Ugh...Superior Court Strikes Again

[WhiteFeather]

Ugh...Superior Court Strikes Again

PLEASE read the attached document court document.

Guy was terminated by employer for have a firearm locked in glove box of his own personal vehicle on Federal Express Parking Lot - commercial property, the courts agreed.

Hindsight is 20/20 Guessing now he should have been taking a few days off to go to HBG to lobby for the Parking Lot bills to correct his problem before court , instead of just quoting the Proposed bills in his defense (which was pretty stupid thing do IMO as this made the judges job easier to rule against)

Note in one of the reason for ruling against the terminated FedEx security specialist employee we see a mention of the now infamous PAFOA key board commando case of Hobson McKown using his foolish court action (as predicted) creating bad case law to help strike down someone else case.

Nice going McKown
refresher read here on McClown actions, that screwed many over by officially removing the grey area in Law.

Pa. Supreme Court given history-making opportunity to approve Constitutional Carry
http://forum.pafoa.org/2646603-post-32.html


Here is last session efforts to pass a law for legal protect for termination like the FedEx security specialist mentioned in his case.
From the 2013-2014 session

House Bill 2243 - Employers can't block workders from keeping guns in their cars
http://forum.pafoa.org/pennsylvania-...heir-cars.html

Effort From the 2011-2012 session

HB 935 - Same as HB 886 including Sponsor?
http://forum.pafoa.org/pennsylvania-...es-page-3.html
http://forum.pafoa.org/pennsylvania-...g-sponsor.html

Effort From the 2009-2010 session

Carry at work -- a prototype law for PA?

http://forum.pafoa.org/pennsylvania-...pe-law-pa.html

plus several more sessions prior, we have been working on this added legal layer of protection for gun owners along with added legal protection from lawsuits for that of the owner of the commercial property that would have prevented these FedEx security specialist from being terminated for daring to be concerned about his personal security once he left the companies parking lot.



FYI: As of April 19, 2015 we have no such Parking Lot bill officially introduced for the 2015-2016 legislative session in either PA chamber (House or Senate) to provide legal protection in the UFA for keeping a firearm locked in your own personal vehicle while on commercial property.

PLEASE read the attached document court document and see what is missing or written in the UFA can effect you personally, as PA is not really a firearm friendly state.

[GunLawyer001]

The Superior Court was unfortunately correct, there's no basis in the law for the fired employee's claim.

This wasn't a case of a zany citizen ignoring a path to victory and pulling a loss from a winnable situation, after the lower courts misbehaved.

This was a case where no foundation had been laid for his claims. Much like the Hollis case against ATF, which the Heller case set up to lose. We can't win "because gun rights & stuff"; we win where we ask the court to make one small step in the right direction, and then in the next case we make the next step. Small wins, not so flashy, but "wins", not losses that further erode our future ability to win. Big losses now sabotage the future small victories.

The "at least we tried" crowd is actively helping the enemy.

Or, as you suggest, we can win by getting the laws passed that give us a cause of action. In this case, while I oppose all legislation that gives one person a right to use another person's property against his will, and I favor letting the market decide whether employers are free to disarm employees, or skip lunch, or pay $1 per hour...I'm in favor of allowing licensed citizens to keep their legal guns in their own cars, while traveling for work, or while parked on company property. That kind of law strikes the right balance between the competing rights of employers and employees.

(I'm also in favor of legislatively creating strict liability for ANYONE who intentionally disarms others, but fails to protect them. If your employer creates a victim disarmament zone and you're shot at your desk or on a sales call, there should be strict liability against your employer.

We need this to give the bean-counters pause; right now, your employer faces more legal tort liability if an employee shoots someone than if a stranger kills an employee. The cold, smart employer would rather have a dozen of you employees killed than have an employee kill a suspected intruder. It's why most of the pizza places and cab companies forbid their employees from carrying guns, or other weapons.)

[ungawa]

Mr. Stewart identified the policy in his Complaint. There is
no dispute that he was terminated because of the firearm in his
car on April 5, 2013. Following his termination, Mr. Stewart
initiated this lawsuit against FedEx alleging wrongful discharge.
Mr. Stewart claims that his termination violates public policy.

I have a question. Why did the court take this case?

Let's say I have a policy that says "no green shoes on Wednesdays." I fire you for wearing green shoes on a Wednesday. You prove beyond a shadow of a doubt you were wearing brown shoes that you were wearing brown shoes that Wednesday.

I say, "tough shit, you're still fired."

I don't need a reason to fire anyone.

I just did a search on the document for "Contract" and I noticed this was covered on pages 4-6. This guy was an idiot for taking this case to court.

[GunLawyer001]

I have a question. Why did the court take this case?

Let's say I have a policy that says "no green shoes on Wednesdays." I fire you for wearing green shoes on a Wednesday. You prove beyond a shadow of a doubt you were wearing brown shoes that you were wearing brown shoes that Wednesday.

I say, "tough shit, you're still fired."

I don't need a reason to fire anyone.

I just did a search on the document for "Contract" and I noticed this was covered on pages 4-6. This guy was an idiot for taking this case to court.

The (failed) argument was that it is against public policy for the employer to have such a rule (and there may have been questions as to whether the policy applied in his private car.)

Your employer can have a clearly-written rule against dating outside your own race, but the courts won't enforce it. Same for a "no gimps" policy. There are limits on the enforceability of contracts.

There just wasn't enough foundation laid in prior cases for this argument to succeed, even with a state constitution that explicitly prohibits the state "questioning" of the right.

[abner13]

How did the company know he had a gun in his car unless he was flapping his gums?

If it was locked in the glove box , why didn't he say "I don't have the key!"

My company has the same 'no firearms or weapons on company property' policy and in the 10yrs I've worked there , nobody has had their car searched for any reason. Not even guys with NRA or other pro-gun stickers and plates.

[knight0334]

How did the company know he had a gun in his car unless he was flapping his gums?

If it was locked in the glove box , why didn't he say "I don't have the key!"

My company has the same 'no firearms or weapons on company property' policy and in the 10yrs I've worked there , nobody has had their car searched for any reason. Not even guys with NRA or other pro-gun stickers and plates.

Some companies are bigger assholes than others. Sometimes your local management will determine how it is handled too.

-------

About the ruling. Even though we don't like it, it was proper. But the worst thing is, now it is in fact settled case law that you can be fired for violating a gun policy that your employer has in place. ...something that was a little more debatable before.

Now, are there any other jackasses want to bring a half-assed case before the PA Superior Court to fuck us over a little bit more?

People need to stop with these cases that have no chance on winning, but have a major risk to limit our rights. The PA Superior Court in the past 2 years has shown to not want to rule in our favor. If your lawyer's lastname isn't Gura - do not bring an appeal to a high court in Pennsylvania.

[ungawa]

About the ruling. Even though we don't like it, it was proper. But the worst thing is, now it is in fact settled case law that you can be fired for violating a gun policy that your employer has in place. ...something that was a little more debatable before.

It wasn't a little more debatable before, or even slightly debatable. You can be fired for anything or for nothing, policy or not, unless it's over race etc. or your refusal to commit a crime or endanger employees/public.

This changes nothing.

And, for the record, I DO agree with this.

[Mush]

Which begs the question:

"Can an employer search your private vehicle on company property or fire you when you refuse them a free search?"

[ungawa]

Which begs the question:

"Can an employer search your private vehicle on company property or fire you when you refuse them a free search?"

Search? No. Fire you for refusing a search? Sure. Why not.

[knight0334]

It wasn't a little more debatable before, or even slightly debatable. You can be fired for anything or for nothing, policy or not, unless it's over race etc. or your refusal to commit a crime or endanger employees/public.

This changes nothing.

And, for the record, I DO agree with this.

The thing is though, there was no case law backing it up for this particular type of situation - but now there is and the ONLY way to fix it is by legislation. That in of itself was a little room for debate before a high court.

I do agree with the ruling even though it works against us, because it truly breaks down to property rights. A person's(individual, corp, etc) property is their manor, and they are lord of their manor.