Fired because of gun

[WildBill]

I know now to tell a judge that
There new tactic is they fired him because they think the old Article 4413 (29ee) posted at another building they leased at the time and the sign was there before they occupied it. (I know no bearing on who put it there) They think it is the Proper 30.06 Sign.

Interesting. IANAL, but I would think that only the person in control of the property could post an enforcable sign. For example, I could go to any building of my choosing and post a 30.06 sign meeting the legal language and size requirements, but I don't believe it would be valid unless I controlled the property.

So, are you saying if you leased a building with a valid 30.06 sign in place, and you wanted the place 30.06 posted, you'd have to remove the old (perfectly valid) sign and replace it with a new one to be enforceable?

The key question is whether or not "you wanted the place 30.06 posted." There is no evidence that the company had or wanted a policy prohibiting concealed handguns.

The OP is suggesting that the company had no policy preventing employees from having handguns on the property until they wanted to use that as a reason to fire someone for reporting an illegal activity to the DOT. In his dispostion, a former manager of the company swore that, three days after the fact, they issued a policy prohibiting the handguns. IMO, trying to use the old sign as a justification for firing the employee is stretching the truth and their credibility.

[sjfcontrol]

I know now to tell a judge that
There new tactic is they fired him because they think the old Article 4413 (29ee) posted at another building they leased at the time and the sign was there before they occupied it. (I know no bearing on who put it there) They think it is the Proper 30.06 Sign.

Interesting. IANAL, but I would think that only the person in control of the property could post an enforcable sign. For example, I could go to any building of my choosing and post a 30.06 sign meeting the legal language and size requirements, but I don't believe it would be valid unless I controlled the property.

So, are you saying if you leased a building with a valid 30.06 sign in place, and you wanted the place 30.06 posted, you'd have to remove the old (perfectly valid) sign and replace it with a new one to be enforceable?

The question is whether or not "you wanted the place 30.06 posted." There is no evidence that the company had or wanted a policy prohibiting concealed handguns.

The OP is suggesting that the company had no policy preventing employees from having handguns on the property until they wanted to use that as a reason to fire someone for reporting an illegal activity to the DOT. Three days after the fact, they issued a policy prohibiting the handguns.

I understand, but that's not my point. You stated (highlighted in red above). As the OP mentioned (if I understood her correctly) there was an old 30.06 sign posted/left over from before they had the building (or "a" building?) Anyway, if your legal approach is that the sign is invalid because it was not posted by the current owner, that would imply that in order for the current owner to post the premises, he would then have to take down the old sign, and put up a new one. I wouldn't want to try to argue that in court. His argument would be that he wanted the facilities posted, and left the old, valid sign up to indicate that. You'd then have to prove/disprove what the owner had in mind. I think the sign would speak for itself. If the new owner DIDN'T want the facility posted, he'd remove the sign.

I'm just talking about the validity of the sign, I understand there is a manager that testified there was no policy in effect.

[WildBill]

I understand, but that's not my point. You stated (highlighted in red above). As the OP mentioned (if I understood her correctly) there was an old 30.06 sign posted/left over from before they had the building (or "a" building?) Anyway, if your legal approach is that the sign is invalid because it was not posted by the current owner, that would imply that in order for the current owner to post the premises, he would then have to take down the old sign, and put up a new one. I wouldn't want to try to argue that in court. His argument would be that he wanted the facilities posted, and left the old, valid sign up to indicate that. You'd then have to prove/disprove what the owner had in mind. I think the sign would speak for itself. If the new owner DIDN'T want the facility posted, he'd remove the sign.

I'm just talking about the validity of the sign, I understand there is a manager that testified there was no policy in effect.

That is what the respondent's attorney will argue. I am just giving my view of the how the plaintiff's attorney could argue against that claim. Based on the evidence that I have read on this thread, I think that the trucking company wrongly fired the employee.

At first they said there was a policy against guns. Then they said, not exactly, "it was implemented three days after the firing". Then they said "Well we had an old sign that was on the building so that was our policy." Who would you believe? Ultimately it will be decided by a judge or jury.

[sjfcontrol]

That is what the respondent's attorney will argue. I am just giving my view of the how the plaintiff's attorney could argue against that claim. Based on the evidence that I have read on this thread, I think that the trucking company wrongly fired the employee.

At first they said there was a policy against guns. Then they said, not exactly, "it was implemented three days after the firing". Then they said "Well we had an old sign that was on the building so that was our policy." Who would you believe? Ultimately it will be decided by a judge or jury.

Yup! And if there was a sign, regardless of who or when it was posted, my guess is that the judge/jury will let the sign will speak for itself, rather than try to second guess the intent of the owner.

We'll just have to wait and see what happens.
(Don't get me wrong, I too believe the trucker was wrongly fired -- for threatening to be a whistle-blower. But we have only heard one side of this story.)

[TxBlonde]

THE SIGN IS THE WRONG WORDING AND NOT 1 INCH tall This is the sign the company is saying is a 30.06 ANYONE NOTICE IT IS NOT LEGAL... OH and this is at the other warehouse not the man building where he was fired from. Just figured to add a proper wording sign

[speedsix]

...what sign??? I din't see no sign!!!

[TxBlonde]

Added sign pictures and I took these Pictures of the sign

[TxBlonde]

He was fired for threat of Violence because he carried a .45 gun on him and that is even what the company put on his termination notice.

[speedsix]

...my point was, if the sign doesn't conform to the written law, ignoring it is not illegal...the company can fire him for violating company policy...that's a different matter...carrying concealed quietly, they should have never known he had a gun...they just stirred up a mess to do a hatchet job on him...and made a lucky guess...if he can stand the wait, he ought to recover from a lawsuit...they were clearly trying to get him for refusing to break the law re: overweight loads...

[WildBill]

Added sign pictures and I took these Pictures of the sign

Thanks.

[WildBill]

...my point was, if the sign doesn't conform to the written law, ignoring it is not illegal...the company can fire him for violating company policy...that's a different matter...carrying concealed quietly, they should have never known he had a gun...they just stirred up a mess to do a hatchet job on him...and made a lucky guess...if he can stand the wait, he ought to recover from a lawsuit...they were clearly trying to get him for refusing to break the law re: overweight loads...

The point is that there was no company policy. And the non-valid sign was on a different building than where the man worked. What other trick will they try next?

[speedsix]

...ANY company policy...in Texas, if they want you, they've got you...his hope of recovery lies in the jury's seeing the sequence of events and realizing their deceit...according to the employee handbook, there was a policy...they just didn't get his signature saying he knew of it...a real mess of snakes!!! They coulda fired him on a paperwork error...or a haircut...we need much better protection for our jobs in Texas...and I'm not saying union either...

[TxBlonde]

according to the employee handbook, there was a polic

There was no company policy please read page 6 a manager admited under oath that there was no policy. This is the only close to a policy on it and this is why they say they fired him

Workplace Violence Policy
It is th~ goal of the company is to provide a work environment in which employees, customers, and vendors are treated with respect and courtesy. Such an environment is free from negative, 'disrespectful, hurtful'or threatening comments or actions directed toward others. It is expected that all company employees promote a productive work atmosphere through mutually
respectful interpersonal relationships within the various company work settings.

Every employee has a responsibility to maintain the safety and security of the workplace. Threats, threatening:behavior, or acts of violence against employees, customers, visitors, or other individuals by anyone on company property will not be tolerated.

Safety concerns may arise from conflicts with co-workers or other persons in the workplace. It is imperative that employees report any and all threats, violent out bursts, and/or physical confrontations involving employees, customers, or other individuals in the workplace to your supervisor.

The company will investigate reports of threats or violence; evaluate the seriousness of threatening or violent incidents; and follow up with supervisors and empioyees regarding action, plans. If it is determined that a violation of this policy has occurred, The company may take appropriate disciplinary action up to and including termination of employment at the company discretion or legal action as appropriate.

The company will investigate reports of threats or violence; evaluate the seriousness of threatening or violent incidents; and follow up with supervisors and empioyees regarding action, plans.

In there own words the say they do action plans and nothing of this sort happened

On his termination form they revised the same day



They are saying him having a gun is a threat of violence.

[speedsix]

...you're right...no threatening done and their policy doesn't cover carrying...by their standards you could be fired for having a pocketknife in your pocket...most empl. handbooks address having a firearm on co. property...not threats...the whole thing is screwy...a civil jury should be outraged at the hatchet job...when will it go to trial??? oughta get slander on their report on his future employment...

[Ameer]

THE SIGN IS THE WRONG WORDING AND NOT 1 INCH tall

That means they shouldn't be prosecuted but they still can be fired.