Fired because of gun

[TxBlonde]

KaiserB ... Did you even read this or did you just pull out things. MY HUSBAND WAS FIRED WITHOUT BEING TOLD NO GUNS. NO HE WAS NOT A SECURITY GUARD NEVER TRIED TO ACT LIKE. THE COMPANY WAS PUTTING HIS LIFE IN DANGER MY MAKING HIM CARRY THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS IN CASH THAT WAS HANDED TO HIM BY PEOPLE HE DELIVERED THE COMPANY PRODUCT TO, THIS CASH WAS HANDED TO HIM IN FRONT OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC.

HE WAS FIRED WITHOUT NOTICE!!!!

If he was violating any laws don't you think he would have left in handcuffs or with a ticket no. He left with the officer telling him to get an attoney

[TxBlonde]

he got the CHL to protect his life.

[KaiserB]

KaiserB ... Did you even read this or did you just pull out things. MY HUSBAND WAS FIRED WITHOUT BEING TOLD NO GUNS. NO HE WAS NOT A SECURITY GUARD NEVER TRIED TO ACT LIKE. THE COMPANY WAS PUTTING HIS LIFE IN DANGER MY MAKING HIM CARRY THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS IN CASH THAT WAS HANDED TO HIM BY PEOPLE HE DELIVERED THE COMPANY PRODUCT TO, THIS CASH WAS HANDED TO HIM IN FRONT OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC.

HE WAS FIRED WITHOUT NOTICE!!!!

If he was violating any laws don't you think he would have left in handcuffs or with a ticket no. He left with the officer telling him to get an attoney

Yes I read the post, yes I read the law, and yes I did not let emotions get in the way of the apparent facts. My apologies but the case has a lot of holes in it that will bite you when it gets before a judge.

As for the thousands of dollars, I assume the place of employment is not a plantation and thus the employee is not a slave [<---- this is sarcasm] Thus the employee can choose to work at a different place of employment that is safer or does not involve handling and transporting cash.

I am in a similar situation at my employer, where the policy states "NO GUNS" on the premises, which by TX penal code prevents me from having a gun, even in my car, because I have "received," according to the law, "notice". This one reason why the TX Parking Lot legislation is so important. The employer rights vs. the CHL rights are in conflict in many situations, such as yours and mine, and the FACTS do not always bear the outcome we desire.

[TxBlonde]

My HUsband was never informed of the policy till the day he was fired

[KD5NRH]

Is said employee a commissioned security officer (http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/psb/cso.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)? One can not get a CHL and provide de facto security on behalf of an employer.

Since when is it acting as a security officer to carry at work?

Besides, he couldn't act as a security officer and drive at the same time; Facebook is way too distracting

[KaiserB]

Is said employee a commissioned security officer (http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/psb/cso.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)? One can not get a CHL and provide de facto security on behalf of an employer.

Since when is it acting as a security officer to carry at work?

Besides, he couldn't act as a security officer and drive at the same time; Facebook is way too distracting

Since one states "This person then informed the Officer that he got his Concealed Handgun License because drivers were required to accept large sums of cash in bad neighborhoods in full view of store customers. This person then went on to point out that this was thousands of dollars being carried for one to three days. Then this person further pointed out that the trucks did not have a safe, so the cash had to remain on his person."

I got my CHL to protect myself and family from harm, not as a pretense to secure myself at work because I transport large sums of money.

However in this case if the employee had not been duly informed of policy they are probably in the clear legally. Civilly it will depend on the actual damages incurred.

[TxBlonde]

Think about the harm collecting thousand of dollars can be in bad neighborhood could. He could care less about protecting the money it was the thought that if someone stole that much from him they probably wouldn't want to leave any witness'

[Purplehood]

TxBlonde,

I personally think that you and your spouse have a valid grievance. I also suggest getting a better lawyer and deleting this post.

[WildBill]

I also suggest getting a better lawyer and deleting this post.

There have been a couple of posts suggesting getting a new or better lawyer. We have no idea as to the identity of the lawyer or whether he or she is a "good lawyer". That said, it is perfectly normal for a client [and spouse] to help their lawyer with their own case. Just because the OP is asking for advice doesn't mean that their attorney is not doing their job or that they have not retained a competent one. In fact, their attorney probably asked for a detailed timeline of the events leading up to the dismissal. As Purplehood pointed out, a public forum may not be the best venue, but I commend the OP for taking the effort in trying to win their lawsuit.

[alvins]

i certainly hope he is a contract employee. otherwise texas is an at will state and you can be fired for no reason or any reason other then discrimination.

[The Annoyed Man]

Oh, and work on the 1st person/3rd person thing

This


Good luck to you/him

I was just going to bring that up. Y'all beat me to it.

[The Annoyed Man]

And people wonder why there are unions.

Unions support anti-gun legislators, and therefore anti-gun legislation. If he had been unionized, the union would have concurred that it was a fireable offense and pocketed his dues. Unions are from the devil.

[KaiserB]

Think about the harm collecting thousand of dollars can be in bad neighborhood could. He could care less about protecting the money it was the thought that if someone stole that much from him they probably wouldn't want to leave any witness'

A counterpoint can easily be made to this argument, I agree one can get a CHL to protect themselves, however getting a CHL to protect oneself because ones chosen career requires a higher level of security than provide by the employer is a different story.

A CHL holder should not purposely invite (instigate) peril and then have an expectation of protection under the CHL laws, for example:

Yelling at a group of gang-bangers on a street corner at 3AM; instigating an issue, having a shootout, then expecting protect under the law because "you got your CHL to protect yourself in case you ever wanted to instigate a fight with gang members"

Think about a Brinks truck driver collecting money at a bank, does the driver having a CHL protect the cash and the driver or do the security agents operating the truck protect the cash and the driver?

Simply put without providing proper security for the driver your employer should have no expectation that you would risk your personal security to collect assets. In which case getting a CHL to protect yourself because my employer has a lack of security falls in a gray area of the law.

Should a 7-11 employee get a CHL to protect his/her employers premises? Granted a 7-11 owner may authorize his/her employees to use a gun in an emergency to protect the premise but it falls under very specific laws.

In any case the CHL was never meant to be a license to provide security.

[RoyGBiv]

i certainly hope he is a contract employee. otherwise texas is an at will state and you can be fired for no reason or any reason other then discrimination.

Almost...

http://www.rscooklaw.com/sabinepilot.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Sabine Pilot" is the abbreviated name of a case decided by the Supreme Court of Texas in 1985, Sabine Pilot Serv. v. Hauck (Tex. 1985). In that case, the Supreme Court recognized a narrow exception to the general "at will" doctrine of employment in Texas, and found that an at-will employee may sue his/her employer if he/she is fired for refusing to commit an illegal act.

[Rex B]

i certainly hope he is a contract employee. otherwise texas is an at will state and you can be fired for no reason or any reason other then discrimination.

Almost...

http://www.rscooklaw.com/sabinepilot.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Sabine Pilot" is the abbreviated name of a case decided by the Supreme Court of Texas in 1985, Sabine Pilot Serv. v. Hauck (Tex. 1985). In that case, the Supreme Court recognized a narrow exception to the general "at will" doctrine of employment in Texas, and found that an at-will employee may sue his/her employer if he/she is fired for refusing to commit an illegal act.

In this case, the employer will disavow any knowledge of an illegal order.
Their story is they fired him for violation of their no-firearms policy, which any competent attorney can probably take apart.