Attorney Noel Flasterstein, left, is representing Ivette Ros in a suit
Posted on 02/22/2014 10:51:12 PM PST by Daffynition
TAMPA — Ivette Ros grew up in a house where her father kept guns. For her, it was a natural step to get a concealed weapons permit and then to carry a 9 mm handgun.
The 37-year-old Tampa resident is a single mother of three children and said she carries the gun for safety.
“It’s just something about having it versus not having it,” she said. “I feel naked when I don’t have my gun.”
Her employer didn’t feel the same way. Carrying the gun got her fired, she said.
(Excerpt) Read more at tbo.com ...
Attorney Noel Flasterstein, left, is representing Ivette Ros in a suit
Cute picture, but they still don’t have a legal leg to stand on. Companies set their own HR policies and can fire employees who violate them.
Before allowing more lawyers more excuses to sue the remaining productive sectors in America, perhaps we should consider the following fact: If you don’t like the job and its rules, do not take the job.
Despite the best efforts of commies, Libturd lawyers, and commie Mass Media, THERE IS NO “RIGHT” TO A JOB ! ! ! !
In a free society, a willing employer and a willing employee agree on work performed for money and/or benefits, whatever.
If Pizza-Pricks-R-Us won’t let you drive & deliver armed, don’t work for the Pricks.
As for the hypothetical case of a Pizza-Pricks-R-Us employee ‘going postal’ on a customer over the tip, IMHO only if that ‘gone postal’ employee had displayed behavior such that a “reasoned and prudent person” would have concluded there was a risk of “Gone Postal Syndrome” would the employer be liable.
Evil exists, and allowing lawyers to destroy America will not stop evil people acting out their inner demon and doing evil things.
I not that if the hypothetical customer of Pizza-Pricks-R-Us had chosen to be armed, the armed employee would not have been able to commit evil on a helpless victim.
A Pox On Shysters!
Wrap thyself in the Second Amendment and gun totin’ evil persons can be dealt with.
No lawyer needed, either.
May I note in closing that the above suggestion also makes more lawyers get an honest and productive job.
All of you that are saying “private property wins” don’t know Florida law. This is from Florida Statutes 790.251 (4)(c):
No public or private employer shall condition employment upon either:
1. The fact that an employee or prospective employee holds or does not hold a license issued pursuant to s. 790.06; or
2. Any agreement by an employee or a prospective employee that prohibits an employee from keeping a legal firearm locked inside or locked to a private motor vehicle in a parking lot when such firearm is kept for lawful purposes.
(d) No public or private employer shall prohibit or attempt to prevent any customer, employee, or invitee from entering the parking lot of the employer’s place of business because the customer’s, employee’s, or invitee’s private motor vehicle contains a legal firearm being carried for lawful purposes, that is out of sight within the customer’s, employee’s, or invitee’s private motor vehicle.
(e) No public or private employer may terminate the employment of or otherwise discriminate against an employee, or expel a customer or invitee for exercising his or her constitutional right to keep and bear arms or for exercising the right of self-defense as long as a firearm is never exhibited on company property for any reason other than lawful defensive purposes.
See my post #24. The one thing in question is whether she actually displayed the weapon at work, but she cannot be prohibited from carrying a legally permitted concealed weapon if she carries it in the lawful manner.
Wrong. See my post 24.
I am a huge 2A guy (the moniker might be a clue!), but I am really quite amazed if this is FL law.
You mean that a private company has no right to demand employees not carry, so long as they do so without displaying the firearm, and that is state law? Really?
That is rather draconian, don’t you think?
I mean, I thought the right to do what you will with your own property was the REASON for 2A?????
Please comment and enlighten me.
Agree.
I think she saw a chance to get her 15 minutes of fame and jumped on it.
Amen. That's what I've been saying for years.
When their insurance costs go up for being anti-gun. They'll stop being anti-gun. Right now feel-goodism is free for them. It shouldn't be.
Thanks for looking that up. Sounds like a slam dunk to me.
Until laws concerning liability and the property owner's duty to protect is changed, I'm all for it.
Wow. Florida is a very civilized state. NC needs to follow suit.
I realize, these are not the same circumstances:
A couple of years ago, Jim Goldberg was arrested when an employee *saw* his holstered gun when his shirt flapped open, when Goldberg was picking up some take-out at a restaurant. The employee called the cops....who turned up in force and arrested Goldberg. Turns out the cops stupidly *misinterpreted* the CT law which allows for open-carry. This ended up as a test-case for legal carry.
In another instance, a guy saw a customer's legal gun and thought the bank was being robbed. It set into motion a lot of unnecessary panic.
http://articles.courant.com/2013-09-17/community/hc-glastonbury-bank-non-robbery-0917-20130917_1_your-town-news-bank-staff-cavan-lane
We have to know what our individual state laws are, and educate the scare-d-cats to mind their own business.
Ahh, but then they didn’t not know it any more!
“One’s right does not trumps another’s property rights”
Your person is the highest form of private property.
Our founding fathers wrote it best that our rights are God given, so why do you feel a man can take them away? A person and their rights are not separable.
If someone cannot tolerate another person’s rights then have no business asking others to come onto their property.
She's got the Jolie-collagen lips right.
I don’t think it’s draconian. I think it’s a protective measure to prevent concealed carry permit holders from having to jump through hoops to determine when they can and cannot carry. It’s to prevent situations like what we have here with this lady who was fired for carrying on the job. The only recourse that the bank has is if she was not carrying legally. There is some indication in the article that she may not have been, because it says that someone “noticed that she had a gun” and reported her for it. If her gun was ghosting to the point where people could see it through her clothes, or if she actually brandished it inside the bank or showed it off to someone, then she wasn’t complying with the law and the employer can act. However, it’s just as likely that an employee who knows that she carries concealed and has a grudge against her reported her just to get her in trouble, without actually seeing anything. I don’t think the bank has much of a case here in their own defense.
You’re both wrong. See my post #24.
Good for her! You never know unless you ask if you can arrive at an equitable solution.
Thank you.
An excellent post!
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.
