Posted on 07/23/2004 6:56:58 PM PDT by TYVets
America Online Can Fire Gun-Owning Employees Utah High Court Rules Friday, July 23, 2004
Self-defense took a big blow this week when the Utah Supreme Court upheld the right of America Online (AOL), America`s largest on-line service provider, to fire three employees whose firearms were stored in the trunks of their cars in the parking lot of an AOL call center in Ogden, Utah.
In a decision that diminishes rights guaranteed under both the Utah and the U.S. Constitution, the court acknowledged the individual right to keep and bear arms, but said the right of a business to regulate its own property is more important!
Complying with this decision could potentially cost an employee his or her life--violent criminals certainly aren`t going to obey such a ban.
It may also diminish employees` abilities to hunt or target shoot after work.
The issue is becoming a hot legislative topic in the states. This year Oklahoma passed HB 2122 ensuring that employees with guns in their cars were not fired or harassed, and it was debated in several other states.
Please look to future editions of the Grassroots Alert for developing information on this issue.
I think you summed it up perfectly & I agree. I feel the same way about smoking, by the way. If a business wants to ban smoking, allow it, or have sections, they should be able to do so. I only support a smoking ban in places where citizens have no choice but to go (courthouses, DMV, government offices).
You're assuming that some AOL executive dreamed this up as a personal preference. I have a strong feeling it was their insurance company, as in "You liability rates are going to be sky high unless you ban guns on company property"
The company I work for has a similar printed policy of no guns on company property, including parking lots. I strongly think the insurance industry is putting them up to it, in which case the proper target is the insurance company
But isn't there a key difference because the voting booth isn't on AOL property? I thought the issue was AOL controlling what items came onto its property, not the behavior. As I understood it, AOL wasn't firing employees because they learned the employee had a gun at home or went hunting on the weekend, but b/c the gun came onto AOL property. This is a very thought provoking thread....
I would bet my bottom dollar that some Federal Judge would declare that as an infringement on the employees rights, and rightly so.
It is in theory the exact same thing.
Good and logical answer. Wish it had come earlier.
My problem with this are two-fold:
1) Discrimination against a class of people.
2) Unwarranted search of a privately owned vehicle (or did they dismiss these employees simply on hearsay?).
What you point out is that a weapon is not a weapon if it is unloaded or disassembled. It's an inanimate object (or several objects).
If the employer makes this policy clear at the time of employment, the employee has no recourse. But it sounds to me as if the policy is an emotional overreaction to the minimal danger this situation provides.
I work for Time Warner Cable and they have strong policies against smoking - yet they allow smokers to bring their cigarettes on the premesis and even to finger their precious nicotine habit inside the workplace so long as they don't actually smoke them inside the building. Imagine if they told employees they could no longer bring cigarettes onto the property, even if safely locked away in the glove compartment of an employee's car, for fear of what second-hand smoke might do to young children and the inherrent liability of the employer if a cigarette started a fire on the property, etc.
Do you think these judges would support Time Warner firing a person for holding a cigarette in the parking lot or do you think the judges would just tell Time Warner that their policy is nuts and allow smoking to continue with certain restrictions?
It's the inconsistency that bothers me which is why I see this as class discrimination. They are singling out a group of people for termination based solely on what inanimate object they have chosen to lock in their car.
BTW, your oilfield example probably restricts smoking due to the catastrophic effects that an oilfield fire could have. Am I right? Do they restrict cigarettes as much as they restrict firearms?
I agree with you that the federal Judge would likely do just as you say (like the health insurance case) but I don't think it would be right. You certainly hit the nail on the head, though, that some rights are more vigorously protected by the judiciary than others. Recently there was a story about a man who was fired from a Catholic organization because (I think) he was active in Kerry's campaign. I think he may even have visited Kerry's website from work or something like that. Does anyone know if there was any legal action from the story? Sorry for the minimalist description, but maybe someone will remember better?
Yes. Example: If you are babysitting a policemans daughter or son, you do have the authority to tell him to remove his "tool" belt before he comes into your home to talk with you.
Never forget who is in charge of our LEO's, us civilian citizens.
I think everyone would agree on the extremes. for example the employer cannot legally demand you do something outrageous such as do lap dances, or demand that you work 24 hours with no breaks.
Employees cannot be expected to have the freedom to bring vials of anthrax in their car even if it were legal.
Having a gun, and I personally don't care if it is loaded or not, is exercising a basic right. Employers don't have the luxury that regular property owners have of just demanding that it is my way of get off my property.
It it just about a necessity to have to bring your car to work. The employer should never be allowed to make demands which deprive us of basic rights unless he has an extraordinary reason for doing so. In this case he has no reason whatsoever.
AOL has the right to require employees to not pack as a condition of work. No, I don't like the policy but part and parcel of running a business in this country is deciding what standards you want your employees to abide by. And if they can't accept the company's standards, they are free to look for another line of work.
Exactly. I'm a strong proponent of the 2nd Amendment and the RKBA but AOL is within its rights to keep guns off its property. It may be idiotic, misinformed, or counterproductive but if private property rights mean anything, its the ability to control the use of the property as you see fit. And your employees ought to abide by your conditions or if they think they're too onerous, nothing is stopping them from seeking work with a company that is more gun-friendly.
False and hypberbolic. Do we expect this from NRA?
NOT false and not hyperbolic. Do you remember the case of the law school (in Virginia?) a couple of years ago where some lunatic came into class and started shooting up the place. All the news outlets reported that the perp was taken down by some bystanders, but none reported that one of those bystanders had to get his legally stored handgun from his glove compartment and shoot the deranged SOB.
Unless the employer is going to have trained, armed guards ready in case something like this happens, they may be legally liable for having created a situation where their employees are helpless against an armed assailant.
Maybe I missed it, but how did AOL learn there were guns in the trunk? Did someone report them? Was there a spot check? Did they open their trunks in an in your face type of action?
I do not agree with the court by any stretch of the imagination. Just curious as to how this started.
"Where, exactly, is the limit of the owner's property as controlling authority end?"
At that owner's property boundary. But, theoretically, one can obtain a court order to the owner, modifying or abrogating some of owners' rights (unless there is a law already doing it).
As for the SUV in your example - park it 3 feet outside of your owner's property.
===========================================================
At issue was whether AOL's property rights trumped the constitutional right to bear arms when it came to the workers - Paul Carlson, Luke Hansen and Jason Melling - transferring guns between their vehicles in a parking lot outside their place of work.
Upholding a February 2002 ruling by 2nd District Judge Roger Dutson, the state's justices found that AOL was within its rights to extend its policy - signed by all its workers - to property under its control outside the workplace.
Carlson, Hansen and Melling had sued AOL claiming their dismissals were improper because the company's anti-weapons policy, in application to a publicly accessible parking lot, violated gun-possession rights guaranteed by the Utah Constitution.
AOL contended that while the parking lot outside the company's Ogden offices is open to the public, AOL had leased 350 spaces specifically for its use. The nation's leading Internet service provider claimed it was therefore within its rights to extend the no-firearms policy of its building to its portion of the parking lot.
Plaintiffs' attorney Mitch Vilos argued that extending AOL's firearms policy to employees' private cars was overreaching, impinging not only on the right to bear arms, but the fundamental right to defend one's life.
"I am disappointed and respectfully disagree with the court," Vilos said. "The bottom line of their holding is that the employer's property rights ares more important than the employees' life interest and liberty."
However, O'Brien stressed that the ruling should be seen less as a "pro- or anti-gun position," than "just that an employer ought to be able to choose."
Nonetheless, the lawyer warned gun-rights advocates in the Utah Legislature could easily unravel the ruling.
===========================================================
In other words, expect a challenge to this ruling in the Utah state legislature.
There is little objection to restrictions, usually because the first person immolated would be the smoker if they started a major conflagration. Legitimate safety concerns are reasonable, especially as this is not an anti-tobacco thing. Many tobacco users simply chew. However, there is no limit on tobacco products or such being on location or in an employee's vehicle, merely limits on where they are used.
As a safety measure, I do not keep smoking materials on my person, so there is no chance of inappropriately lighting a cigarette and causing (or getting blamed for) a problem. Even bic lighters used to check gas detection equipment lines have the flint removed.
As the hazardous moments are generally just that (moments) the policy makes sense. People will become lax otherwise, with possibly fatal results. Most drilling contractors are very safety concious, with active programs which include daily topical safety meetings, and active employee participation in new hazard identification. I read the bulletins posted on the rig, and am amazed at the variety of new ways people find to become injured or killed.
Most searches are instigated by an incident, complaint, or accident. There is plenty to do without snooping. My bet is that someone at AOL was talking about their firearm, or it was seen by another (non gun friendly) employee. If someone made serious threats, there would, in most quarters, be cause to check things out.
If the policy was specifically stated and the three in question signed it, I imagine they have no recourse.
That's why you have to be careful what things are thrust in front of you by your employer to sign. I know some folks who won't sign such policy things on principle. Typically, their refusal gets ignored.
I wonder why the employees were not given a warning first such as what one gets for too many tardies?
On a local note, we had an employee dismissed because she gave some medicine to a co-worker who then got sick from it.
A Free man or woman cannot sign away their Rights.
I worked for AOL in another city for awhile. They have security cameras all over the parking lots, and security guards patrolling.
I know that these guys are doing this on principle. But, they are so much better off not working for that company.
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.