21 year employee fired for admiting to owning a gun...

[kevinsr98]

Unbelievable, I hope he wins a truckoad of $$$$.

Employee Asked If He Owns a Gun, Gets Fired For Saying Yes | The Federalist Papers#!

 

[OakRiver]

"The supervisor, Doug Weiss, on July 2 asked Ferlaino if it was true he carried a gun, the lawsuit says. Ferlaino claims he replied he owned a gun but did not carry it on him at work."

Well this could get all sorts of interesting

 

[dusty88]

Unbelievable, I hope he wins a truckoad of $$$$.

Employee Asked If He Owns a Gun, Gets Fired For Saying Yes | The Federalist Papers#!

I disagree. I realize the law favors the gun owner and I favor gun ownership. But it's the employer's right to employ who they wish (or it should be). If you don't want to work for a butthead, don't work for them. Take yourself and your gun rights somewhere else. In a situation where the employer has the same rights as the employee, I should not have to hire (or continue to hire) anyone for any reason. If they annoy me by statements they make, that should be a legal reason to release them. Otherwise you force the employer to provide pay to someone they do not wish to pay.

 

[OakRiver]

I disagree. I realize the law favors the gun owner and I favor gun ownership. But it's the employer's right to employ who they wish (or it should be). If you don't want to work for a butthead, don't work for them. Take yourself and your gun rights somewhere else. In a situation where the employer has the same rights as the employee, I should not have to hire (or continue to hire) anyone for any reason. If they annoy me by statements they make, that should be a legal reason to release them. Otherwise you force the employer to provide pay to someone they do not wish to pay.

From the article;
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]"[/FONT]The association violated Indiana’s “take your gun to work law,” which was amended in 2011, because it required Ferlaino to divulge information about owing a gun and fired him because he’s a gun owner, Ferlaino’s attorney, Marissa McDermott, said in an email."
Looks like there was no legal justification for the firing. Had the employer let him go without a reason he would not have such a strong case.

 

[dusty88]

From the article;
"The association violated Indiana’s “take your gun to work law,” which was amended in 2011, because it required Ferlaino to divulge information about owing a gun and fired him because he’s a gun owner, Ferlaino’s attorney, Marissa McDermott, said in an email."
Looks like there was no legal justification for the firing. Had the employer let him go without a reason he would not have such a strong case.

Just because it's legal doesn't make it right.

Granted, it would be an idiot boss that asked you a lot about your personal opinions and used that for hiring/firing choices. But there are a lot of idiot bosses, and they have a rotating door of employees.

Putting mandates on employers makes it tougher for other people to become employers.

 

[hoosierdoc]

Weiss told Ferlaino that Weiss had met with the property owners association’s board of directors July 1 and that Ferlaino’s conversation with his co-workers violated the company’s “no tolerance policy,” the lawsuit says. Ferlaino says he was fired July 2.

he worked there 21 years and was fired the day after his boss went to BOD and mentioned his gun ownership. Slam dunk case. They will settle for $$$

 

[OakRiver]

Just because it's legal doesn't make it right.

Granted, it would be an idiot boss that asked you a lot about your personal opinions and used that for hiring/firing choices. But there are a lot of idiot bosses, and they have a rotating door of employees.

Putting mandates on employers makes it tougher for other people to become employers.

It isn't a mandate on an employer. It is protection for someone exercising his rights in a responsible manner. No right thinking person would agree that a person be fired for voting, or practicing their religion, so why should someone be fired for simply owning a gun? The employee did not take it onto his employer's property. The fact that the employee owned a firearm was a completely irrelevant concern to the employer

 

[KLB]

Old news
https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...-discussion/361830-test-case-indiana-law.html

 

[hoosierdoc]

Old news
https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...-discussion/361830-test-case-indiana-law.html

What??? It happened TWICE this summer at that place? Where's my pitchfork

 

[AndersonIN]

tagged

 

[ArcadiaGP]

I've been let go from a couple of contract jobs shortly after they found out I had a firearm. Just called me up and said I was no longer needed.

 

[dusty88]

It isn't a mandate on an employer. It is protection for someone exercising his rights in a responsible manner. No right thinking person would agree that a person be fired for voting, or practicing their religion, so why should someone be fired for simply owning a gun? The employee did not take it onto his employer's property. The fact that the employee owned a firearm was a completely irrelevant concern to the employer

I agree in the moral and business sense that it is not the employer's business.

That doesn't change the fact that you create unequal rights for employer's with laws like this. You are controlling what they can ask and you are MANDATING that they not consider certain information in their choice of hiring or continuing to pay someone. You also create an indirect mandate with a law like this because once the accusation is made the employer now has to defend himself. If there is no such law, there can be no accusation of the "cause" of firing. The employer shouldn't have to give a reason why they choose not to hire you any further.

If you find your boss annoying, or you just don't like what he does with his earnings (maybe you find out he donates profits to MDA or Bloomberg or something) you can quit. No one can take you to court to accuse you of quitting for reasons that violated your boss's religion or rights. The converse is not true. Hence it is tougher to be an employer than it should be and employers have their rights taken away.

 

[OakRiver]

I agree in the moral and business sense that it is not the employer's business.

That doesn't change the fact that you create unequal rights for employer's with laws like this. You are controlling what they can ask and you are MANDATING that they not consider certain information in their choice of hiring or continuing to pay someone. You also create an indirect mandate with a law like this because once the accusation is made the employer now has to defend himself. If there is no such law, there can be no accusation of the "cause" of firing. The employer shouldn't have to give a reason why they choose not to hire you any further.

The employer did not have to give a reason. Indiana is an 'at will' State. The issue is that they did, and gave the former employee cause to sue. The employer had to legal right to ask about gun ownership. Yet they did

If you find your boss annoying, or you just don't like what he does with his earnings (maybe you find out he donates profits to MDA or Bloomberg or something) you can quit. No one can take you to court to accuse you of quitting for reasons that violated your boss's religion or rights. The converse is not true. Hence it is tougher to be an employer than it should be and employers have their rights taken away.

Quitting is a decision made by an employee to voluntarily sever the relationship with the employer. Being fired is not voluntary and must be done in a lawfully proscribed manner.

 

[dusty88]

Quitting is a decision made by an employee to voluntarily sever the relationship with the employer. Being fired is not voluntary and must be done in a lawfully proscribed manner.

Exactly. That's why it's not an equal relationship. The employee can end the agreement with no legal expectations. The employer has to be justified. We can call it an "at will" state but it really isn't fully "at will" if the employee can sue you for severing the relationship,


Again, that's one barrier that prevents some people from becoming or continuing to be employers. The relationship legally favors the employee.

 

[BigMatt]

Exactly. That's why it's not an equal relationship. The employee can end the agreement with no legal expectations. The employer has to be justified. We can call it an "at will" state but it really isn't fully "at will" if the employee can sue you for severing the relationship,


Again, that's one barrier that prevents some people from becoming or continuing to be employers. The relationship legally favors the employee.

This is not correct. I can fire anyone for anything or nothing. I don't have to be justified.

If the employee files unemployment, and I didn't have a good enough reason, they will get the unemployment benefits.

"At will" means just that - on both sides. Either party can dissolve the relationship for any reason or no reason.

I don't like that the employer in this case fired the guy for owning a gun, and I won't do business at a place that I know has that policy, but I support their right to fire him under Indiana law.

Finally, they didn't give that as a reason for him to be fired. He could have been an asshat for two days straight and we wouldn't know it because it was left out of the complaint.

They will settle because it will be cheaper than going through the legal process.

 

[hoosierdoc]

you cannot fire someone for being gay, Jewish, disabled, etc...

"at will" does not give employer ability to fire because the person is a "protected class". I agree with you in principle, with the addition of the legal restrictions on why you can't fire someone.

this employer is hosed. Cut and dried.

 

[LANShark42]

What happened to Indiana being an “at will” employment state?

Edit: Oops. Just read the previous 2 posts. My bad...

 

[HoughMade]

you cannot fire someone for being gay,

Yes you can, here.

Jewish,

True

disabled,

Mainly correct, but it can get complicated.

etc...

Depends.

"at will" does not give employer ability to fire because the person is a "protected class".

Because Indiana does not have a broader "civil rights" law that includes more classes than the feds, "protected classes" with the most protection are: are race, religion, national origin, national origin.

Somewhat less protection and in only specific areans: age, sex, pregnancy, citizenship, having children, disability, veteran, genetic information.

That is all- we don't make up new "protected classes". They are created by law.

I agree with you in principle, with the addition of the legal restrictions on why you can't fire someone. this employer is hosed. Cut and dried.

Not necessarily. If it were not for the Indiana statute, this would be a slam dunk case IN FAVOR OF THE EMPLOYER.

 

[OakRiver]

Exactly. That's why it's not an equal relationship. The employee can end the agreement with no legal expectations. The employer has to be justified. We can call it an "at will" state but it really isn't fully "at will" if the employee can sue you for severing the relationship,

As others have previously pointed out that is incorrect. You may not like it, but that does not change the outcome.

Again, that's one barrier that prevents some people from becoming or continuing to be employers. The relationship legally favors the employee.

Really? This says otherwise;
https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/FAQ_Sept_2012.pdf
Censtats Database
Statistics about Business Size (including Small Business) from the U.S. Census Bureau
Statistics of U.S. Businesses Main-Tabulations by Geography, Industry, and Enterprise Employment Size-Business & Industry-US Census Bureau
"Small businesses have generated over 65% of the net new jobs since 1995"

 

[dusty88]

As others have previously pointed out that is incorrect. You may not like it, but that does not change the outcome.

I didn't say I could change the outcome. My original disagreement was perhaps unclear: my disagreement is with the "hope that he wins a truckload of $$$"

Really? This says otherwise;

"Small businesses have generated over 65% of the net new jobs since 1995"

Are you trying to use that as a statistic to claim the employer has equal rights in the employer/employee relationship? Or that the burden placed on the employer is not a barrier to being an employer?