UPDATE--Talking to management

[pt145ss]

I am looking for case law that might help our cause. I know this has been discussed but I can not seem to find the thread.

I currently work for a company with 150 + employees. I personally know of about 15 people that have CHLs in our office and numerous more that carry in their vehicles. Three CHL holders are fairly high in the company (CEO, COO, and the compliance officer). We do have a no weapons policy…not 30.06 compliant…but it does mention the unlicensed and licensed possession. Our legal group and our HR group are fairly anti.

Recently we had a rash of vehicle break ins, twice last week alone. During the last break in, one employee happen to catch the guys in the act and was able to get a license plate number. No one was hurt, but given the situation the thieves could have easily attacked the witness (this will be our basis for changing policy).

Now back to my question. We (several CHL holders here) are planning on going to talk with the two upper management guys who might be sympathetic to our cause. I do not think it will be hard to convince them, but they will have to speak with legal and HR. I would like to find any case law where an employer was sued for not providing adequate security for personnel or any case law where an employer was sued because they allowed firearms and someone mis-used that firearm on another employee.

In general anything that might help convince Legal and HR.

Thanks in advance.

[Liko81]

Not sure I can help you much with Texas law. In Colorado, legislation is pending which would make businesses liable for damages occurring in a gun-free zone, whether to an employee or patron, if a gun would have mitigated or avoided damages to the plaintiff. Texas is not considering any such law AFAIK, and its scope would have to include CHLs barred by company policy from carrying at work, not just CHLs barred by a 30.06 sign.

Now, Texas law states that deadly force is justified to protect a person's place of business from unlawful forcible entry and imminent commission of violent felonies, and a person so justified is immune from civil suit. That means that concealed carry in the workplace is generally lawful and both the employee and business are immune from civil liability arising from justifiable use of force by an employee.

Our neighbor to the north is currently fighting ConocoPhillips over guns in the parking lot. Oklahoma law strictly forbids workplace policies that ban guns. Similar legislation is pending in Texas which would make it unlawful to ban gun storage in any parking lot regardless of the relationship between lot owner and gun owner (making it illegal for employers to discipline or fire employees for keeping guns in cars in the company parking lot), so if that passes your company's legal team could not create a weapons policy MORE restrictive than it currently is.

Here's something: a Federal appeals court threw out a lawsuit against Lockheed Martin, saying the company could not be sued for wrongful death in a workplace shooting. However the plaintiffs could have applied for workman's comp, but would have been capped at $150k.

A federal appeals court has denied the plaintiffs in a workplace violence lawsuit the right to sue the company where the tragedy occurred. On July 8th, 2003, Doug Williams killed six co-workers and injured nine others before committing suicide at the Lockheed Martin plant in Meridian, Mississippi.
One of the victim’s family members claimed that Williams was "known to harbor extreme racial hatred toward his African-American co-workers." Four of those murdered were African-American and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission investigated the shooting and said Williams created a "racially charged atmosphere" at the plant. The plaintiff’s, the surviving shooting victims and their families, claim that management knew Williams was a threat but did little to prevent the violence.
However, the higher court ruled that the exclusivity bar of workers' compensation law prohibits a lawsuit. Workers Compensation is generally ruled as the sole remedy for any injuries that employees experience “in the course of employment" and “that arise out of employment�. It limits damage to $150,000 per victim. The lawsuit sought unspecified damages. It is unknown if the plaintiff's will appeal to a higher court.

Here's another: Allsup's convenience stores were sued in 2005 when a Hobbs, NM woman was found stabbed 57 times after working her January 16th graveyard shift. It doesn't specifically mention weapons but does claim the business negligently failed to protect its employees:

The estate of a murdered clerk is suing the Allsup's Convenience Store Chain over lack of Security in Hobbs, NM. Elizabeth Garcia, the mother of 3 young children, was working the graveyard shift on January 16th. She was reported missing from her job but was later found in a nearby field with 57 stab wounds. The suit seeks compensation for aggravating circumstances damages, punitive damages, costs of litigation, and other relief. The central complaint revolves the lack of cameras and that she had to work alone during her shift. The lawsuit also lists a couple of incidents where other Allsup's clerks were killed while working alone on the graveyard shift and requests by an employee to have two clerks on the shift.

And here's an article covering workplace violence policies, covering both scenarios above. In general, the workers compensation bar to claims prohibits employees suing for personal injury in the course and scope of employment; if the business participates in workers' comp it is the sole remedy for reparations. However, that does not protect the employer from claims of gross negligence in Texas. If the business failed to provide any other security measure in the face of a clear threat to its employees' safety, the business is grossly negligent. I'm not sure how this could be interpreted though; employees carrying guns in the workplace are in most cases not an acceptable security measure. Quite the contrary, in the face of a violent, abusive or disgruntled employee, ex-employee or significant other of an employee, continuing to allow guns in the workplace could be held as grossly negligent. But, back on the other hand, in the face of such a threat, allowing an employee to lawfully carry allows him/her to justifiably use deadly force in the case of imminent threat, shielding the employer from liability. It would also shield the employer from gross negligence if they failed to provide any parking lot security measures and an employee was injured/killed while exiting the building to their vehicle. Here's the link, it's SFW: http://www.liabilityconsultants.com/article.htm

[Kalrog]

If you have the CEO and COO on board, why is there a problem?

Sorry, no case law for you, but the logic stacks up fairly well.

[pt145ss]

If you have the CEO and COO on board, why is there a problem?

Sorry, no case law for you, but the logic stacks up fairly well.

The problem comes with the corporate lawyers and Anti HR. Upper management's hands are somewhat tied by them. All policies go to the lawyers and HR for approval. Also, security is not a real concern for the uppers as they have parking in a secure lot under the building. We have about fifty leased parking spots there...so the majority parks across the breazeway from the building (where the thefts occur) in a public lot. However rumor has it that they might ask the leasing company to put security gates there as well. That will stop a BG from pulling right up to a target vehicle but it will not stop them from accessing the lot.

[WildBill]

Three CHL holders are fairly high in the company (CEO, COO, and the compliance officer).

Sorry to burst your bubble, but unless these people actually own the company you are wasting your breath. Nothing, short of a directive from the owner(s), will "convince" Legal or HR of anything. The CEO, COO and compliance officer don't have to worry. Since they have their CHLs, they can pretty much give themselves permission to carry.

[RPBrown]

Might try to get written permission from the CEO or COO

[seamusTX]

I thought maybe a lawyer would have better information than what I am about to type.

I am not aware of any uniform trend regarding workplace shootings. When the victims sue the property owner, they sometimes win and sometimes lose.

You can look at Wal-Mart, which is noteworthy for the following reasons: They get sued a lot for crimes committed on their property, they always defend lawsuits (i.e., they don't settle out of court), and they do not prohibit firearms. Sometimes they prevail, and sometimes they lose. it depends upon the facts of the case, the skill of the attorneys, and the jury.

I doubt anyone can point to a case where a no-weapons policy was a determining factor in relieving the property owner of liability.

- Jim

[pt145ss]

Three CHL holders are fairly high in the company (CEO, COO, and the compliance officer).

Sorry to burst your bubble, but unless these people actually own the company you are wasting your breath. Nothing, short of a directive from the owner(s), will "convince" Legal or HR of anything. The CEO, COO and compliance officer don't have to worry. Since they have their CHLs, they can pretty much give themselves permission to carry.

We are a 15 billion dollar company and we are "Member" owned so there is not any individual owner. The CEO does not carry very often and the COO, although he carries everyday, he leaves his firearm in his vehicle. We thought about asking for written permission but we are not sure they will go for that. The CEO answers to the board of directors so I don't think they want to break policy or make exception to policy. It probably is a futile effort but we thought there might be a slim chance considering the recent events.

[Keith B]

We are a 15 billion dollar company and we are "Member" owned so there is not any individual owner. The CEO does not carry very often and the COO, although he carries everyday, he leaves his firearm in his vehicle. We thought about asking for written permission but we are not sure they will go for that. The CEO answers to the board of directors so I don't think they want to break policy or make exception to policy. It probably is a futile effort but we thought there might be a slim chance considering the recent events.

Someone other than the board usually sets the HR policy and Code of Conduct guidelines. I would see if you can find out who that person is and see if the CEO and COO can get them to change the wording. One of the neatest ones I have heard about is the policy states 'The illegal or unlicensed carry of firearms is prohibited at all times on company property'. IANAL, nor do I play one on TV or the Internet, but I think this covers it all with one simple statement and opens it for CHL and parking lot for car carry of those not licensed.

[pt145ss]

We are a 15 billion dollar company and we are "Member" owned so there is not any individual owner. The CEO does not carry very often and the COO, although he carries everyday, he leaves his firearm in his vehicle. We thought about asking for written permission but we are not sure they will go for that. The CEO answers to the board of directors so I don't think they want to break policy or make exception to policy. It probably is a futile effort but we thought there might be a slim chance considering the recent events.

Someone other than the board usually sets the HR policy and Code of Conduct guidelines. I would see if you can find out who that person is and see if the CEO and COO can get them to change the wording. One of the neatest ones I have heard about is the policy states 'The illegal or unlicensed carry of firearms is prohibited at all times on company property'. IANAL, nor do I play one on TV or the Internet, but I think this covers it all with one simple statement and opens it for CHL and parking lot for car carry of those not licensed.

Policies are set by a joint effort between the Executive committee (made of the CEO, CFO, and COO), General Council, and HR. The problem is that our General Council and HR girl are fairly anti. The HR girl is also a lawyer who specializes in HR law type stuff (or something like that). Looking at the HR girl’s resume, one would think she might be pro 2A because prior to working with us she worked with the Louisiana State Troopers.

[WildBill]

We are a 15 billion dollar company and we are "Member" owned so there is not any individual owner. The CEO does not carry very often and the COO, although he carries everyday, he leaves his firearm in his vehicle. We thought about asking for written permission but we are not sure they will go for that. The CEO answers to the board of directors so I don't think they want to break policy or make exception to policy. It probably is a futile effort but we thought there might be a slim chance considering the recent events.

I admire your initiative and hope you can make a change. Corporations, by their nature, are faceless organizations so change is very difficult and time consuming. Let us know what happens.
P.S. If you do talk to management about this, make sure you don't refer to the HR person as "the HR girl."

[Charles L. Cotton]

I am very reluctant to start talking about case law, as I haven't researched for new cases in quite a long time and I don't want to provide misleading information. I can make these general observations about an employer's liability.

If an employer provides workers compensation insurance coverage, they are protected by what is known as the "workers comp bar" meaning they cannot be sued by an employee for an on-the-job injury. If they do not have workers compensation insurance coverage, they can be sued by an employee and they are stripped of any of their common law defenses.

Whether or not an employer has workers compensation insurance, if an employee is killed on the job, the employer can be sued by the workers family, but only on a theory of malice, not ordinary negligence. This remedy is available because it is in the Texas Constitution and cannot be abridged by any statute.

I don't want to get into liability for the illegal acts of a third party on an open forum. However, your legal department is going to be quite familiar with that area of the law and suffice it to say it doesn't help your cause.

In my view, an excellent argument in support of the CHLs can be made based upon the FBI Workplace Violence Report. It's very detailed and a discussion of it is far beyond something I want to do in an Internet post. It's available online from the FBI's website. Even a cursory review of the report reveals that CHLs do not prose a threat to workplace safety. The vast majority of workplace shootings are done by people coming to rob the place. The next most likely category of shooter is comprised of family members or intimate partners coming to the workplace to kill a spouse, girlfriend or boyfriend. Typically, they are estranged at the time of the shooting. Way down the list is disgruntled employees or former employees. If I recall correctly (it's been a while since I've read it), there was not a single reported case of a CHL arming themselves either from their car, their work area, or with a gun on their body and shooting someone unlawfully. (The report didn't get into self-defense shootings, but I didn't want to be misleading about defensive shootings.)

I believe this came from a different report, but disgruntled employees rarely "go postal" on the day a precipitating event happens, but long afterward and after having been exhibiting signs of an impending trouble. Often, this occurs after an employee or fired employee has exhausted all legal remedies and they feel the only remaining option is to kill someone.

I hope this helps. Feel free to call me and I'd be willing to meet with your management personnel, but I seriously doubt they'll want my input, especially when they find out I'm on the NRA Board of Directors.

Chas.

Edited to add link to FBI Workplace Violence Report.

[DoubleJ]

least I know I'm not the only one undertaking this daunting task.
I, as well, am "fixin' ta" approach our management about the same thing, for similar reasons.
I'll let ya'll know if/when something happens/I get canned

[pt145ss]

In my view, an excellent argument in support of the CHLs can be made based upon the FBI Workplace Violence Report. It's very detailed and a discussion of it is far beyond something I want to do in an Internet post. It's available online from the FBI's website. Even a cursory review of the report reveals that CHLs do not prose a threat to workplace safety. The vast majority of workplace shootings are done by people coming to rob the place. The next most likely category of shooter is comprised of family members or intimate partners coming to the workplace to kill a spouse, girlfriend or boyfriend. Typically, they are estranged at the time of the shooting. Way down the list is disgruntled employees or former employees. If I recall correctly (it's been a while since I've read it), there was not a single reported case of a CHL arming themselves either from their car, their work area, or with a gun on their body and shooting someone unlawfully. (The report didn't get into self-defense shootings, but I didn't want to be misleading about defensive shootings.)

This is excellent...I will look it up. One thing that caught my attention is about the significant other stuff. Several months ago we had a situation were a former significant other of one of our employees gained entry into our building and threatened the employee. Our building is electronic key card controlled...to include all elevators and etc. The person gained entry by getting on an elevator with someone who had a valid key card and did not question their authority to ride up with them (we get new employees all the time or have contractors is the building so we do not know everyone by face). The next day, the company hired off duty services from the local sheriff’s department to man the front desk for a while to ensure that this person did not return….those services have ceased since then.

[LarryH]

Our building is electronic key card controlled...to include all elevators and etc. The person gained entry by getting on an elevator with someone who had a valid key card and did not question their authority to ride up with them (we get new employees all the time or have contractors is the building so we do not know everyone by face).

No badges? We are supposed to question anyone who isn't wearing a proper badge. We are also instructed not to let anyone "piggyback" through a restricted access door, except under VERY restrictive circumstances.