Both scenarios you cite above are plausible. And I agree that they happen from time to time.dac1842 wrote:Our company (40,000 employees) has a no weapons policy as well. I have had to dismiss two employees for possession of firearms on company property. I too have asked that we change our policy and I will try to articulate here what I was told. A plaintiff (employee) will have a hard time suing for negligence and failure to provide a safe workplace since it is not the employers responsibility to secure against all threats. The employer is held to a reasonable standard measure. Now if the employer knowingly permits employees to carry and an employee acts irresponsibly then the employer is can be held dually responsible. So in short the employer cuts it's exposure by barring weapons. The other scenario that was given was say a BG enters the facility, an CHL holder shoots in a effort to defend the workplace and misses and shoots and kiils another employee. You can bet your last dollar the deceased employee's family is suing the company and it won't be a cheap once to settle.
Now I know we have some lawyers who are members here that can probably do a lot better job of this then I did
But isn't it even more common for an employee to be shot by 1) someone who brought a gun to the workplace with them in spite of a company ban, or 2) for an employee to be shot, mugged, jacked, or robbed travelling to or from work while unarmed (because of the policy), while their assailant is completely unaffected by the company policy?
Finally, "reasonable standards" can evolve or change over time. The legal eagles should be writing their law review articles now.
After all, what were the chances that 50 years ago someone could get a payout for falling off a ladder?