Indiana Man Files lawsuit After Fired for Having AR15

[223 Gunner]

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

Yes, he loved to stir the pot and be the center of "drama"

 

[churchmouse]

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

If memory serves he lost that suit.

 

[HoughMade]

Summary judgment granted in favor of the defendant (employer) on 11/25/13. This means that there were no dispositive facts in dispute and the employer won by a straight application of the facts to the law.

I see no evidence that the case was appealed.

 

[churchmouse]

Summary judgment granted in favor of the defendant (employer) on 11/25/13. This means that there were no dispositive facts in dispute and the employer won by a straight application of the facts to the law.

I see no evidence that the case was appealed.

Huh.....memory served.

 

[Beowulf]

Weird. There must have been more to the story than he presented, since he indicated he had documented proof that he was terminated specifically because he had an AR-15 in his truck, which would seem to be the exact case the law was made to prevent.

 

[HoughMade]

...There must have been more to the story than he presented....

Don't know anything about this case but it's exceedingly rare for a litigant to volunteer information that may not make them look 100% in the right, at least in their own eyes.

 

[bwframe]

Too often, for whatever reason, we see INGOers try to gain the sentiments of their "peers" here by spilling way too much info or leaving out important facts. They often won't listen to multiple known good contributors giving known good advice. It's a fairly regular occurrence and sadly it's a bit entertaining to watch.

I thought this was an old rehash, but BBI's post with the court results is new info to me anyway. Hate to see Mr Relford have a loss though.

 

[HoughMade]

Too often, for whatever reason, we see INGOers try to gain the sentiments of their "peers" here by spilling way too much info or leaving out important facts. They often won't listen to multiple known good contributors giving known good advice. It's a fairly regular occurrence and sadly it's a bit entertaining to watch.

I thought this was an old rehash, but BBI's post with the court results is new info to me anyway. Hate to see Mr Relford have a loss though.

Really good lawyers will always have some losses because they are willing to take on harder cases.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Weird. There must have been more to the story than he presented, since he indicated he had documented proof that he was terminated specifically because he had an AR-15 in his truck, which would seem to be the exact case the law was made to prevent.

Obviously I know nothing about this case. However if I tell you I fired you for having an AR in the truck, but I can also document other reasons for your termination and can show I would have terminated you for one of those other things anyway, seems like it'd be an uphill battle to show that the AR in the trunk was the ONLY reason you got fired and thus the law was in violation. You may be right (or you may not be) but its a pretty dumb manager who can't find some reason to fire someone they want to let go. Non-union gig, you take what they give you.

 

[Indyvet]

What I get from the end result of this case, is that it ended up being more about the employer's right to fire someone for any reason as long as it's not race, gender, or creed related. The ar15 in the trunk and the negligent discharge may have been the basis for the firing but it did not matter since the employer didn't need a reason to fire.

 

[HoughMade]

Under the law "I could have fired him for a hundred reasons" won't win the case. The question really is: "what did you fire him for." If I ran armed security guards and an employee that had a negligent discharge (or allowed unsafe handling by someone else resulting ins an ND), on duty or not, on property or not, I'd take a look at whether discipline was needed.....again, I know nothing about this case in particular.

 

[Indyvet]

I'm sure there is more to the story. If I owned this company and an employee had a negligent discharge, I would look at how good of an employee he was and if he was a good one, send him to training, write him up and move on. If he is a problem child then thank him for giving you the reason to fire him. If he had been one of the top security guards in that outfit, I am sure they would of worked with him to ensure it didn't happen again and he would still have a job there.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Under the law "I could have fired him for a hundred reasons" won't win the case. The question really is: "what did you fire him for." If I ran armed security guards and an employee that had a negligent discharge (or allowed unsafe handling by someone else resulting ins an ND), on duty or not, on property or not, I'd take a look at whether discipline was needed.....again, I know nothing about this case in particular.

With the understanding this is totally hypothetical.

I have Employee X. I want to fire him. I document multiple times he's late, he's insubordinate, and that he stole the office goldfish. In his file I list this. Reasons for termination: He was late a lot, kinda of mean, and stole our mascot. I tell you "you're fired because you stole the mascot." State law says stealing goldfish is a protected activity. Does the fact I have previously documented the multiple reasons I fired him, even if I did not divulge all of this information to the person fired, not matter?

 

[HoughMade]

With the understanding this is totally hypothetical.

I have Employee X. I want to fire him. I document multiple times he's late, he's insubordinate, and that he stole the office goldfish. In his file I list this. Reasons for termination: He was late a lot, kinda of mean, and stole our mascot. I tell you "you're fired because you stole the mascot." State law says stealing goldfish is a protected activity. Does the fact I have previously documented the multiple reasons I fired him, even if I did not divulge all of this information to the person fired, not matter?

If you fire a person for a reason that is unlawful, you can be held liable for damages resulting from the firing no matter how justified his firing on other grounds may be. The question then becomes what the damages are. If he was going to be fired soon anyway, then maybe not much....which begs the question of why he was still working there.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

If you fire a person for a reason that is unlawful, you can be held liable for damages resulting from the firing no matter how justified his firing on other grounds may be. The question then becomes what the damages are. If he was going to be fired soon anyway, then maybe not much....which begs the question of why he was still working there.

Huh. Seems like an odd fact pattern then if he lost the case so bad he had to pay the employer's legal costs and actually was told he was fired for the AR in the trunk.

 

[bwframe]

Really good lawyers will always have some losses because they are willing to take on harder cases.

Understood, but hopefully he wasn't blindsided by the absence of relevant info like a lot of INGOers were in that original thread? IIRC the former employer was first to bring up the ND in a news article or interview?

 

[Bill of Rights]

Just a note: The parking lot law protects a person who has a firearm in their locked vehicle. If he had it out such that it could be discharged, it doesn't sound like it was out of sight in a locked vehicle.

I do not know that this fact is relevant, I only know that that is the phrasing and intent of the law as passed and signed.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[HoughMade]

Huh. Seems like an odd fact pattern then if he lost the case so bad he had to pay the employer's legal costs and actually was told he was fired for the AR in the trunk.

Costs are different than fees (copies, etc.). It's not unusual to be taxes costs. It's unusual to be taxed fees.

In all civil actions, the party recovering judgment shall recover costs, except in those cases in which a different provision is made by law.

Ind. Code § 34-52-1-1

...and once again, I know nothing about the facts, but we know nothing about what the evidence actually showed about why he was fired.

 

[Joniki]

Just a note: The parking lot law protects a person who has a firearm in their locked vehicle. If he had it out such that it could be discharged, it doesn't sound like it was out of sight in a locked vehicle.

I do not know that this fact is relevant, I only know that that is the phrasing and intent of the law as passed and signed.

Blessings,
Bill

From what I read this did not happen on company property.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Costs are different than fees (copies, etc.). It's not unusual to be taxes costs. It's unusual to be taxed fees.

[/B][/FONT][/COLOR]

...and once again, I know nothing about the facts, but we know nothing about what the evidence actually showed about why he was fired.

Ah. Ok, thanks for the clarification.