Universal fired this worker because of discriminatory attitudes concerning self defense and the second amendment. Counsel had better be ready for this strategy during trial.
On February 17, 2016 at 8:38 am, john said:
It seems to me that if they can fire someone for “no reason”, they are good to go. However, since they enumerated a reason, they have stepped solidly outside of the “at-will” paradigm, and now have to defend their firing action.
I am not a lawyer, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
On February 17, 2016 at 10:20 am, Herschel Smith said:
Hmm … not so sure about that. It’s true, they did enumerate a reason, and that anchors the lawsuit. They said why they did it. But even if they hadn’t, if there is a pattern of discrimination, that’s the stuff of lawsuits, even in at-will contracts. Corporations cannot discriminate – period.
In this case had they not said why they did it, it might have been harder to prove (since there is no pattern of previous employees, I assume), but if it was connected in time to the stolen gun police report, the evidence is there to begin building a case.
On February 17, 2016 at 10:19 am, Jim Wiseman said:
Companies prohibit weapons not because they think it will keep people safe, but to reduce liability. It’s cheaper for the company for an attacker to murder 20 people in a gun free zone than for the wrong person to get shot by a legal concealed carrier where guns are permitted.
My company prohibits weapons. They don’t realize that their property rights end where my right to self-defense begins. If I am ever injured or killed as a result of their foolish policies, I or my family will litigate until I own the company AND the policy makers.
On February 17, 2016 at 10:22 am, Herschel Smith said:
I know. But the reduction in liability they think is there isn’t really there for the reasons you just explained. I’ve had this very conversation with my own legal and security department – again, to no avail.
On February 17, 2016 at 10:40 am, Fred said:
I agree that Disney may be wrong here and I agree with the first part of your statement but sir, private property and self defense are equal civil rights. If you don’t like an entities rules on THEIR property then don’t go to it. You do not have a right to a job. I absolutely have a right to tell you what you can bring on my property and so does Disney. I would not ask you to disarm but Disney has, as is their right. The corporation and all real property are it’s to dispose of as it wishes (mostly).
On February 17, 2016 at 11:05 am, Herschel Smith said:
This is a very good and very interesting conversation. I agree with you, but let’s pull this thread a bit more, shall we?
You’re right, I do not have a right to a job, or to work where I currently do. And my company has a right to prohibit weapons if they wish (take note that this isn’t the case here, since the weapon was in a car in a public parking lot).
However … the company takes on liability if they prohibit your means of self defense. They are assuming responsibility for your safety, whether they say so or not. For the moral basis for this I would say see Deuteronomy 22:8. People don’t have a right to party on my roof top. But if they are there and fall from it, I am liable (the Bible calls it “bloodguilt”). This concept is codified in U.S. law at both the local and state levels.
On February 17, 2016 at 11:43 am, Fred said:
Agree with you in substance and I’m not stupid enough (any more) to argue against God. TN has introduced legislation with reference to firearms on private property and bloodguilt. I support it. It would codify into law, the basis of your analysis here. There is a line, I’m not sure where it is yet, that we should not cross by telling people what they can and can’t do with property. This makes me edgy in light of Bernie and the general control-freakism out there. National and personal wealth do not exist without private property, that would be communism.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/18/tn-senator-pushes-bill-allowing-lawsuits-over-gun-free-zone-attacks/
On February 17, 2016 at 12:09 pm, Herschel Smith said:
I understand and agree with your caution and suspicion regarding the degree of liability they force on us. For instance, we’ll likely see them pressing liability insurance – something I certainly disagree with.
What my oldest son Josh does and what I do, is if there are visitors to my home, I secure my firearms, especially if there are children in the home. How I secure them will take the form I want it to depending upon the risk, not what some government bureaucrat says needs to be done. I’m protecting myself, my family and my visitors, since I don’t know how my visitors will handle firearms safety. I usually have one laying about and within reach. With visitors, I won’t do that.
On February 17, 2016 at 12:30 pm, Archer said:
I absolutely have a right to tell you what you can bring on my property
and so does Disney. I would not ask you to disarm but Disney has, as is
their right.
Remember that the normal “private property” rules can get a little fuzzy when said “private property” is also “open to the public”, as any major theme park is (and indeed, must be if it is to remain in business). Especially when the case is presented before a jury. “Open to the public” creates a reasonable understanding that the patrons’ rights will be upheld and honored.
Forget firearms/self-defense for a second. Compare it to ADA compliance (for example). My home need not be wheelchair-accessible, regardless of what the ADA dictates, because my home is not “open to the public”. Universal and Disney theme parks are required to be wheelchair-accessible, “private property” notwithstanding. The argument that, “It’s our private property — we can build and operate it any way we choose,” won’t fly before a judge or jury because the private property is “open to the public”, and therefore the equal-accessibility rules apply as if it were public property.
Just my $0.02.
On February 17, 2016 at 10:27 am, Fred said:
And of course, following government as it’s example Disney has unilaterally declared itself exempt from the law. I would be willing to venture that this is the part of their defense that sticks. Laws are for the peasants, you see.
On February 17, 2016 at 2:19 pm, Publicola said:
Many of the laws that exist are an affront to Property Rights. The “public accommodation” laws referenced in the comments section are one such example. Yes, the courts will tell folks that they must do this or mustn’t do that with their property if they’re open to the general populace, but the courts have been in error, ever since they abandoned Lochner.
No company should be hindered from hiring or firing anyone they wish for any reason. The proper remedy to distasteful discrimination – say a diner that won’t serve black folk, or a company that disarms its employees & customers – is not government, but rather cultural action. I don’t spend my money where I can’t carry weapons, for example.
So Disney can fire someone for having a gun in their vehicle. The Florida law that claims they can’t do so impedes upon their Property Rights. & Property Rights (when understood fully) include the Right to own & carry weapons. When you start tugging at the thread at one end of the blanket, don’t be surprised when the whole thing unravels.
Remember, when government steps in & says you can’t prohibit something, they can also step in & say you must prohibit something. (the anti-smoking folks have been slow on the uptake on this one). So it’s in our interests to oppose laws that prevent any entity from prohibiting whatever they wish on their own property, as it only takes 51 votes to feel the wind blowing in from the other direction.
The proper remedy to being defenseless is two-fold. 1; societal pressure (as in not patronizing said businesses) & 2; tort reform. Establish clear liability for a business that prohibits weapons, so that it is held liable in the event people are unable to protect themselves due to its policy – the same way they’d be liable if they locked employees in a windowless room & a fire broke out, & make clear that users of weapons in justifiable defense are immune from civil action. One or two such lawsuits (where the company is sued into non-existence by the employee’s next of kin) should change almost every legal departments views on liability management.
On February 17, 2016 at 2:36 pm, Herschel Smith said:
In this particular case, the gun was in a car parked in public parking. So they fired him for no other reason than being a gun owner. This wasn’t on company property.
On February 18, 2016 at 11:10 am, Damocles said:
My employer prohibits firearms in the building as well, however I can carry in my vehicle. It presents a conundrum for me, because I only live about a mile from work and I’d love to walk to and from on nice days, but if I do I can’t carry.
On February 18, 2016 at 2:00 pm, Publicola said:
I may be missing something, but from what I read the article doesn’t say who owns the parking lot, just that it was accessible by both employees & the public. It does imply, based on the arguments mentioned, that it was a lot owned by Universal.
I don’t see it as falling on my own sword. Quite the opposite really. When we neglect principle for some temporal gain it usually ends up being a temporary gain, & does more damage to us in the long run. & the principle I’d like to have respected again is that government has no business intruding upon the liberty of contract or the freedom of association, among other things.
Government won’t willingly deconstruct its byzantine system, that’s true. But victories have been won here & there. For a while, Lochner was the law of the land after all. Getting back to that won’t be easy, but doing what’s right has never been so, has it?
On February 18, 2016 at 2:14 pm, Herschel Smith said:
Well, let’s see how far we should go with this. Most employers don’t allow weapons in the work place. Should all gun owners quit their jobs because of that (giving us a nation of unemployed gun owners)? And that would accomplish … what, exactly, except ensuring that gun owners can’t support their family?
On February 19, 2016 at 2:30 am, Publicola said:
Actually that would be a beautiful thing. If we go by the lowball of 100 million (I’m guessing it’s closer to 150 million) gun owners, that’d mean 1 out of 3 workers in anti gun companies would split, hopefully applying at gunowner friendly companies. Toss in ye olde supply-&-demand, & pretty soon the labor markets would push companies to be pro-gunowner, or at least gunowner tolerant, as there’d be a reduced supply of folks willing to work for anti gunners, hence higher labor costs, & an abundance of folks working for pro-gunner companies, hence reduced labor costs.
Oh it won’t happen, for a multitude of reasons, but it’s a nice little pipe dream to have.
Similarly, if gunnies spent their cash where it was welcome, there may be some improvements. For example, Pizza Hut, Papa Johns & Dominoes all have virulent anti-self defense policies. A delivery driver can’t even keep a weapon in his car without the risk of being fired (though there’s usually a wink & nod treatment from store managers). So when I want pizza I pick up a Digiorno, or Red Baron. Chipotle? Starbucks? Costco? I spend my money elsewhere, seeing as my weapons aren’t welcome in those places. Kroger has been standing up to Bloomies group of rent-a-mom’s, so I make sure to shop there, & my local store manager knows that I appreciate them & why.
If every gun owner did that, it’d be inconvenient in some aspects, but eventually some businesses would have a change of mind. Again though, I don’t think enough gunowners would are willing right now to do those things, so chalk it up to another pipe dream. Still, that is how I live, just cause I’m stubborn & don’t want to give my hard earned coin to places that hate me & want my culture eliminated.
So I submit that those approaches would be preferable, even if more difficult, than using some direct legislative means to force companies be gunowner tolerant. Making it clear that companies are culpable in any harm caused by a no weapons policy would be cool, but that’s the only governmental approach I could get behind. everything else is on us. I am of course, always open to ideas.
On February 20, 2016 at 11:09 pm, Daniel Barger said:
The fundamental reason companies ban possession of firearms at work is because if someone
‘goes postal’ and kills dozens of unarmed victims the company is NOT LEGALLY LIABLE for damages as it is next to impossible to hold a company financially liable for a criminal act such as murder unless a victim can PROVE the company had the knowledge such an act was going to occur….a virtual impossibility. However if an armed employee were to cause ANY harm to someone other than an active criminal shooter that person COULD hold the company liable for the action of an employee. THAT is why guns at work are forbidden. It’s a cold hard equation involving money and lives.