Due to the parking lot law I think it would be very easy to win a case on those grounds. I would be surprised if a company did not put in a person's file a reason why they were terminated. My company, in order to protect themselves from discrimination lawsuits that we're more familiar with, is meticulous about documenting the reason why they terminate someone. It usually takes a verbal warning, written warning, and a final written warning before someone can be terminated. Unless the infraction is really egregious it seems like it is sometimes harder to get rid of someone at my company than the USPS.goose wrote:As an at will state, would there be liability? I suppose if the pink slip actually said something like "dismissed for firearm in car" you might have some case for something. It would be a rare HR department that would be that stupid. It is Texas; could a person win a case based on 2A discrimination? I would love to think so but I don't see it happening.CoreyI35 wrote: It was my understanding, from reading the bill, is that compliance with the law is what gave the employers immunity from liability. Thus, no compliance = liability.
Search found 4 matches
Return to “Parking lot Bill question”
- Sun Apr 15, 2012 9:20 am
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: Parking lot Bill question
- Replies: 28
- Views: 3781
Re: Parking lot Bill question
- Sat Apr 14, 2012 9:51 pm
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: Parking lot Bill question
- Replies: 28
- Views: 3781
Re: Parking lot Bill question
That might be true. I doubt it, but I don't know.CoreyI35 wrote:It was my understanding, from reading the bill, is that compliance with the law is what gave the employers immunity from liability. Thus, no compliance = liability.C-dub wrote:Keith B wrote:SB321 prohibits an employer, except a refinery or school, from making rules about you keeping a legally owned firearm in your locked vehicle. Your employer still has the right to prohibit you from removing the gun from the vehicle and carrying in the parking lot or building.
So, depending on exactly what the instructor was talking about, if he was referring to the building, then they were correct. If talking about IN your car in the parking lot, then they were incorrect., but unfortunately there was no penalty included for non-compliance. So, many companies, mine included, have not changed a thing in their policy and are just going to wait and see what if anything happens to a company that doesn't comply with the new law.
- Thu Apr 05, 2012 6:58 pm
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: Parking lot Bill question
- Replies: 28
- Views: 3781
Re: Parking lot Bill question
An effective tactic is to ask for the statute that supports a person's false opinion. You will likely get one of the following responses.polekitty wrote:Hey thanks Texanrob. I kinda thought he was mistaken, but no sense in getting into an arguement with him over it. I'm sure he will figure it out soon enough. Besides when teaching a class as important as CHL, it's best to err on the side of caution and teach what you know for sure. Our company as very strict policies concerning certain things in my line of work and will not change that policy (like many others) even if it does get challanged else where. I'm guessing they will leave it for the ones that need or want to know about SB321 to figure it out for them selves. There are several of us there with CHL's that followed the bill as it was going through the system that to the best of my knowledge have not gone around telling others that we can carry in the car now as of Sept.
1. It will frustrate them when they cannot find it and they will just say they know it's there, but couldn't find it.
2. Point you to a statute that doesn't support their claim and try to twist it so that it will.
3. Tell you that "premises" means whatever property they own.
4. Tell you that they've made their intent clear.
- Wed Apr 04, 2012 6:39 pm
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: Parking lot Bill question
- Replies: 28
- Views: 3781
Re: Parking lot Bill question
Keith B wrote:SB321 prohibits an employer, except a refinery or school, from making rules about you keeping a legally owned firearm in your locked vehicle. Your employer still has the right to prohibit you from removing the gun from the vehicle and carrying in the parking lot or building.
So, depending on exactly what the instructor was talking about, if he was referring to the building, then they were correct. If talking about IN your car in the parking lot, then they were incorrect.
, but unfortunately there was no penalty included for non-compliance. So, many companies, mine included, have not changed a thing in their policy and are just going to wait and see what if anything happens to a company that doesn't comply with the new law.