Indiana Code 34-28-7-2

[JettaKnight]

Like others have said, you can show them the law all you want, but seeing it printed on law office letterhead has more effect.

You have to judge how serious your employer is about this. Some employers are quite rabid about rules and others have policies written down simple to be able to enforce them if other reasons necessitate it, or simply to limit liability.

 

[Libertarian01]

isn't Indiana an employment-at-will state? they don't need a reason to fire you.

To BroodXI,

This is a commonly heard error. I have often times heard Dave Ramsey talk about Tennessee being an "at will" State and he can fire any of his employees anytime he wants. I hope to God no decent employer takes that to heart.

The reason is simple: while a State may be "at will" this does not negate a host of Federal protections for employees.

To list just a few:

Equal Pay act of 1963

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (CRA)

CRA of 1991

Americans with Disabilities Act

Age Discrimination in Employment Act (passed 1967, ammended 1986)

National Labor Relations Act

This is NOT a complete list of employee protections. An example of an easy loss for an employer. Let us say you and I are working together and we find a machine or serious health hazard in the company. We go to the Boss to kindly let him know we believe this is a serious hazard for someone. Little do we know that he has heard this gripe before and he blows his stack with us. "You don't tell me how to run my business, you're fired!" says the Boss.

If we are ignorant of the laws (which most of us are) we won't even realize he has just directly violated the NLRA. The NLRA says that it is illegal to fire an employee for discussing a work safety issue.

While most folks think of the NLRA as a "Union Law" (which it is) it also has other provisions.

The simple and limited point I am trying emphasize is that just because Indiana or Tennessee doesn't have labor laws does not mean that there are no labor laws. Federal laws still apply - whether we like them or not. I am not advocating for or against, I am simply trying to better illuminate the terrain in which we operate.

Regards,

Doug

 

[Light]

To BroodXI,

This is a commonly heard error. I have often times heard Dave Ramsey talk about Tennessee being an "at will" State and he can fire any of his employees anytime he wants. I hope to God no decent employer takes that to heart.

The reason is simple: while a State may be "at will" this does not negate a host of Federal protections for employees.

To list just a few:

Equal Pay act of 1963

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (CRA)

CRA of 1991

Americans with Disabilities Act

Age Discrimination in Employment Act (passed 1967, ammended 1986)

National Labor Relations Act

This is NOT a complete list of employee protections. An example of an easy loss for an employer. Let us say you and I are working together and we find a machine or serious health hazard in the company. We go to the Boss to kindly let him know we believe this is a serious hazard for someone. Little do we know that he has heard this gripe before and he blows his stack with us. "You don't tell me how to run my business, you're fired!" says the Boss.

If we are ignorant of the laws (which most of us are) we won't even realize he has just directly violated the NLRA. The NLRA says that it is illegal to fire an employee for discussing a work safety issue.

While most folks think of the NLRA as a "Union Law" (which it is) it also has other provisions.

The simple and limited point I am trying emphasize is that just because Indiana or Tennessee doesn't have labor laws does not mean that there are no labor laws. Federal laws still apply - whether we like them or not. I am not advocating for or against, I am simply trying to better illuminate the terrain in which we operate.

Regards,

Doug

Indiana is an "at-will" state in that they can fire you for anything, and can do so without even giving you a reason, if they do give a reason and it conflicts with law then they have problems.

They don't like that you're black? They can fire you without giving a reason, and unless you have a case to prove it was the reason, then they have no problems.

If they fire him on the idea of, or that he does have a gun in his vehicle, then they violate Indiana law. If they fire him and don't list a reason, unless he can prove that it was the reason, then they will not get in legal issues for it.

It really just comes down to what the circumstances are, and what the stated reason for the firing is.

 

[Libertarian01]

To Light (et alia),

My responses:

"Indiana is an "at-will" state in that they can fire you for anything, and can do so without even giving you a reason, if they do give a reason and it conflicts with law then they have problems."

Under Indiana Law they can fire you for anything. This, again, does not change the fact that there are massive protections under Federal law which they can still be sued under and loose.

Also, under Indiana Law, if you write to your former employer demanding to know why you were fired they must give you an answer. This then nails them down to a path that they must be prepared to defend. (per Beckman/Lawson Legal seminar) This is much like the police getting a statement from you. Were you lying then or are you lying now?

"They don't like that you're black? They can fire you without giving a reason, and unless you have a case to prove it was the reason, then they have no problems."

Again, if you demand a reason in writing they must give one. I hope it stands up in court. Even IF they try to give a reasonable explanation the employee may be able to prove violation of Federal Law with disparate impact or disparate treatment.

"If they fire him on the idea of, or that he does have a gun in his vehicle, then they violate Indiana law. If they fire him and don't list a reason, unless he can prove that it was the reason, then they will not get in legal issues for it."

This is correct. However, they have now violated, potentially, Indiana Law. Depending on the circumstances he will demand a reason in writing with his lawyer. No matter what they say he may claim violation of Indiana law using "Temporal Proximity" as his foundation for a law violation.

"It really just comes down to what the circumstances are, and what the stated reason for the firing is."

While it is true that the circumstances will massively affect the case the reality is that what they say may not matter much. What the employee is able to reasonably prove in a court of law is what will matter most, notwithstanding any proof the employer may have on their side.

But if the employer is just being a jackass and wanting to prove "I can fire anyone anytime I want 'cause this is an at will State" then it will be far less likely that the employer will survive a solid legal attack.

The labor law lawyers are telling employers - whether you like it or not - the courts are going with the premise that employees cannot just be fired on whim. There must be a reasonable reason, the employee must be informed of what they are doing wrong and given the opportunity to correct their actions.

The bottom line is that the OP may have a case he can prove with temporal proximity for violation of IC 34-28-7-2 and even if he doesn't he may have a case under many Federal protections. This is why he needs to document everything in detail if he is concerned about future poor treatment by the employer. His documentation will become potential evidence in a court of law.

I believe a large part of the the problem is perception of what goes on versus what could happen. We have all seen people get fired for little or no reason and then presume that because nothing happened to the employer nothing can happen. This just isn't true at all. The reality is, as we have well seen on these boards, many people are just sheep and move along without fighting.

Employers fire employees every single day in ways that could easily get them sued and loose in a court of law. The only reasons they get away with it is either the employee doesn't know their protections OR the employee doesn't have the will or resources to fight. However, this does not alter the fact the IF the employee had the will and resources they could easily win once they stepped into a court of law.

This lack of employee education and/or stomach for fighting is what protects jerk employers far more than a states "at will" laws.

Regards,

Doug

 

[jwh20]

If you came to my home, I can ask you to leave your firearm outside and not violate your 2nd Amendment rights. My rights to what I want to happen on my property trump your rights. You, however, are free to NOT come to my house. See the point?

Of course, an employer is a little different because that is likely also your source of income and you may not easily be able to choose NOT to go to work. There may be case law covering this and you MAY be able to win in court. But that would be a great financial impact. It may cost you your job in the process. Is it worth it on principle? I say it's probably not, but you may think otherwise.

 

[Hoosierkav]

I assume the employer has a "no possession of alcohol" policy as well. I wonder if they'd object to you having your groceries, which include a six-pack of beer, in your trunk.

No objection?

I am glad the OP tried to resolve it successfully, even though he failed; perhaps with some time and education, the policy will be improved.

 

[Tsigos]

That is my point. If they have a problem with the contents of the vehicle that is my property (and presumably inaccessible so far as conducting work is concerned) they can arrange other transportation. I will be waiting at home for the company driver to arrive.

Or they can fire you and find someone else.

 

[Tsigos]

One thing to be aware of is that many employers only lease their premises. Some have common area parking with the public and other businesses. The law may not protect you if the owner of the parking lot has a no firearms policy.

But again, not sure how anyone would find out unless you leave things in plain sight or talk about it.

 

[Libertarian01]

To All,

I want to put out a thought to consider that is splitting hairs a bit but I believe will help clarify (or muddy) things a bit.

Businesses do not have rights.

To repeat, a business does not have rights.

Therefore a business cannot claim that its "rights" are being violated.

Rights are derived of biological needs. They are therefore natural rights or, if you prefer, divine rights endowed by the creator who formed the organism design.

A business on the other hand does not exist in nature nor was it created by God, therefore it has no rights.

Too often we think that when we start a business it is "our business" and we are the same when the reality can be far different. Once we form a corporation or partnership under the Law it is the Law that creates the business as defined in every country of people on this earth. What the Law gives the business is power and authority, along with other immunities. What the Law does not give the business are rights as the Law has no power to do so.

So this is NOT a conflict of rights - it never has been. It is a conflict of power and authority v/s rights.

Caveat: This line of thinking does not necessarily apply to sole proprietorships where an individual and the business are the same. However, it may if the individual takes legal steps to distinguish themselves from the business they own/operate.

Please note also that I am not saying a person who starts a business looses their personal rights - they do not. What I am saying is that "the business entity" that they own never had and never will have "rights." It will only have power and authority, just as our government.

Regards,

Doug

 

[Tsigos]

To All,

I want to put out a thought to consider that is splitting hairs a bit but I believe will help clarify (or muddy) things a bit.

Businesses do not have rights.

To repeat, a business does not have rights.

Therefore a business cannot claim that its "rights" are being violated.

Rights are derived of biological needs. They are therefore natural rights or, if you prefer, divine rights endowed by the creator who formed the organism design.

A business on the other hand does not exist in nature nor was it created by God, therefore it has no rights.

Too often we think that when we start a business it is "our business" and we are the same when the reality can be far different. Once we form a corporation or partnership under the Law it is the Law that creates the business as defined in every country of people on this earth. What the Law gives the business is power and authority, along with other immunities. What the Law does not give the business are rights as the Law has no power to do so.

So this is NOT a conflict of rights - it never has been. It is a conflict of power and authority v/s rights.

Caveat: This line of thinking does not necessarily apply to sole proprietorships where an individual and the business are the same. However, it may if the individual takes legal steps to distinguish themselves from the business they own/operate.

Please note also that I am not saying a person who starts a business looses their personal rights - they do not. What I am saying is that "the business entity" that they own never had and never will have "rights." It will only have power and authority, just as our government.

Regards,

Doug

I agree but maybe someone should explain this to the Supreme Court who proclaimed in Citizens United that corporations are considered "persons" under the law.

 

[PKendall317]

Has this law ever been challenged in court? And if so, what were the results and how did the judge rule on it?

 

[SmileDocHill]

isn't Indiana an employment-at-will state? they don't need a reason to fire you.

But if they want to prevent your unemployment from being a ding on their unemployment tax rate they need to prove justification.

Stupid law, it is their property, should be their rules.

This is a response I put in a similar thread where people were going back and forth in the confusion of property rights and your individual 2a rights.

I think, and I may be wrong, I may see where you are getting confused. I'm not a lawyer so my logic may be entirely wrong. Since I'm not a lawyer, though, I think I understand your question from a different perspective.
In overly general terms I think the principals behind the laws can be boiled down as follows...
The constitution and 2A recognize, spell out, and ID your rights but that is in the context of the relationship between citizens and the citizen government.
The government is not, however, the only authority a person may be under at any given time. As a guest, customer, employee, or otherwise non-owner entering or existing on privately owned property I should (and to a big extent legally have to) respect the wishes of the property owner (employer). If property owner rights didn't exist like this then mob rule, gov., or someone other than YOU are going to be able to tell you what you can or can't do or allow on your property.

The problem arises when a property owner makes a rule about how people should behave on the owners property (no problem so far) that results in having a huge affect on how the guests behave beyond the property.
If a rule has an affect that controls the behavior of others beyond the "jurisdiction" of the rule maker then there is an issue.

In the case of the parking lot law, owners were saying " it is my property here is my rule...no guns blah blah blah". The problem is that by abiding by that rule you were forced to be limited in your behavior not only at work but on the way to and from work. The parking lot law was made to solve the problem of employers making gun rules that affected employees behavior beyond the scope of a business or property owner.

It basically says look, even though the parking lot is your private property, if you prevent employees from having guns in their car you have caused them to be without elsewhere also. It is a little bit not right that we (the law) are telling you to allow this on your property but it would be more not right for you to control their actions beyond their employment, so here is how it is going to work..enter the law here.

They added the law that prevents employers from being able to even ask about guns to keep employers from gaming the system and firing people (for other official reasons of course) for having them. If you don't want them to know you have them it should be really hard for them to legally find out.

 

[stephen87]

If you're prepared to get fired...buck their rules. I work for an employer that took about a month to redo their code on firearms to comply with Indiana law but yet make it a PITA to actually have htem in your car. Unloaded, locked up in car in a metal box bolted to the car.

Can't do that either. They have ZERO say-so in how and where it's locked up in the vehicle. As long as it's out of sight, they can do nothing.


My employer says that they cannot be on property, where applicable laws allow. Those are their exact words, which saves their ass for having the policy.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Businesses do not have rights.

To repeat, a business does not have rights.

Therefore a business cannot claim that its "rights" are being violated.

Rights are derived of biological needs. They are therefore natural rights or, if you prefer, divine rights endowed by the creator who formed the organism design.

A business on the other hand does not exist in nature nor was it created by God, therefore it has no rights.

Too often we think that when we start a business it is "our business" and we are the same when the reality can be far different. Once we form a corporation or partnership under the Law it is the Law that creates the business as defined in every country of people on this earth. What the Law gives the business is power and authority, along with other immunities. What the Law does not give the business are rights as the Law has no power to do so.

So this is NOT a conflict of rights - it never has been. It is a conflict of power and authority v/s rights.

Caveat: This line of thinking does not necessarily apply to sole proprietorships where an individual and the business are the same. However, it may if the individual takes legal steps to distinguish themselves from the business they own/operate.

Please note also that I am not saying a person who starts a business looses their personal rights - they do not. What I am saying is that "the business entity" that they own never had and never will have "rights." It will only have power and authority, just as our government.

Regards,

Doug

Correct a business does not have rights, neither does my home and yard. But the owner of the business does, just like I have rights regarding my home and yard.

And why would a sole proprietorship make any difference? If I own my home by myself, or if I own it in conjunction with my wife we both have rights regarding it. We share those rights, same as partners in a business do, or shareholders in a corporation. What is the difference?

 

[Timjoebillybob]

T
Also, under Indiana Law, if you write to your former employer demanding to know why you were fired they must give you an answer. This then nails them down to a path that they must be prepared to defend. (per Beckman/Lawson Legal seminar) This is much like the police getting a statement from you. Were you lying then or are you lying now?

I'm going to ask for a cite on this. I have never heard that, nor have I seen it in IC or IAC. I haven't really looked but since your the one claiming it......

 

[ashby koss]

Personally I'd like to see a federal advancement on this topic. Since the 2nd amendment state "no infringement" that should apply to private business and every inch of America. No one, no government, no power should be able to infringe on my right to bear arms. Period. But as things stand, we must comply.

My favorite option is as stated before, keep firearm in car, and only push legal ramifications when trouble brews because of it. Just keep quite at work to keep your Company SS men from watching you.

 

[CathyInBlue]

ashby koss:
The Constitution protects us from the government, not from one another.

 

[ashby koss]

CathyInBlue:
It protects us against the government sure. But then it also protects our rights. Rights cannot be taken away or tramped on even by an individual. By your idealogy then the 2nd amendment does not protect our right to bear arms individually.

So the bigger question becomes is the constitution only on a government level or also on an individual level since every citizen is part of "the people".

So I re-read the heller case text. And I am in the wrong. So sorry, it would then seem that they have clearly stated " the Second Amendment “has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government,”.

Which on the flipside would in fact protect the property rights OVER the 2nd amendment right to bear arms.

 

[CathyInBlue]

CathyInBlue:
It protects us against the government sure. But then it also protects our rights. Rights cannot be taken away or tramped on even by an individual.

On individual scales, our rights are balanced against one another. My right to my private property trumps your right to bear arms when the two come into conflict. I have the power to ban you from my property while you are bearing arms, should I so choose. I cannot ban you from bearing arms off my property, because those rights do not conflict then.

By your idealogy then the 2nd amendment does not protect our right to bear arms individually.

It's not my ideology[sic], and the Constitution does protect our rights as individuals... from the government!

 

[ATM]

...My right to my private property trumps your right to bear arms when the two come into conflict.

Disagree. If so, you would be able to disarm me at will simply for being on your property. This is not the case. You could have me leave for any or no reason, but I would maintain all of my rights. It's not that I would lose my right to bear arms, only that you may decline my privilege to be present on your property which was never my right to begin with. If I choose to disarm to comply with the conditional use of your property, there was no trumping of rights, the one was simply waived

I have the power to ban you from my property while you are bearing arms, should I so choose. I cannot ban you from bearing arms off my property, because those rights do not conflict then.

You could ban me from your property or make attendance conditional on me waiving one or even several of my rights, but there can be no conflict unless I also had a right to be on your property (which I don't) and/or you also had a right to deprive me of my individual rights (which you don't).

That's just my general response to rights being trumped by rights when in reality they are seldom found to be actually conflicting in the given analogy.