Posted on 01/30/2009 9:45:45 AM PST by marktwain
Packing heat got Steven Collazo sacked.
The Boca Raton man now is suing his former employer, the Florida subsidiary of a national funeral-home company, claiming his firing last month violated a new state law that allows people with concealed-weapons permits to have their firearms locked in their cars on workplace property.
The case is believed to be the first in South Florida since the law took effect July 1.
In Orlando, a security guard sued Walt Disney World in July after he was terminated for having a weapon in his car at work. He later dropped the suit because it was too costly to pursue, his lawyer said in an interview.
Collazo, 36, is seeking unspecified financial damages over his firing by SCI Funeral Services of Florida, in a lawsuit filed in Broward Circuit Court. His primary job was removing and delivering human remains.
''He was fired from a job that he liked and excelled at, and needed,'' said Marc Wites, Collazo's lawyer. ''It shouldn't have happened.'' Collazo, who has since gotten a job as a limousine driver, declined an interview request.
A spokeswoman for SCI parent Service Corp. International said it's the Houston-based company's policy not to comment on litigation.
Here's what Collazo's lawsuit claims happened:
Two SCI managers told Collazo in late November that two unidentified people spotted him with a gun in his pocket on company property in Pompano Beach.
Collazo denied the charge and offered to show the managers the gun in his vehicle. The managers declined the offer. The weapon isn't described in the lawsuit, and Wites wouldn't identify it.
HANDBOOK SHOWN
About a week later, the managers showed Collazo an employee handbook that details the company policy prohibiting ''carrying unauthorized weapons (firearms, knives, explosives, etc.) on company-owned facilities, such as buildings, grounds, parking facilities,'' the suit says.
Collazo responded that SCI's policy violated his rights. The suit goes on to allege the SCI managers told Collazo the two unidentified accusers said his gun had a pearl-colored handle. At that point, the managers and Collazo went out to his car, where he showed them the gun -- which the suit says is black.
A short time later, the managers told Collazo the two accusers said the gun was black. The pair also said they had never seen a gun, only a ''bulge'' in Collazo's pocket that they ''believed'' was a gun. Despite Collazo assuring the managers he never removed the gun from his car, he was fired, the suit alleges.
Collazo's case serves a cautionary tale for Florida businesses to verify that their corporate policies don't contradict the new Florida law, said David M. Goldman, a Jacksonville lawyer who writes a blog about firearm ownership and possession.
''If they do [conflict], they need to modify their handbooks to comply with the Florida statute so that managers don't inadvertently rely on clauses in the handbook to terminate someone when it's not proper,'' Goldman said.
Some Florida companies aren't entirely bound by the new law. Disney, for example, took advantage of an exemption for companies with a federal explosives permit. Disney presents daily fireworks shows at its theme park. Insurer USAA in Tampa is exempt because it has a school on company grounds.
The attorney general's office can sue employers to enforce the law, but it hasn't filed any lawsuits, spokeswoman Sandi Copes said in an e-mail. The office has received 31 complaints since July.
Some business groups fought the law on the grounds that it conflicts with the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act, which requires employers to maintain a safe work environment.
RULING APPEALED
A federal judge in 2007 found the Oklahoma law ran afoul of the federal regulations. The ruling is being appealed. But two weeks ago, Thomas Stohler, then acting assistant secretary of labor for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, said the Oklahoma and Florida laws didn't conflict with federal law.
''Gun-related violence is not a recognized occupational hazard in industry as a whole, under normal working conditions,'' Stohler wrote in a letter to an Oklahoma state representative. ''Therefore, state laws protecting an employee's right to transport and store firearms in a locked car on employer premises would not on their face impede the employer's ability to comply'' with the federal act.
MSHA rules forbid the possession of firearms, even in locked vehicles on mine properties--(although I suspect it is the most-violated of any of the regulations)--
Hmmmm.
As an employer, I will set the terms of that employment. From a insurance standpoint, employees having firearms in the workplace can cause a huge jump in the premiums. And if there is a incident...the company goes under after the punishment phase of the inevitable civil actions (plural).
On the other hand, we all see the workplace violence/shooting stories year after year.
I don’t know how I feel about this one, folks. I can see both sides clearly, both can make valid points.
Given that...I have to go with the employers terms of employment. If they tell you ‘no firearms on the property’ then you either take the job accepting that condition, or you move on to another employer.
Fair warning: The details of this story, such as they are, are provided only by the aggrieved party's lawyer. On those grounds alone you should take them with a few grains of salt. The lawyer will obviously put the best face on his client's case. There is almost certainly more to the story.
Even by the lawsuit's own claims, however, the complaints had to do with Mr. Callazo carrying his weapon onto the property of his employer -- it is within the rights of his employer to set rules concerning their own tolerance of weapons on their premises.
If one of your employees is injured or killed and was not given the right to protect themselves,based on your policy, would you be able to survive the lawsuit?
If someone is determined to bring a gun into work and slaughter people your “policy” wouldn’t stop them.
Please insert - while traveling to or from your workplace - to my post.
Also, I re-read my post and I don’t mean to sound combative. Just a question.
I’m torn on these types of cases. Property Rights Vs Constitutional Rights.
Basically I’ve come down to, carrying inside of work it’s the employer’s discretion. Carrying in your car that’s your discretion, as long as the weapon stays in the car.
Then there is the best policy for CCW, concealed means concealed.
As I noted, I can clearly see both sides of this debate, PJ.
And I think they both carry equal weight.
As such, its up to the employer to decide whats best for them.
No worries about ‘being combative’ btw. This is a very touchy issue to us all. I’m a gun owner, will be for my entire life no matter what legislation is passed.
But if you are an employer as I am, there is more to this than 2nd Amendment issues only, or a new state law. So many factors involved that each case (workplace enviroment) is in fact ‘unique’ and as such the same policy in one isn’t necessarily a good fit for the one next door.
So I say leave it up to the employer to set the policy. Its his or her ‘shop’ to run as they see fit, within acceptable norms as defined by local, state and federal regulations.
No easy answer on this one. For the record, I am armed 24/7.
Then again, I own the place....its my ass on the line either way.
‘wonder if you can be fired also for concealing a Bible in you car?
Just as a side note there is a county in Georgia that ALL residents must have a gun to life there. They also have a very low crime rate. I wonder why.
Google “Edgewater Technology Wakefield MA”
Kennesaw. Greenleaf, Idaho has a law based off the Georgia town one.
The reason why the case was won here in Florida was based on constitutional rights trumping workplace policy.
Florida is a open carry state. Meaning we can openly carry weapons in our vehicles. We can’t openly carry on our persons. Some folks like to have rifles on racks in pick-up trucks.
If an employee were to be killed on his or her way to work and it is the workplaces policy to forbid firearms on the property then company could be held accountable based on the policy preempting the individual’s right to bear arms.
On a side note some companies are exempt because they have explosives on property. Disney is one of them.
Understand your viewpoint.
I think the struggle for some folks is the fact that it is the employer’s property you are parking on and based on property rights they should have the final say as to what happens on their land.
The problem is that they cannot have a policy or law that “infringes” on the right to keep and bear arms.
I am not a business owner, but, a weapon locked in a vehicle will not harm anyone. If someone wants to take a gun to a business determined to do harm to someone, no law or policy is going to stop them.
Does the Second Amendment give individuals the right to bear arms?
USA Today pollYes 97%
No 2%
UNDECIDED 1%
TOTAL VOTES:
936455
Simple joy - watching the poll result for YES vote grow !
I can’t believe there are any UNDECIDED votes at all. There shouldn’t be any NO votes either, if people could read the Constitution - unless they think it is a “living document”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.