Fired because of gun

[billv]

KaiserB ... Did you even read this or did you just pull out things. MY HUSBAND WAS FIRED WITHOUT BEING TOLD NO GUNS. NO HE WAS NOT A SECURITY GUARD NEVER TRIED TO ACT LIKE. THE COMPANY WAS PUTTING HIS LIFE IN DANGER MY MAKING HIM CARRY THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS IN CASH THAT WAS HANDED TO HIM BY PEOPLE HE DELIVERED THE COMPANY PRODUCT TO, THIS CASH WAS HANDED TO HIM IN FRONT OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC.

HE WAS FIRED WITHOUT NOTICE!!!!

If he was violating any laws don't you think he would have left in handcuffs or with a ticket no. He left with the officer telling him to get an attoney

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.

[RoyGBiv]

i certainly hope he is a contract employee. otherwise texas is an at will state and you can be fired for no reason or any reason other then discrimination.

Almost...

http://www.rscooklaw.com/sabinepilot.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Sabine Pilot" is the abbreviated name of a case decided by the Supreme Court of Texas in 1985, Sabine Pilot Serv. v. Hauck (Tex. 1985). In that case, the Supreme Court recognized a narrow exception to the general "at will" doctrine of employment in Texas, and found that an at-will employee may sue his/her employer if he/she is fired for refusing to commit an illegal act.

In this case, the employer will disavow any knowledge of an illegal order.
Their story is they fired him for violation of their no-firearms policy, which any competent attorney can probably take apart.

Assuming the details provided are true, the driver talked with enough people to get the load reduced, and waited around the terminal overnight... There will be someone to back up his story... And then there's the original load manifest showing the overage... Not everything or everyone is going to be sanitized sufficiently to hide the over-load.

I wish him/them luck... Sounds like a bad deal from the side we've heard.

[KaiserB]

KaiserB ... Did you even read this or did you just pull out things. MY HUSBAND WAS FIRED WITHOUT BEING TOLD NO GUNS. NO HE WAS NOT A SECURITY GUARD NEVER TRIED TO ACT LIKE. THE COMPANY WAS PUTTING HIS LIFE IN DANGER MY MAKING HIM CARRY THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS IN CASH THAT WAS HANDED TO HIM BY PEOPLE HE DELIVERED THE COMPANY PRODUCT TO, THIS CASH WAS HANDED TO HIM IN FRONT OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC.

HE WAS FIRED WITHOUT NOTICE!!!!

If he was violating any laws don't you think he would have left in handcuffs or with a ticket no. He left with the officer telling him to get an attoney

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.

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.

[pcgizzmo]

OP: Contact the Department of Labor. If you story is correct and thing's happened as fast as you say they did and possibly you have some witnesses that would stand up for you then you have a very good case IMO. In Texas they can fire you for whatever they want but, you have grounds to sue because of the events that lead up to the firing. Also, if they fired you because you were carrying a gun and they never gave notice that guns were not to be carried then you have a case to that as well.

They would have done better to tell you that they just didn't need you anymore than this. Thy have to give you fair warning like in an employee handbook or verbal communication but actually an employee handbook is the legal way or at least paperwork they can prove you have read and signed. They just can't come out and say "you can't wear a shirt with no collar and fire you" as an example if you've been given no form of communication on the proper clothing.

Also the Whistle blower should cover you for the weight of the truck etc..


Good luck and keep us posted. I personally think their foot is in a sling.

[Keith B]

Since Texas is an 'At-Will' work state, and does not have an Implied Contract exception, it is going to come down to the burden of proof falling on your lawyer to try and show that your husband was fired unjustly for refusing to do something illegal (haul an overweight load) and NOT legitimately fired for violating a company no firearms policy. It will be a very hard fight as employers unjustly fire people all the time.

Now, from a breaking the law standpoint, the only way he would have been illegal is if there were 30.06 signs (there were none), the policy manual spelled out the 30.06 verbiage in it (it supposedly is not and doesn't even mention firearms), OR he had been given oral notice that firearms were not allowed on property and failed to leave or remove the gun from property. From that portion, the police verified there was apparently no law broken because they didn't arrest him.

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.

[doc540]

my two cents:

It's not prudent to discuss a pending legal situation on the internet.

Did your attorney not tell you to this?

Best advice I ever got from a good attorney: "saying nothing except what I approve for you to say and answer "yes", "no" or "I don't understand".

[tacticool]

Since Texas is an 'At-Will' work state, and does not have an Implied Contract exception, it is going to come down to the burden of proof falling on your lawyer to try and show that your husband was fired unjustly for refusing to do something illegal (haul an overweight load) and NOT legitimately fired for violating a company no firearms policy. It will be a very hard fight as employers unjustly fire people all the time.

I think it will be an uphill fight in this case, because it was the company who called the authorities, not the employee. Nobody was arrested, but I wouldn't be surprised if their lawyer uses it at trial. Similar to the hypothetical we hear about the BG calling 911 first, it's going to paint a picture in the juror's minds.

IANAL but I have been a juror.

[TxBlonde]

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.

[WildBill]

I think it will be an uphill fight in this case, because it was the company who called the authorities, not the employee. Nobody was arrested, but I wouldn't be surprised if their lawyer uses it at trial. Similar to the hypothetical we hear about the BG calling 911 first, it's going to paint a picture in the juror's minds.

This is a civil trial. There would be no reason for the employee to call the police.

[sjfcontrol]

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.

[VoiceofReason]

“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.”

Hope you have a good lawyer. Consider not only filing against the company but also against individuals for liable. Suggest to the lawyer he have someone make a recorded call to the company posing as a potential employer asking for references.

Maybe a manager will get stupid.

I hope you end up a major stock holder in that company and get into the retirement funds of some managers.

Hooray for lawyers.

[tacticool]

I think it will be an uphill fight in this case, because it was the company who called the authorities, not the employee. Nobody was arrested, but I wouldn't be surprised if their lawyer uses it at trial. Similar to the hypothetical we hear about the BG calling 911 first, it's going to paint a picture in the juror's minds.

This is a civil trial. There would be no reason for the employee to call the police.

I thought the allegation was that he was fired because the company was breaking the law and/or the driver refused to violate the law. If he had blown the whistle ("called the authorities") and was fired afterward, it may support the theory that he was fired for whistle blowing and/or refusing to break the law.

However, the records will show that it was the company who called the cops. It turns out that the driver didn't violate the law. However, the 911 call may support the theory that the driver was fired for having a gun at work.

The truth is irrelevant in court. What matters is what the judge and/or jury believes.

[TxBlonde]

As long as I do not use names it is fine. This is me doing this not my husband so it can not even be used in court. Trust me this I know very well.

I have had a judge tell me myself unless there is certain names being used or I am naming the company they can not prove beyond a shadow of doubt if I am talking about them

[TxBlonde]

This is a very long case to get into, but they have a very weak case as we have been told by a mediator/arbitrator. We are going after everything they have done and caused be done. He is a whistle blower because he told them he would call DOT if they did not remove the weight.

[pcgizzmo]

I think it will be an uphill fight in this case, because it was the company who called the authorities, not the employee. Nobody was arrested, but I wouldn't be surprised if their lawyer uses it at trial. Similar to the hypothetical we hear about the BG calling 911 first, it's going to paint a picture in the juror's minds.

This is a civil trial. There would be no reason for the employee to call the police.

I thought the allegation was that he was fired because the company was breaking the law and/or the driver refused to violate the law. If he had blown the whistle ("called the authorities") and was fired afterward, it may support the theory that he was fired for whistle blowing and/or refusing to break the law.

However, the records will show that it was the company who called the cops. It turns out that the driver didn't violate the law. However, the 911 call may support the theory that the driver was fired for having a gun at work.

The truth is irrelevant in court. What matters is what the judge and/or jury believes.

Also, if they never told him he couldn't have a gun at work then they should not be able to fire him on the spot and get away with it. They can fire him but they would have to give a different reason. They would need to warn him to never bring the gun back but if this is the first time he's been told about a gun and they don't have written policy they are going to have a hard time saying they fired him for bringing a gun to work when he's never been told not to.