My company currently has a workplace policy in the handbook that violates Texas written law. I'm very confident that my wife could win a case. I'll leave it at that for the forum, but I have raised the issue with my employer.Soccerdad1995 wrote:I'm talking about a civil case, not criminal. I agree that a criminal case for negligence would not be likely. A civil case does not need to be "accepted". The judge could dismiss it, if that's what you mean. And the burden of proof would be much lower than "beyond a reasonable doubt". Basically, you would have to show that the company's decision contributed in some way to the harm that befell the employee.allisji wrote:I have a hard time believing that such a case would be accepted in our current political climate. If it were, would you end up required to "prove" beyond reasonable doubt that the injured party would likely have not been harmed if he or she were carrying a self-defense weapon. Then of course you would be inclined to present evidence of any weapons training/certifications/proficiency that the person had/has. There are too many people out there who believe that a good guy with a gun is dangerous to society.Soccerdad1995 wrote:I think they might have a case. Ultimately it would depend on the jury, and whether they view possession of a gun as something that increases your safety or decreases it.twomillenium wrote:Probably nothing, the employer did not force the employee to work for them, the individual chose to accept employment from the employer and become an employee and follow all legal policies set by the employer.Flightmare wrote:I wonder what the result/cost of a lawsuit would be, if an employee suffered an injury or death because the company forced them to disarm.BaleKlocoon wrote:I've also been told verbally, because I fought for them to change the policy in a meeting. They said they agree with me but their insurance company won't allow it, or will charge too much of a premium or something. I think they are worried about the liability if we leave the gun in the truck when we go into a bank or somewhere else we can't carry, and someone breaks into THEIR company truck and steals the gun and commits a crime with it.
Oh well, I guess it's pepper spray or finding a company that supports my natural rights.
If the jury views possession of a gun as something that increases your safety, then the argument would be that the employer intentionally went out of their way to create an unsafe work environment. Similar to an employer that forbids employees from wearing proper shoes on a slippery floor. The employee may choose to still work there, but that doesn't completely absolve the employer from their obligation to look out for the employee's safety.
I do agree that a lot of potential jurors believe that all guns increase danger of harm at all times. You would need to avoid having those types of people on the jury, of course.
But the policy does also assume to prevent the use of tasers and OCC sprays.... Ya its that bad.