The author makes good points, but should add two more: “Were employees *told*, prior to this, that it was forbidden for them to take guns on company business?”
That is, unless it is a standing, written policy of the company, she has additional grounds to sue, as she could call it a “fickle policy”, invented on the spur of the moment, solely to fire her.
Second, allegedly the “zero tolerance policy on any action that could endanger employees or customers”, specifies an *action*.
Possession of a gun is not an “action”. A gun, by itself, presents no endangerment *at all* to an employee or customer, unless somebody *does* something with it.
Therefore she was not in violation of their zero tolerance policy.
One place the company provided lockers for employees to lock/store their weapons while on shift (it was a controlled access area) and places were weapons were forbidden.
Place #1 was pretty sketchy after dark, we would walk women out to their cars and I carried a .38 snubby in my pocket if I had an after hours call-out.
I left my carry piece in the car at place #2, parked in front of the window by my desk. You have to decide, it seems, what you are willing t accept in terms of limits on the worksite. Some place have such restrictions it is just not worth working there. As always, YMMV.
That ridiculous policy should be used against them. Oscar the janitor set up a ladder in a hallway and left it unattended for a few minutes. Fire him. Betsy the file clerk left a file drawer open in an aisle and left it to anwer the phone. Fire her. The VP parked his car outside an emergency exit. Adios, Mr. VP.
Get someone to go in undercover and document as many incidents like that as possible, targeting the highest ranking employees, and bring it to court demanding they all be terminated immediately or rehire Ms. Lunsford immediately with compensation for lost wages and, of course, pain and suffering.