The employees have a remedy by suing under 18USC241. If I was the US atty, or AG, I'd bring charges. There's also the conspiracy element.
"But these folks didn't sue over the policy per se, but rather they sued that they weren't adequately informed of the policy."
That's what I saw. Either the plaintiff's atty's are incompetent, or they are working for the same end result as the employers. I've seen this before, where the atty's are being paid by their client and working for the opposition.
Dear spunkets,
I don't believe that a court would buy this particular legal argument.
Please cite for me some case law where this section of the US code was used to go after an employer who required that employees submit to vehicle searches if they wanted to park on company grounds.
I just finished a business and employment law a few weeks ago. The subject of worker safety came up in the course. The case law we examined actually was biased in the other direction. In other words, employers who did NOT implement anti-firearms policies were thought to be more liable in case of folks going "postal" than employers who did implement such policies. The course was taught by a sitting judge.
Whether that is rational, or just, or sensible, or not, it appears to be the prevailing legal environment in the United States right now.
sitetest