Indiana Man Files lawsuit After Fired for Having AR15

[Indyvet]

Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't he an Ingo member at one time? I remember a thread about the negligent discharge of an ar15 while showing a coworker.
Indiana Man Filing Lawsuit after being Fired for Having an AR-15 (VIDEO) - Guns.com

 

[223 Gunner]

Yes, Saints N Sinners was his user name. I think he had been banned before as Army MP, then came back as SNS and has since been banned.

 

[T.Lex]

Wow. Its a small world. I know Guy and I know Mike Speedy.

The Matrix is a closed loop.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Tagging for updates.

 

[LEaSH]

I wonder how it all ended up.

That was way back in 2012, so I assume there was a settlement and it was stipulated to keep quiet.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Tagging for updates.

The article is about 2.5 years old, so I'd think its likely settled by now one way or the other. I think there was even a thread on it.

 

[Indyvet]

I missed the date part. I just came across it and assumed this was something new as I didn't remember hearing anything about it.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Here's the thread he posted at the time: https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...-fired-violation-senate-bill-411-passing.html

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

The article is about 2.5 years old, so I'd think its likely settled by now one way or the other. I think there was even a thread on it.

Oops. I thought that seemed like that should have been old news...guess that's why I'm not a detective.

 

[Indyvet]

I went through part of the older thread and can't see that there was an outcome. Anyone know if it was settled? Maybe S&S can come on with a new user name and update and get banned again. LOL

 

[223 Gunner]

I went through part of the older thread and can't see that there was an outcome. Anyone know if it was settled? Maybe S&S can come on with a new user name and update and get banned again. LOL

I suspect he is back and just behaving this time around. Only him or a Mod knows for sure.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Through the wonder of mycase:

https://mycase.in.gov/CaseDetail.aspx?CaseID=18024833

Looks to me like he lost:

11/25/2013			Converted Event"Order on Summary Judgment" issd. (granted in favor of defendants) (kl) (DISPOSED: BT ) (RJO? Y) | JTS Minute Entry Date: 2013-11-25

If I'm reading it right, it looks like he lost hard enough to have to pay the company nearly $300 in their costs:

03/25/2014			Converted Event"Order Granting Defendant's REquest for Costs" issd. ($291.52) (kl) (DISPOSED: REDBD) (RJO? Y) | JTS Minute Entry Date: 2014-03-25

I'm certainly no expert at civil law, hopefully one of our resident lawyers can confirm.

 

[T.Lex]

Yeah, that's not good.

No praecipe for appeal, either, so it looks like it is done.

 

[oldpink]

It should have been immaterial to the case, but it's a dead certainty that he would never have had this problem at all if he hadn't caused a negligent discharge, even though it was off company property, aggravated by the fact that the law was called in to investigate, never a good thing if you want to keep a low profile.
He pretty much painted a target on his own back, literally.

 

[223 Gunner]

It should have been immaterial to the case, but it's a dead certainty that he would never have had this problem at all if he hadn't caused a negligent discharge, even though it was off company property, aggravated by the fact that the law was called in to investigate, never a good thing if you want to keep a low profile.
He pretty much painted a target on his own back, literally.

That is what I was thinking as well. It certainly didn't help anything.

 

[Indyvet]

That's interesting that they did not win this as they made it sound like it was a slam dunk. Then to get to pay your former employers costs. Ouch.

 

[T.Lex]

I suspect it came back to Indiana's hire-at-will-fire-at-will framework. The argument would be that the employer did not have to give any reason, so even if they gave a bad one, it didn't matter.

Or, more likely, dude's story that he was fired for having he AR was... embellished. If the employer fired him without explanation, or for some other valid reason, then game over.

 

[MtnBiker6510]

Very interesting. Too bad for him.

 

[oldpink]

It's also worth commenting that he was banned from here, so it's likely that he had other issues that contributed to this.

 

[223 Gunner]

I suspect it came back to Indiana's hire-at-will-fire-at-will framework. The argument would be that the employer did not have to give any reason, so even if they gave a bad one, it didn't matter.

Or, more likely, dude's story that he was fired for having he AR was... embellished. If the employer fired him without explanation, or for some other valid reason, then game over.

This could be likely. He may have been fired for other reasons, and was trying "to get back" at his employer.