Employer Wants To Know About Firearms/CHL

[Redneck_Buddha]

I am betting none of that is actually against the law for an employer to ask an employee. I hate to say it, but we need a law change that protects an employee from an employer asking if they have a CHL. In Texas, they can fire you for refusing to answer that if they want to...or for many other reasons they take a dislike to you. Good luck getting a direct answer in writing as to the "actual" reason for firing you. It's better if they are not allowed to even ask you.

I am generally against more laws and more regulations, but if I were to be allowed to pick and choose, this would be one I'd want implemented.

[The Annoyed Man]

I am betting none of that is actually against the law for an employer to ask an employee. I hate to say it, but we need a law change that protects an employee from an employer asking if they have a CHL. In Texas, they can fire you for refusing to answer that if they want to...or for many other reasons they take a dislike to you. Good luck getting a direct answer in writing as to the "actual" reason for firing you. It's better if they are not allowed to even ask you.

I don't know if this is true in Texas or not, but in California, an employee has the right to demand a copy of the entire contents of their employee file, for any reason whatsoever, and the employer is required to give it to them.....in its entirety. I don't know if that is California state employment law, or federal employment law. If it is federal, then the first thing I would do before answering the gunquestions is immediately request a complete copy of my employee file. That way, if they try to invent a reason to fire you unrelated to a refusal to answer the gun questions, you'll have the evidence to disprove any bogus accusations. Now, they can still "downsize" you out of the job, or change the job's prerequisites so that you no longer qualify for the position, or some other crapulent reason, but they won't be able to allege prior poor performance as a reason for termination, because your record will presumably negate that argument. It's true that a company can fire you for almost any reason, but they still have to be careful, because there is still such a thing as wrongful termination....and if they lose, it gets real expensive.

I'm no lawyer, but here is what the TWC says about wrongful termination (http://www.twc.state.tx.us/news/efte/wr ... harge.html):

Wrongful Discharge

The basic rule in Texas is the "employment at will" doctrine: absent an express agreement to the contrary, either party in an employment relationship may end the relationship or change the terms and conditions of employment at any time for any reason, or even for no particular reason at all, with or without notice.

There are several exceptions, both statutory and court-made:

1. statutory exceptions
   1. state and federal employment discrimination statutes: a discharge may not be based upon a person's race, color, religion, gender, age, national origin, disability, or citizenship, and many states add veteran status and sexual orientation to the list
   2. protected activity (something the law entitles an employee to do without fear of retaliation)
   3. bringing suspected wrongdoing to the attention of competent government authorities (state and federal whistleblowing statutes)
   4. filing various types of claims (OSHA, federal wage and hour, workers' compensation, employment discrimination, etc.)
   5. military duty
   6. jury duty
   7. voting
   8. engaging in union activity
2. common law exceptions (i.e., exceptions found in court decisions)
   1. public policy: it is illegal to discharge an employee for refusing to commit a criminal act
   2. contractual - if a discharge would violate an express employment agreement, it would be a wrongful discharge; includes collective bargaining agreements
3. In Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Portillo, 879 S.W.2d 47 (Tex. 1994), the Texas Supreme Court ruled against a company that had failed to enforce its anti-nepotism policy for 17 years and then suddenly fired an employee who was known all that time to have violated the policy.
4. Remedies for wrongful discharge can include reinstatement, back and future pay, promotion, punitive damages, and an injunction against future illegal conduct. In addition to compensating the employee, the employer can also be made to pay attorney's fees, expert witness fees, and court costs.

It would seem to me that (2)(b) provides the CHL with a modicum of protection:

1. They are taking part in a protected activity which the law allows an employee to do without fear of retaliation; and
2. CHL law deliberatly protects the confidentiality of the CHL holder.

It would seem to me that a competent employment attorney could make a case for wrongful termination if a CHL holder was fired for refusing to answer questions pertaining to his/her possible CHL status, if the questions were not asked by law enforcement.

[TexasGal]

The hard part would be proving it was the CHL that did it. A larger company would most likely be savvy enough to not leave a paper trail to anything specifically on that list. My sister was in charge of the human resource department of a large company for years and is now a VP. I have heard from her of how careful they are to mind all the details to protect the company from disgruntled employees.

[RCP]

What relevance would having a CHL be to clinical staff? I can see no reason to inquire this of either non-clinical or clinical staff.

[jimlongley]

. . .
I'm no lawyer, but here is what the TWC says about wrongful termination (http://www.twc.state.tx.us/news/efte/wr ... harge.html):

Wrongful Discharge

The basic rule in Texas is the "employment at will" doctrine: absent an express agreement to the contrary, either party in an employment relationship may end the relationship or change the terms and conditions of employment at any time for any reason, or even for no particular reason at all, with or without notice.

There are several exceptions, both statutory and court-made:

1. statutory exceptions
   1. state and federal employment discrimination statutes: a discharge may not be based upon a person's race, color, religion, gender, age, national origin, disability, or citizenship, and many states add veteran status and sexual orientation to the list
   2. protected activity (something the law entitles an employee to do without fear of retaliation)
   3. bringing suspected wrongdoing to the attention of competent government authorities (state and federal whistleblowing statutes)
   4. filing various types of claims (OSHA, federal wage and hour, workers' compensation, employment discrimination, etc.)
   5. military duty
   6. jury duty
   7. voting
   8. engaging in union activity
2. common law exceptions (i.e., exceptions found in court decisions)
   1. public policy: it is illegal to discharge an employee for refusing to commit a criminal act
   2. contractual - if a discharge would violate an express employment agreement, it would be a wrongful discharge; includes collective bargaining agreements
3. In Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Portillo, 879 S.W.2d 47 (Tex. 1994), the Texas Supreme Court ruled against a company that had failed to enforce its anti-nepotism policy for 17 years and then suddenly fired an employee who was known all that time to have violated the policy.
4. Remedies for wrongful discharge can include reinstatement, back and future pay, promotion, punitive damages, and an injunction against future illegal conduct. In addition to compensating the employee, the employer can also be made to pay attorney's fees, expert witness fees, and court costs.

It would seem to me that (2)(b) provides the CHL with a modicum of protection:

1. They are taking part in a protected activity which the law allows an employee to do without fear of retaliation; and
2. CHL law deliberatly protects the confidentiality of the CHL holder.

It would seem to me that a competent employment attorney could make a case for wrongful termination if a CHL holder was fired for refusing to answer questions pertaining to his/her possible CHL status, if the questions were not asked by law enforcement.

The hard part would be proving it was the CHL that did it. A larger company would most likely be savvy enough to not leave a paper trail to anything specifically on that list. My sister was in charge of the human resource department of a large company for years and is now a VP. I have heard from her of how careful they are to mind all the details to protect the company from disgruntled employees.

Exactly. I was "released" from my job as an engineer implementing the wireless network supporting the red light cameras in Dallas, with a nice letter detailing my history with the company and the reason I was promoted to engineer, followed by a weak excuse that although I was doing a great job that the company just didn't need me anymore and recommending me with high praise to any future employers.

Now, the real reason I was let go.

First; I had earned the enmity of an engineer senior to me by proving that the radio system could do something he said it couldn't, which I thought was a resolved issue, but I am sure made up part of the decision to fire me. Much longer story, but that suffices.

Second; While out conducting a field site survey for part of the network, I was helping load a lift onto a trailer (mine, btw, and towed behind my car) and fell and broke my finger. I went to the ER for treatment and reported it as Workman's Comp. The day I was released from employment just happened to be, by coincidence, the day that Workman's Comp released me back to full duty. In retrospect the words my boss (also the president of the company) said as I left for the hospital were a clue that I failed to pick up on; "You have insurance, right?" that something was not quite right.

I found out later, from a source that could not be relied upon should it come down to a test in court, that the company was not insured properly to have engineers in the field and they got in trouble with Workman's Comp over that, something the president of the company was surely aware of even when he assigned me to do that work.

In short, I got terminated for breaking my finger and reporting it to Workman's Comp, but good luck proving it.

[Cedar Park Dad]

What relevance would having a CHL be to clinical staff? I can see no reason to inquire this of either non-clinical or clinical staff.

Prediliction towards higher lead levels in the bloodstream? Its a problem for those who shoot at indoor ranges a lot.

[TexasGal]

The reason they want to know if any employee or family member has guns or has a CHL is patently because they are ANTI at the top and this is using their power over people to do "their part" to crush the ownership of guns.

There is a management style that focuses on pushing the idea it is better to have sheep working for you and to have sheep as customers. I found this out first hand when a management company was brought in by the new owner of our dental practice. They actually were teaching us it was better to ditch any independent thinkers among our patients. They taught us we wanted to replace all of them with the sheep who would accept treatment plans without question and pay for them without argument. And that is no exaggeration. It made me sick to be required to suddenly treat my patients like they were nothing but a source of maximum income instead of real people. It soon became obvious the new owner felt the same way about her employees and fired every last one of us one by one over several months when she saw we were not "on board" with all of the changes. It was truly amazing. A successful practice with happy patients who had been coming for decades and receiving first rate care was all but destroyed by this progressive mindset.

Big businesses controlled by left thinking people are increasingly using their companies in the marriage, climate, and gun platform of the Democratic party. They want employees who will bond with those goals too.

[Blindref757]

The reason they want to know if any employee or family member has guns or has a CHL is patently because they are ANTI at the top and this is using their power over people to do "their part" to crush the ownership of guns.

There is a management style that focuses on pushing the idea it is better to have sheep working for you and to have sheep as customers. I found this out first hand when a management company was brought in by the new owner of our dental practice. They actually were teaching us it was better to ditch any independent thinkers among our patients. They taught us we wanted to replace all of them with the sheep who would accept treatment plans without question and pay for them without argument. And that is no exaggeration. It made me sick to be required to suddenly treat my patients like they were nothing but a source of maximum income instead of real people. It soon became obvious the new owner felt the same way about her employees and fired every last one of us one by one over several months when she saw we were not "on board" with all of the changes. It was truly amazing. A successful practice with happy patients who had been coming for decades and receiving first rate care was all but destroyed by this progressive mindset.

Big businesses controlled by left thinking people are increasingly using their companies in the marriage, climate, and gun platform of the Democratic party. They want employees who will bond with those goals too.

Try being a teacher! I feel your frustration!

[jbarn]

I am betting none of that is actually against the law for an employer to ask an employee. I hate to say it, but we need a law change that protects an employee from an employer asking if they have a CHL. In Texas, they can fire you for refusing to answer that if they want to...or for many other reasons they take a dislike to you. Good luck getting a direct answer in writing as to the "actual" reason for firing you. It's better if they are not allowed to even ask you.

I don't know if this is true in Texas or not, but in California, an employee has the right to demand a copy of the entire contents of their employee file, for any reason whatsoever, and the employer is required to give it to them.....in its entirety. I don't know if that is California state employment law, or federal employment law. If it is federal, then the first thing I would do before answering the gunquestions is immediately request a complete copy of my employee file. That way, if they try to invent a reason to fire you unrelated to a refusal to answer the gun questions, you'll have the evidence to disprove any bogus accusations. Now, they can still "downsize" you out of the job, or change the job's prerequisites so that you no longer qualify for the position, or some other crapulent reason, but they won't be able to allege prior poor performance as a reason for termination, because your record will presumably negate that argument. It's true that a company can fire you for almost any reason, but they still have to be careful, because there is still such a thing as wrongful termination....and if they lose, it gets real expensive.

I'm no lawyer, but here is what the TWC says about wrongful termination (http://www.twc.state.tx.us/news/efte/wr ... harge.html):

Wrongful Discharge

The basic rule in Texas is the "employment at will" doctrine: absent an express agreement to the contrary, either party in an employment relationship may end the relationship or change the terms and conditions of employment at any time for any reason, or even for no particular reason at all, with or without notice.

There are several exceptions, both statutory and court-made:

1. statutory exceptions
   1. state and federal employment discrimination statutes: a discharge may not be based upon a person's race, color, religion, gender, age, national origin, disability, or citizenship, and many states add veteran status and sexual orientation to the list
   2. protected activity (something the law entitles an employee to do without fear of retaliation)
   3. bringing suspected wrongdoing to the attention of competent government authorities (state and federal whistleblowing statutes)
   4. filing various types of claims (OSHA, federal wage and hour, workers' compensation, employment discrimination, etc.)
   5. military duty
   6. jury duty
   7. voting
   8. engaging in union activity
2. common law exceptions (i.e., exceptions found in court decisions)
   1. public policy: it is illegal to discharge an employee for refusing to commit a criminal act
   2. contractual - if a discharge would violate an express employment agreement, it would be a wrongful discharge; includes collective bargaining agreements
3. In Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Portillo, 879 S.W.2d 47 (Tex. 1994), the Texas Supreme Court ruled against a company that had failed to enforce its anti-nepotism policy for 17 years and then suddenly fired an employee who was known all that time to have violated the policy.
4. Remedies for wrongful discharge can include reinstatement, back and future pay, promotion, punitive damages, and an injunction against future illegal conduct. In addition to compensating the employee, the employer can also be made to pay attorney's fees, expert witness fees, and court costs.

It would seem to me that (2)(b) provides the CHL with a modicum of protection:

1. They are taking part in a protected activity which the law allows an employee to do without fear of retaliation; and
2. CHL law deliberatly protects the confidentiality of the CHL holder.

It would seem to me that a competent employment attorney could make a case for wrongful termination if a CHL holder was fired for refusing to answer questions pertaining to his/her possible CHL status, if the questions were not asked by law enforcement.

I disagree. And I think you meant 1(b). However, a CHL is not a protected activity. It is just not illegal to carry with a CHL. Smoking in public is not illegal, but an employer can have smoking policies.

Also see this;

From the CHL law, Texas Government Code 411

Sec. 411.203. RIGHTS OF EMPLOYERS. This subchapter does not prevent or otherwise limit the right of a public or private employer to prohibit persons who are licensed under this subchapter from carrying a concealed handgun on the premises of the business. In this section, "premises" has the meaning assigned by Section 46.035(f)(3), Penal Code.

I think the courts would allow reasonable inquiries of employees to ascertain compliance with a policy consistent with this law.

[VMI77]

The reason they want to know if any employee or family member has guns or has a CHL is patently because they are ANTI at the top and this is using their power over people to do "their part" to crush the ownership of guns.

It was truly amazing. A successful practice with happy patients who had been coming for decades and receiving first rate care was all but destroyed by this progressive mindset.

Big businesses controlled by left thinking people are increasingly using their companies in the marriage, climate, and gun platform of the Democratic party. They want employees who will bond with those goals too.

That's exactly what's going on. That's also what's behind all the top down generated hysteria that shuts a school down because someone had a camera tripod, or expels a 4th grader who draws a gun on a piece of paper. All "progressives" have an authoritarian inside them screaming to get out. They're ideologues who cannot tolerate any dissent from the Party line. We all just need to recognize that you can't spell "progressive" with the "SS."

[Pawpaw]

We all just need to recognize that you can't spell "progressive" with the "SS."

I think you meant, "withOUT the "SS"".

[dac1842]

Dear employer,
Per state and federal privacy laws I am not allowed or obligated to answer the attached questions. As most of these topics have been discussed with my physician, doctor- patient privilege does apply.
Many of the remaining questions have been discussed with legal counsel in the past and are protected under attorney- client privilege.

I sincerely appreciate the company's concern for my health and domestic safety status, but these topics are discussed and appropriate safeguards and treatments where applicable, are already in place and administered by appropriately certified professionals.

[The Annoyed Man]

I disagree. And I think you meant 1(b). However, a CHL is not a protected activity. It is just not illegal to carry with a CHL. Smoking in public is not illegal, but an employer can have smoking policies.

Also see this;

From the CHL law, Texas Government Code 411

Sec. 411.203. RIGHTS OF EMPLOYERS. This subchapter does not prevent or otherwise limit the right of a public or private employer to prohibit persons who are licensed under this subchapter from carrying a concealed handgun on the premises of the business. In this section, "premises" has the meaning assigned by Section 46.035(f)(3), Penal Code.

I think the courts would allow reasonable inquiries of employees to ascertain compliance with a policy consistent with this law.

Yes, I meant 1(b). I have fat fingers, and my laptop apparently doesn't have fat keys.

CHL is protected to the extent that it is not only legally available to those who qualify (we are a SHALL issue state), but the law proactively protects the identities of CHL holders from non-LEO queries. Just because a corporation asks, and not a private individual, or a reporter, that does not make the requrest any more likely to be answered. The law is clear. The requrest must come from an LEO or some other link in the chain of justice. That specifically excludes corporations. I see no conflict with 411.203. An employer has a right to bar CHLs from carrying into/onto the premises; and a CHL is bound by law to comply with written company policy if it gives the CHL holder proper notice and/or if they post 30.06 signage; but the law does NOT give employers an automatic right to know who has a CHL, and who does not. If they want to keep CHLs out, they can follow the law just like we have to follow the law. They can ask the question until they are blue in the face, but I am not required by law to answer it truthfully, and absent the state giving them the information, they'll never know.

Yes, I will lie to protect my rights. I would lie on their forms, and I would lie if asked in person. What are they going to do? They can suspect I am lying, but they can't prove it. They can fire me for something else, even something trumped up, but they will have to do so within the law. If they do so wrongfully in terms of Texas employment law and I can prove it, then I can retire early.....and the way to prove it is to always insist on your right to have an up to date copy of everyting in your employee file. But they can't fire me for having a CHL or for lying on the form, because they cannot know that I have one unless I tell them.

[MarshalMatt]

I disagree. And I think you meant 1(b). However, a CHL is not a protected activity. It is just not illegal to carry with a CHL. Smoking in public is not illegal, but an employer can have smoking policies.

Also see this;

From the CHL law, Texas Government Code 411

Sec. 411.203. RIGHTS OF EMPLOYERS. This subchapter does not prevent or otherwise limit the right of a public or private employer to prohibit persons who are licensed under this subchapter from carrying a concealed handgun on the premises of the business. In this section, "premises" has the meaning assigned by Section 46.035(f)(3), Penal Code.

I think the courts would allow reasonable inquiries of employees to ascertain compliance with a policy consistent with this law.

Yes, I meant 1(b). I have fat fingers, and my laptop apparently doesn't have fat keys.

CHL is protected to the extent that it is not only legally available to those who qualify (we are a SHALL issue state), but the law proactively protects the identities of CHL holders from non-LEO queries. Just because a corporation asks, and not a private individual, or a reporter, that does not make the requrest any more likely to be answered. The law is clear. The requrest must come from an LEO or some other link in the chain of justice. That specifically excludes corporations. I see no conflict with 411.203. An employer has a right to bar CHLs from carrying into/onto the premises; and a CHL is bound by law to comply with written company policy if it gives the CHL holder proper notice and/or if they post 30.06 signage; but the law does NOT give employers an automatic right to know who has a CHL, and who does not. If they want to keep CHLs out, they can follow the law just like we have to follow the law. They can ask the question until they are blue in the face, but I am not required by law to answer it truthfully, and absent the state giving them the information, they'll never know.

Yes, I will lie to protect my rights. I would lie on their forms, and I would lie if asked in person. What are they going to do? They can suspect I am lying, but they can't prove it. They can fire me for something else, even something trumped up, but they will have to do so within the law. If they do so wrongfully in terms of Texas employment law and I can prove it, then I can retire early.....and the way to prove it is to always insist on your right to have an up to date copy of everyting in your employee file. But they can't fire me for having a CHL or for lying on the form, because they cannot know that I have one unless I tell them.

YEP...that is how I read it and how I would deal with it....Like you said, "what are they going to do?" They can't compel me to tell the truth (I am not under oath) and they can't fire me for being a CHL holder. AND they had BETTER have a darn good trumped up reason to fire me or my lawyer will be calling. In fact, I had a little "conference" with my lawyer who handles my business affairs and he seemed giddy at the idea of them (the company) wrongfully terminating me over some trumped up reason.

[G0C]

I think I have a good handle on gun laws but I'm less familiar with EEO and other employment law. It would help me sprt through the conflicting opinions if people stated their qualifications in this subject.