That's why I posited the if-prosecutorial discretion. Otherwise it's an outline for cause in the suit-your tort claim.
" no one is forcing them to do anything. If you don't want to work for the folks, don't work for them."
The assumption is that the party(ies) desired, needed and rely upon the continued employment relationship. THe demand for search was accompanied by the threat of firing.
"Companies have been promulgating these rules, quite successfully from what I gathered from my business and employment law class, and the courts are quite pleased with them. Even in this case, the fired employees are claiming only that they did not have sufficient notice of the policy, not that the company had no right to enforce it."
I don't believe it, as I have outlined. The excesses have all involved workplace/space rules and business related rules.
"The real question is, if a company has, say, 500 employees, and they're allowed to bring firearms to work, and folks do, and someone goes "postal," can a plaintiff's lawyer persuade a civil jury whether that result was foreseeable?
The phrase "bring firearms to work" is too vague. The firearms are not in the workspace, or within any reasonable jurisdiction of the employer. Firearms contained within the employee's vehicle are just as accessable as postal tools as the one's he maintains in his house. In fact the postal would do better with the vehicle itself, loaded with fuel.
The employer can't simply break into the employee's car, that is at minimum breaking and entering and destruction of property. He must mount an extortion to do it. That highlights the fact that the employee's car is not the employer's property and he has no right to enter it, without mounting the extortion.
"There are many juries that can be persuaded that this is the case."
Sure. There are also many juries that would not.
"If the company then prevents anyone from bringing a firearm to work, even to the point of not permitting them on the premises, even in the parking lot, the company can say that it took every reasonable action to prevent the otherwise foreseeable event that someone might go nuts, bring their gun to work, and shoot the place up."
It's either a Free country, or it's not. The employee's property contained in the car is not a nuisance, nor is it reasonable to consider employees as criminal thugs. The fact is that all of the postal events I can recall occured after the employee was fired and returned at a later time. None were perpetrated by otherwise happy workers that were concerned with doing their job.
"Whether you think that is a reasonable conclusion or not, or whether I think it is a reasonable conclusion or not, really doesn't matter."
This is FR and we discuss these things. My sentiments and thoughts have also gone to appropriate places off site. I see this as a back door gun grab and attack on both rights and Freedom. See, there's no real, effective effort to ensure workplace safety against the threat of postal types, just harassment and deamonization of gun owners. The bozos even link firearms with drugs at every opportunity.
Dear spunkets,
"I don't believe it, as I have outlined. The excesses have all involved workplace/space rules and business related rules."
I'm not sure what it is you don't believe, and I'm not sure to what excesses you're referring. Please clarify. Thanks.
"The phrase 'bring firearms to work' is too vague. The firearms are not in the workspace, or within any reasonable jurisdiction of the employer. Firearms contained within the employee's vehicle are just as accessable as postal tools as the one's he maintains in his house."
I don't agree with this. I have employees come to my office who live 20 minutes, 30 minutes, in one case, 90 minutes from my place of business. But it is about a 30 second walk to the parking lot from my front door.
If someone gets very upset, the roundtrip to car and back, with the firearm in tow, might take nearly two minutes.
The trip home and back will take 40 minutes to several hours.
Lots of folks don't cool off in a ocuple of minutes. A much higher percentage of folks, initially bent on destruction, will cool off with a wait of 40 minutes to several hours.
As well, if someone shouts, "I'm going to kill you!" and goes to their car in the parking lot, the individual will return before any of us get through to 911 and get the police over to our premises.
If someone shouts, "I'm going to kill you!" and then leaves the premises to go home, the authorities can be involved before the individual returns.
But another more basic problem is this: I at least have an argument that I can regulate what does and doesn't come on to my property. I can't regulate what stays outside my property.
I can say, "You can't bring your gun on my land, period."
I can't say, "You can't have your gun on your land."
I can say, "If you insist on keeping a gun in your car, you can't bring it onto my property."
I can't say, "I forbid you to have a gun in your car when you are not on my property."
Thus, even if what you said was true, it wouldn't matter. I can regulate what happens on my property, but not off it.
"The employer can't simply break into the employee's car, that is at minimum breaking and entering and destruction of property. He must mount an extortion to do it. That highlights the fact that the employee's car is not the employer's property and he has no right to enter it, without mounting the extortion."
It's only an extortion if the employer is denying the employee's rights. You're begging the question. I haven't yet seen why anyone has a right to bring something on my property just because they keep it in their car.
I have a relatively-broad right to tell you that you may not bring something on my property, period. Even if you keep it in your car. Why? Because it's my property!
If I tell you, "I think you have a gun in your car - move it off my land." and you refuse, I can have your car removed without your permission, and at your cost.
Thus, because you have no right to put something on my property that I forbid, I can't be extorting you to forego that right.
"It's either a Free country, or it's not."
Indeed, that's the case. And the property owner isn't trying to infringe on the freedom of the vehicle owner. The property owner is merely asserting his own preference as to how he wishes to regulate his own property. He may make a rule that no one may park on his property. He may make a rule that one may park a domestically-made vehicle on his property, but not a foreign-made vehicle. He may make a rule that no one may park a red car on his property, or a car with more than a quarter tank of gas.
He may make a rule that one may park a vehicle that has no firearms, but not a vehicle that has firearms.
It's his property, either this is a free country or it isn't.
The individual who does not wish to abide by the property owner's rule does not have to. He merely needs to avoid parking on the property owner's property.
"The employee's property contained in the car is not a nuisance,..."
For purposes of determining what will and won't come on his land, it is the property owner who gets decide what is or isn't a nuisance. I would prefer that the state stay out of the property owner's decision to the degree possible.
"... nor is it reasonable to consider employees as criminal thugs."
I don't know why, if it's a free country, that the property owner is required to justify as reasonable his reasons for who and what he permits on his property, to his employees, to the courts, to the legislature, or to anyone else.
"This is FR and we discuss these things."
That's true, but I haven't offered any opinion on what I think should be, only what the law is. Others have stated that the law is as they think it should be. Only with that have I voiced disagreement.
Even you have advanced, seemingly as fact, a novel legal theory, which doesn't seem to have been actually ever successfully tried in court. If you want to say, "Gee, I think it would be a good idea if someone brought something based on Title 18, Section 241 or 242," that would be one thing.
But the way you presented it, it seemed as if you believed it was an objectively established fact. Yet, I have been unable to uncover a single use of it in this kind of case.
Furthermore, even though you assert it, it seems to beg the question of whether or not a right is actually violated in prohibiting firearms from company parking lots. Thus, in spite of your assertion, it doesn't seem that it even is a whole and complete, workable theory.
So, sure, we discuss things at FR. But the law is still the law, at least for now.
And as the law stands, unless a state legislature says otherwise, a company may forbid individuals from parking their cars on company property if those cars have firearms within them. Furthermore, because it is not a violation of rights to so forbid this, it is not then an extortion to coerce someone to forego his (non-existent) rights to have a gun on one's property by requiring submission to a search of one's car to ascertain that no firearm is present.
In order to prove extortion, I think you first have to prove that you have the right to bring a firearm onto my property even though I have forbidden it.
sitetest