TexasCHLforum.com

WildBill wrote:That is what the respondent's attorney will argue. I am just giving my view of the how the plaintiff's attorney could argue against that claim. Based on the evidence that I have read on this thread, I think that the trucking company wrongly fired the employee.

At first they said there was a policy against guns. Then they said, not exactly, "it was implemented three days after the firing". Then they said "Well we had an old sign that was on the building so that was our policy." Who would you believe? Ultimately it will be decided by a judge or jury.

Yup! And if there was a sign, regardless of who or when it was posted, my guess is that the judge/jury will let the sign will speak for itself, rather than try to second guess the intent of the owner.

We'll just have to wait and see what happens.
(Don't get me wrong, I too believe the trucker was wrongly fired -- for threatening to be a whistle-blower. But we have only heard one side of this story.)

WildBill wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:

WildBill wrote:

TxBlonde wrote:I know now to tell a judge that
There new tactic is they fired him because they think the old Article 4413 (29ee) posted at another building they leased at the time and the sign was there before they occupied it. (I know no bearing on who put it there) They think it is the Proper 30.06 Sign.

Interesting. IANAL, but I would think that only the person in control of the property could post an enforcable sign. For example, I could go to any building of my choosing and post a 30.06 sign meeting the legal language and size requirements, but I don't believe it would be valid unless I controlled the property.

So, are you saying if you leased a building with a valid 30.06 sign in place, and you wanted the place 30.06 posted, you'd have to remove the old (perfectly valid) sign and replace it with a new one to be enforceable?

The question is whether or not "you wanted the place 30.06 posted." There is no evidence that the company had or wanted a policy prohibiting concealed handguns.

The OP is suggesting that the company had no policy preventing employees from having handguns on the property until they wanted to use that as a reason to fire someone for reporting an illegal activity to the DOT. Three days after the fact, they issued a policy prohibiting the handguns.

I understand, but that's not my point. You stated (highlighted in red above). As the OP mentioned (if I understood her correctly) there was an old 30.06 sign posted/left over from before they had the building (or "a" building?) Anyway, if your legal approach is that the sign is invalid because it was not posted by the current owner, that would imply that in order for the current owner to post the premises, he would then have to take down the old sign, and put up a new one. I wouldn't want to try to argue that in court. His argument would be that he wanted the facilities posted, and left the old, valid sign up to indicate that. You'd then have to prove/disprove what the owner had in mind. I think the sign would speak for itself. If the new owner DIDN'T want the facility posted, he'd remove the sign.

I'm just talking about the validity of the sign, I understand there is a manager that testified there was no policy in effect.

TxBlonde wrote:Ok what is IANAL

"I Am Not A Lawyer"

WildBill wrote:

TxBlonde wrote:I know now to tell a judge that
There new tactic is they fired him because they think the old Article 4413 (29ee) posted at another building they leased at the time and the sign was there before they occupied it. (I know no bearing on who put it there) They think it is the Proper 30.06 Sign.

Interesting. IANAL, but I would think that only the person in control of the property could post an enforcable sign. For example, I could go to any building of my choosing and post a 30.06 sign meeting the legal language and size requirements, but I don't believe it would be valid unless I controlled the property.

So, are you saying if you leased a building with a valid 30.06 sign in place, and you wanted the place 30.06 posted, you'd have to remove the old (perfectly valid) sign and replace it with a new one to be enforceable?

Keith B wrote: So, the only thing you have to do is prove that he was wrongfully discharged from his employment and get an arbitrator to agree to that. The big issue will be going back to work for a company you beat in a lawsuit is almost always a no-win situation as they will usually be documenting EVERYTHING to look for a legit way to get rid of him after that. Not right, but a fact of life and makes for a VERY stressful and uncomfortable work environment.

My approach would be to sue for financial losses (and emotional distress, and whatever else your lawyer can think of -- loss of consortium? ), not to sue to regain the job, which has now been poisoned. Of course, IANAL.