Fired because of gun

[tacticool]

pcgizzmo, I'm sure that's a big comfort to every pizza delivery driver and convenience store clerk and everyone else who was ever fired for having a gun on the job.

I'm not saying the company was right. I'm saying it will be an uphill battle to prove they were wrong. Good luck to the OP.

[dicion]

I am in a similar situation at my employer, where the policy states "NO GUNS" on the premises, which by TX penal code prevents me from having a gun, even in my car, because I have "received," according to the law, "notice". This one reason why the TX Parking Lot legislation is so important. The employer rights vs. the CHL rights are in conflict in many situations, such as yours and mine, and the FACTS do not always bear the outcome we desire.

Just read through this thread. Had to correct this grossly inaccurate statement above.

If your policy says 'NO GUNS' You can still carry there with a CHL Legally.
Yes, they can fire you, but it's not illegal unless the company policy has the _exact_ text as specified under TPC 30.06, and you are given a 'card or other document' with it on it. A company policy letter or book would count under that.
'Notice' is Expertly defined under TPC 30.06, and if it doesn't meet the requirements exactly, it doesn't count as 'notice'.

Good luck with the suit, I hope you win, but it's going to be very difficult. Proving that the company slandered your reputation by falsely reporting you were carrying illegally will be the easy part. The Cop will be able to back you up that it wasn't illegal. Proving they fired you for reporting a violation, and used the gun to cover it up, that'll be the hard part.

Good luck.

[tacticool]

I am in a similar situation at my employer, where the policy states "NO GUNS" on the premises, which by TX penal code prevents me from having a gun, even in my car, because I have "received," according to the law, "notice". This one reason why the TX Parking Lot legislation is so important. The employer rights vs. the CHL rights are in conflict in many situations, such as yours and mine, and the FACTS do not always bear the outcome we desire.

Just read through this thread. Had to correct this grossly inaccurate statement above.

If your policy says 'NO GUNS' You can still carry there with a CHL Legally.
Yes, they can fire you, but it's not illegal unless the company policy has the _exact_ text as specified under TPC 30.06, and you are given a 'card or other document' with it on it. A company policy letter or book would count under that.

If they told you orally, no exact words are required.

[WildBill]

Good luck with the suit, I hope you win, but it's going to be very difficult. Proving that the company slandered your reputation by falsely reporting you were carrying illegally will be the easy part. The Cop will be able to back you up that it wasn't illegal. Proving they fired you for reporting a violation, and used the gun to cover it up, that'll be the hard part. Good luck.

I don't think any of it will be easy, but it sounds like there is a good case. It is extremely difficult to get employees to testify against their employer.
I also wish the OP good luck.

[boba]

I have named no one in this and think this is a fine place to be posting the in... No one know who the company is and no names were used this can not be considered liable in any way.

Yes my attorney told me to search out info for him since I have some law classes under my belt.

Consider not only filing against the company but also against individuals for liable.

What kind of liability are we talking about?

[pcgizzmo]

[/quote]
If they told you orally, no exact words are required.[/quote]

Oral statements don't hold up in legal matters. It turns into he said she said. You need written statements in legal matters. Oral statements are hard to prove.

[KaiserB]

I am in a similar situation at my employer, where the policy states "NO GUNS" on the premises, which by TX penal code prevents me from having a gun, even in my car, because I have "received," according to the law, "notice". This one reason why the TX Parking Lot legislation is so important. The employer rights vs. the CHL rights are in conflict in many situations, such as yours and mine, and the FACTS do not always bear the outcome we desire.

Just read through this thread. Had to correct this grossly inaccurate statement above.

If your policy says 'NO GUNS' You can still carry there with a CHL Legally.
Yes, they can fire you, but it's not illegal unless the company policy has the _exact_ text as specified under TPC 30.06, and you are given a 'card or other document' with it on it. A company policy letter or book would count under that.

If they told you orally, no exact words are required.

They actually have the 30.06 text and require you to attend a yearly meeting to discuss the Policy and Procedures manual, where the HR person reads a statement regarding No Guns, No CHL, No guns while you commute to and from etc. So according to TX law they covered the bases. Some portions of this policy, such as No guns while commuting are obviously NOT binding under the law but can get you fired.

[baldeagle]

Since one states "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."

I got my CHL to protect myself and family from harm, not as a pretense to secure myself at work because I transport large sums of money.

However in this case if the employee had not been duly informed of policy they are probably in the clear legally. Civilly it will depend on the actual damages incurred.

Good Lord, man, what country are you from? Can you not even find it plausible that he might have been in fear for his life because he was required to carry large amounts of cash for days on end? This has nothing to do with being a security officer. It has to do with self defense, which, last time I checked, it exactly what a CHL is for.

[sugar land dave]

Texas is a Right to Work state. An employer can fire anyone for any reason at any time, with or without notice. Likewise, an employee can quit at any time for any reason with or without notice.

That said, the guy got screwed. He had a good lawyer, he should be able to use under the Whistleblower Protection Act. Google "whistleblower protection act texas" and see what magically appears. I am not a lawyer. Good luck.

I believe the Texas Whistleblower Protection Act only applies to public employees, not private ones.

[baldeagle]

IANAL either, but I think the OP has some strong cards to play. First, he has the police report which documents the fact that on the day he was fired the company made a huge issue of the fact that he was carrying a gun. Second, he can still go to the feds and provide evidence that can lead to an investigation of the company. That alone should be sufficient to get them to the bargaining table. Furthermore, he can show that he was fired because he refused to break the law, which is an exception to the right to work laws of Texas. So, I would think that the company would be tickled pink to settle out of court (probably insisting on a sealed settlement order as well as a promise never to go to the feds.)

[cbunt1]

Well, here's my two cents worth.

The gun question is clearly a Red Herring, and it's doing its job.

I'd look for an (additional?) attorney with experience in Transportation Law, and one who is well versed with part 49 of the FMVSS--that's where this started, and it's where the real problem lies.

Being an ex-trucker (Hotshot owner-operator, as well as a company driver for some of the big boys), I can vouch for the game with overweight trucks. They overload the trucks, somewhere (usually) under 5-10%, and make it the driver's problem. Been there, done that. Got the scale tickets to prove it.

The events sound feasible, and I'll guarantee the company made a public spectacle of this to make an example to the other drivers...surely "This Person" isn't the only one who was concerned about carrying overweight loads all the time...it's dangerous, and expensive...and the companies won't back the drivers. It's no coincidence that the 5-10% (most 18-wheelers are registered for 80,000# gross) is just about the amount of fuel and driver gear that an OTR truck will carry!

The dog just don't hunt on the gun thing anyway. The federal side was removed from part 49 in the late 90's IIRC. And trust me, most independent companies don't give a rip if a driver carries a gun legally...they just don't want to "know" about it.

It's a crooked deal all the way around, and I wish you the best with your case. For CHL'ers too, but even more so for drivers and owner-operators who are pushed into this kind of stuff.

Have you considered talking to someone at OOIDA?

[Beiruty]

From, the sequence of the events, it seems that the Manager had in mind:
1) To fire the driver, search his truck.
2) Get the driver arrested (to make him look bad, which failed and backfired)
3) Their knowledge of gun being carried by the driver did not happen on the day when Police was called. Why, it was concealed in his fanny pack that he used to wear for long time at work and the driver only revealed that he was armed when asked by the Police officer.

I guess the company Manger screwed up and then tried to justify the dismissal due to gun violation where the driver was not properly notified.
If they handed a termination letter with no reason, they would be more covered. Now, they opened a can of worms against them by firing the driver on company policy violation.

What the driver has to show that the termination was in retaliation for complaint of the driver from carrying an overloaded (could be federal offense) truck and when the Manager regarded this a loss of revenue to the company termination was ordered.

A good lawyer should ask, how and when did the company knew that driver was carrying a concealed gun?

[C-dub]

TxBlonde, I hope your husband is vindicated for the way he has been treated. To me, it seems that you have a very good case and if I were on a jury (Can civil trials have jury's?) I would vote in your favor based on what you have presented to us.

However, I don't think he is a whistleblower. He did not blow that whistle. He only threatened to blow it. Hopefully, you can find payload records or citations of multiple loads that were overweight to establish a pattern.

To all, I understand that Texas is an at-will employment state and all, but one cannot be fired for any reason. There are several reasons that are wrong reasons. One can be fired for no reason, which is the easiest way to fire someone for any reason. My point is that if a reason is articulated, it had better be legitimate. I have known a few people that have won law suits because they were wrongfully terminated by their employer here in Texas. My wife is the manager of close to 100 people and no matter how troublesome one of her employees is, she still has to jump through hoops to be able to legitimately terminate someone.

[baldeagle]

And what pray-tell is the event that the whistleblower exposed; other than the vehicle was overweight from an alleged paperwork error.

Perhaps we could explore Admiralty law in this case because Texas' coast is on the ocean.

The vehicle wasn't overweight from a alleged paperwork error. It was overweight. That is a violation of federal and state law which would subject the company to substantial fines if it's found to be a pattern of behavior. Furthermore, a truck driver can be fined personally for driving an overweight truck and is also exposed to charges of reckless endangerment, manslaughter or even murder if an accident results in death while driving an overweight truck.

[KaiserB]

Since one states "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."

I got my CHL to protect myself and family from harm, not as a pretense to secure myself at work because I transport large sums of money.

However in this case if the employee had not been duly informed of policy they are probably in the clear legally. Civilly it will depend on the actual damages incurred.

Good Lord, man, what country are you from? Can you not even find it plausible that he might have been in fear for his life because he was required to carry large amounts of cash for days on end? This has nothing to do with being a security officer. It has to do with self defense, which, last time I checked, it exactly what a CHL is for.

I am from a county, where I learned in the public school system that one should separate fact from emotion, when making a conclusion.