Fired because of gun

[TxBlonde]

I am not going to name company names or Parties involved due to this going to trial this month, need some advice.

Someone I know was fired for carrying his gun at work. This person worked as a route driver that required a CDL. This person delivered product to public places and some places would pay this person cash in front of customers visiting their place of business. The company also delivered out of state to Oklahoma.

The facts in this matter are as follows;

Monday evening, April 13th, 2009, this person reviewed the manifest for the load scheduled to depart at midnight and found it to be 3,500 lbs. over weigh. He informed the loading supervisor that the excess weight needed to come off. He said he didn’t have the authority to remove the weight and this person needed to wait until someone higher up arrived in the next morning. This person had received a 1,000 lb. overweight ticket in Oklahoma the year before and felt these continued excesses were getting too dangerous. Stopping distance is reduced by excessive weight. Some states are now recording overweight tickets on driver’s records. This person had also heard that recently of a driver who’s overloaded truck was unable to stop resulted in the death of an automobile occupant. This person believes that overweight tickets will eventually be counted against truckers driving records and we all know that anytime a life is lost when violating the law there is the possibility someone can be charged criminally. So this person refused to take the load.

So this person waited in the cab of their truck until the next morning when the acting loading manager and the immediate supervisor arrived. This person informed the supervisor that the load was 3,500 lbs. overweight and ask that part of it be removed. The Transportation Manager then told this person to slide the truck’s tandems (rear axles and/or fifth wheel). This person then told The Transportation Manager that the truck’s tandems could not slide an over gross load. After that is when the transportation manager told this person that he would need to see the sales manager in order to have the load lightened.

This person then went to the sales manager office and ask that he, have the load lightened. He said drivers had taken overweight loads before and didn’t seem to understand the problem. This person then explained to the sales manager his concerns about the load being overweight. This person then told him that if he had to take out that overweight load he intended to call the Department Of Transportation as soon as he left the yard. The sales manager wasn’t a happy camper but at that point did agreed to lighten the load. This person then foolishly left his office thinking he had done a good thing for the company and the public. Unfortunately later this person discovered that management seemed to believe his concerns about safety was a challenge of their authority. They must have also considered this person a potential Whistleblower that could increase on going expenses or increase future liability should legal action be taken against overloaded trucks involved in accidents.

This person's wife came to the yard so he could go get something to eat. He had been waiting all night waiting for the load to be lightened and they talked on the phone (bluetooth) while he hooked on to his now lightened load. This person told his wife he needed to go inside and ask the sales manager to call all of our customers and advise them the deliveries would be running a day late. The General Manager of the company stopped this person in the hallway and said they needed to talk. He directed him to a vacant room where a member of the company’s management team was brought to sit with him for about forty-five minutes. This person kept asking him what was going on and he said he didn’t know.

His wife who was still on the phone with him and said The transportation Manager and others were trying to get into his truck. (Overnight truckers keep many of their personal belongings from TVs on down in their truck) he asked again what was going on but got the “I don’t know” again. He told this manager in the room with him that he was going out to the yard. The manager then said, “You have to stay” and started for the door. This person told the manager he couldn’t stop him in very determined voice and reached for the doorknob. The manager wisely chose not to try to stop him. His wife said that three police cars had just arrived. Not until This person later listened to the 911 call placed by the company to the emergency dispatcher did he realize the full extent to which this company would go to in an effort to destroy his credibility as a potential witness against them. This person then remembered the sales manager commenting about the fanny pack I had worn for years and asking what this person carried in it. The sales manager then said he had seen one just like it at a gun show a few weeks before. This person replied money and made light of his inquiry. This person kept the company cash in his fanny pack, because the company did not supply a safe to place the money in while out on delivery routes. The sales manager's fanny pack questions were shortly after this persons outburst about calling DOT, so This person began wonder what the sales manager and the General Manager had cooked up that involved the police.

After leaving the room but before I could leave the building four Police Officers approached me. The Police Officer in charge asks if This person if he was armed. He replied "yes". The officer then took possession of the fanny pack, which at the time also had his handgun in it. The officer then asked if he was licensed. This person replied yes and handed him my Texas Concealed Handgun permit. The General Manager at the time kept telling the Police Officer this person needed to be handcuffed, as the officer continued to ask this person questions. Still wanting the police to handcuff him the General Manager claimed that this person had signed a statement saying he wouldn’t carry a firearm. This person did not remember such a document and ask to see it but they could not produce such a document.

The General Manager states in front of the gathering management personal and other company employees that the company prohibits people from carrying a gun on their premise. This person then asked if anyone could point out the Penal Code Section 30.06 sign required by Texas to the Officer and himself. The Police Officer in charge directed his fellow officers to look for a 30.06 sign but they couldn’t find one.

Apparently the Manager of Human Relations had a sign with a picture of a gun with a circle and slashed line through it in her office, on the floor, but that sign only applies to unlicensed individuals that go into that office. The other Police Officers report there is nothing posted to prevent any licensed individual from carrying concealed on the property.

This person then informed the Officer that he got his Concealed Handgun License because drivers were required to accept large sums of cash in bad neighborhoods in full view of store customers. This person then went on to point out that this was thousands of dollars being carried for one to three days. Then this person further pointed out that the trucks did not have a safe, so the cash had to remain on his person. The General Manager denied that drivers collected cash. The Manager of Human Relations contradicted him but he insisted he was right (This person now understands the human resources manager is no longer with the company). The Police Officer asks another driver standing nearby if they collected cash from customers. The driver confirmed that he was also required to accept cash, which embarrassed the General Manager either because of being caught in a lie or not knowing what is going on with the company.


The General Manager then insists that federal law prevents commercial driver from carrying a gun and This person should be arrested. This person then suggested the General Manager and the Police Officer to look in latest DOT manual which has no such regulation. This person also informed them that he had emails from the Federal DOT, The State of Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana and the state of Texas saying that carrying a gun was not prohibited for a Texas CHL holder driving a commercial truck. This person had double-checked before carrying on any commercial vehicle , as He didn’t intend to violate either state or federal law. By this time the Officer is seems to be getting annoyed with the situation and the General Manager insisted he is right and has no desire to see the emails.

The General Manager still wanted This person arrested. The Officer informs The General Manager that this person can’t be arrested, as his have not violated any law. This person was then fired for violating Company Policy without prior verbal or written warnings and without misconduct according to the Texas Workforce Commission. This person had not ever been given a copy handbook, which was proven during discovery. When this person received a copy of his employee file from the company through discovery, the paper that gets signed when given a hand book was dated but not signed because the company at the time and this person never received one. This person also received a copy of the company handbook through discovery, there is nothing in the handbook saying no guns just a threat of violence clause. During my almost 9 years of working for this company and becoming the highest paid driver, I was told by his supervisor, company policy is to issue a verbal warning to an employee the first time they violated a company policy. The second time that same company rule is violated the employee receives a written warning. After an employee has received a verbal a written warning they are fired upon the third offense. The company admitted in the 911 call that someone in management knew before April 14th that I carried a concealed weapon but it seems they chose to ignore it until they needed an excuse to fire a potential whistleblower. This companies progressive warning policy apparently doesn’t apply if you point out they are violating federal law.

This person was permitted to retrieve his personal belongings but was told they would get a trespass warning filed against him even though he had no intention of returning. Possibly this was to bolster their case in event of future litigation or possibly it comes up on a date base if another company is doing a background check before hiring. This person was sure they preferred to keep him unemployed to keep other workers inline. The GM requested that the officer escort me off the primes further humiliated me front of prior co-workers. The Officer when returning my gun seemed almost embarrassed to have been used in such a way.

While threatening to contact the Department of Transportation wasn’t smart, This person believed it was the only way he could get them to agree to remove excess weight in the load and not exceed legal load limits in the future. The company did remove the excess weight from that load and they also decided to remove a potential whistleblower at the same time. This person doubts that any of this companies other drivers will challenge over loaded trucks, having seen the highest earning driver for the last five years fired without notice.

This company seems to want to cover-up the real reason for this persons firing. They want to shift it from my threat to contact DOT about truck overloading, to me violating a company policy. They required all drivers sign a statement that they couldn’t carry a lawful firearm. This was the following friday after this person's termination. They immediately collected the signed forms without giving a copy to employees, which seems strange. It is rumored that one driver who ask if he could get a copy of what he signed, was ask if he liked his job.

This company then intentionally and maliciously filed a false report with the Texas Employment Commission to further damage my reputation and attempted to deny me unemployment benefits. This company reported that This person had violated Federal Law by unlawfully carrying a gun while driving a commercial vehicle. They knew this to be a false statement based on discussion with the Police Officer, the DOT manual in their possession and this person's offer to provide them with copies of email from federal and state agencies. While this person has not been able to get copies of The companies statements to various agencies* This person's fear is that his career as a truck driver has been permanently damaged by the companies actions.

This has resulted in not only loss of income and benefits (health, dental & life insurance), but wiped out This person's savings, 401K retirement, ruined his credit rating, caused repossession of his pickup truck and caused his home to be foreclosed on and has seriously damaged future earnings for the remainder of his career. His wife had go back to work in order to provide health insurance for the children and bankruptcy would seem a blessing except we lack the filing fees.

This person now has taken a job making less then a third of what he was making.

I guess I am just wondering if anyone has any ideas to help in this matter.

You can email me directly if need be at TxBlonde2006@yahoo.com

[ELB]

Sound like you need a lawyer who does civil work, especially employment law.

[Ecrevisse]

And people wonder why there are unions.

[warhorse10_9]

And people wonder why there are unions.

[TxBlonde]

We have a lawyer but the is saying it violated the threat of violence policy

[Rex B]

Get a lawyer and sue them.

Oh, and work on the 1st person/3rd person thing

Standing up to abusive employers is hard work.
Good luck to you.

[WildBill]

We have a lawyer but the is saying it violated the threat of violence policy

Who filed the lawsuit and what are they suing for?

[gigag04]

Oh, and work on the 1st person/3rd person thing

This


Good luck to you/him

[Rex B]

We have a lawyer but the is saying it violated the threat of violence policy

You need a different lawyer. If the facts are as you present them, I think a sharp attorney who specializes in employer/employee cases would jump on this, probably take it on contingency. Could be a real payday for them.

[TxBlonde]

I do not want to hurt the case but it was my husband that was fired and we are suing under "Sabine Pilot".

I was editing a document that we sent our attorney. sorry about the grammar errors

It is really messed up case.

The termination form was revised the day my husband was fired.

The statement they have from another supervisor saying he was afraid of my husband because has military experience was written by a guy who was in the 4th infantry. My husband was a generator mechanic when he was in the Army.

The conversation my husband had with this guy was 5 weeks before he was fired. Why did it take 5 weeks to report that he was afraid of my husband. The statement was dated the 13th of April, the day before he was fired. If this is true why was not my husband approached when he first went into the building.

[WildBill]

I do not want to hurt the case but it was my husband that was fired and we are suing under "Sabine Pilot".

Thanks. Now your original post makes a lot more sense.

[TxBlonde]

The problem is the fact that employer says they have a right to say they don't want guns in the workplace, which is true but doesn't a logical person think you would have to inform someone in writing. I know oral is ok with the state but written is easier to prove it has been done.

There isn't even a no weapons clause in the handbook.

[TxBlonde]

I am tempted to tell our lawyer to use the fact that Terrorist hijacked 3 to 4 planes on September 11, 2001 with nothing more then a box cutter. and almost anyone who worked hands on in the company had box cutters.

[KaiserB]

After leaving the room but before I could leave the building four Police Officers approached me. The Police Officer in charge asks if This person if he was armed. He replied "yes". The officer then took possession of the fanny pack, which at the time also had his handgun in it. The officer then asked if he was licensed. This person replied yes and handed him my Texas Concealed Handgun permit. The General Manager at the time kept telling the Police Officer this person needed to be handcuffed, as the officer continued to ask this person questions. Still wanting the police to handcuff him the General Manager claimed that this person had signed a statement saying he wouldn’t carry a firearm. This person did not remember such a document and ask to see it but they could not produce such a document.

The General Manager states in front of the gathering management personal and other company employees that the company prohibits people from carrying a gun on their premise. This person then asked if anyone could point out the Penal Code Section 30.06 sign required by Texas to the Officer and himself. The Police Officer in charge directed his fellow officers to look for a 30.06 sign but they couldn’t find one.

Verbal communication is all that is necessary for an employer to ban employees (CHL or not) from having firearms on the premises.

This person then informed the Officer that he got his Concealed Handgun License because drivers were required to accept large sums of cash in bad neighborhoods in full view of store customers. This person then went on to point out that this was thousands of dollars being carried for one to three days. Then this person further pointed out that the trucks did not have a safe, so the cash had to remain on his person. The General Manager denied that drivers collected cash. The Manager of Human Relations contradicted him but he insisted he was right (This person now understands the human resources manager is no longer with the company). The Police Officer asks another driver standing nearby if they collected cash from customers. The driver confirmed that he was also required to accept cash, which embarrassed the General Manager either because of being caught in a lie or not knowing what is going on with the company.

Is said employee a commissioned security officer (http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/psb/cso.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)? One can not get a CHL and provide de facto security on behalf of an employer.

Sounds like this case is an unfortunate series of events, good luck with your case.

[WildBill]

I am tempted to tell our lawyer to use the fact that Terrorist hijacked 3 to 4 planes on September 11, 2001 with nothing more then a box cutter. and almost anyone who worked hands on in the company had box cutters.

That has nothing to do with anything. IANAL, but you are going to need a sharp lawyer who can argue the case focusing on the fact that he was fired only for the whistleblowing. The gun was used as an excuse after the fact. It sounds like the company's management is doing a good job trying to cover their tracks. Good luck.