TexasCHLforum.com

C-dub wrote:And there are a whole bunch of other reasons which an employee cannot be terminated. I wish people would quit saying that a person can be terminated for any reason. It's somewhat true during the initial 90 days from the date of hire, but there are many protected classes. Someone can be fired for no reason if a company wants to, but most don't and go through hoops to document their reasons for termination so that they will be ale to fend off any wrongful termination suits.

This.... and I have actually worked for a company whose practice it was to document tiny little infractions without ever telling the employee that a memo had been added to their personnel file. You had the legal right to demand to see what's in your file, and once I did just that, and it scared the crud out of me how much stuff was in there that I had no idea of.........and I was in mid-level management, and NOT a problem employee. It was just the CEO's practice to "build a case" from Day 1, so that in the event of a termination, there would be a file folder full of stuff. He did it to everyone, not just me, and I guarantee that almost everybody he ever terminated was surprised as heck and had no idea they were in trouble until the shoe dropped.

BTW, the guy looked and acted just like Mr. Burns
[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=_JmylSHuPvg[/youtube]

The Annoyed Man wrote:

C-dub wrote:And there are a whole bunch of other reasons which an employee cannot be terminated. I wish people would quit saying that a person can be terminated for any reason. It's somewhat true during the initial 90 days from the date of hire, but there are many protected classes. Someone can be fired for no reason if a company wants to, don't and go through hoops to document their reasons for termination so that they will be ale to fend off any wrongful termination suits.

This.... and I have actually worked for a company whose practice it was to document tiny little infractions without ever telling the employee that a memo had been added to their personnel file. You had the legal right to demand to see what's in your file, and once I did just that, and it scared the crud out of me how much stuff was in there that I had no idea of.........and I was in mid-level management, and NOT a problem employee. It was just the CEO's practice to "build a case" from Day 1, so that in the event of a termination, there would be a file folder full of stuff. He did it to everyone, not just me, and I guarantee that almost everybody he ever terminated was surprised as heck and had no idea they were in trouble until the shoe dropped.

BTW, the guy looked and acted just like Mr. Burns

with TAM. IANAL, but in my opinion this statement is factually true. In the past many companies had a formal 90 day "probation period", but this is no longer the case. It is true that it is easier to terminate an employee early on than after at period of employment.

In Texas, a right to work state, an employer can terminate an employee at will, i.e. for no reason. Most companies do have policies and procedures that they are supposed to follow so that the termination does not appear to be arbitrary. It is all about managing risk. They are especially careful when they want to terminate minorities or protected classes of employees.

If the reason is for immediate termination is for something serious such as using alcohol or drugs on the job, fighting, threatening a person, possessing firearms then minimal documentation is needed. What usually happens is that the decision is made to fire a person [for whatever reason or reasons] and then the "reasons" are documented in the way that TAM describes. I believe that this is done because companies are afraid of law suits for wrongful termination. I also believe that the number of lawsuits that are decided in favor of the employee is extremely low.

Please do not confuse "right to work" which is a union issue, with "at will", they are different under the law.

Every city has a couple / three dozen employment lawyers that keep busy successfully extorting money from employers.

oohrah wrote:Please do not confuse "right to work" which is a union issue, with "at will", they are different under the law.

Absolutely correct. Oohrah.

TVGuy wrote:

oohrah wrote:Wrong. In Texas, you can be fired for any reason. In fact, you can be fired for no reason. You can also quit with no notice and no reason.

You can't be fired for any reason. . . .

You also can't be fired for CC in your car:

LC §52.061. RESTRICTION ON PROHIBITING EMPLOYEE ACCESS TO OR STORAGE OF FIREARM OR AMMUNITION. A public or private employer may not prohibit an employee who holds a license to carry a concealed handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, who otherwise lawfully possesses a firearm, or who lawfully possesses ammunition from transporting or storing a firearm or ammunition the employee is authorized by law to possess in a locked, privately owned motor vehicle in a parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area the employer provides for employees.

I don't agree with either extreme, the truth is in the middle.

If someone has a gun in their car in a way that is compliant with LC §52.061, an employer who terminates employment and states they are terminating employment because the employee violated company policy regarding guns in cars, then I agree with TVGuy that the employer has created legal risk from a lawsuit because they violated LC §52.061.

However, I also agree with "oohrah" that Texas has employment at will. Therefore, if someone comes to HR's attention for having a gun in their car in violation of company policy, there can be great pressure on HR to "do something". Any manager worth their salt can find ways to document issues (like TAM's post) and generate paper trail to support a termination of employment. If there is someone who "needs firing", I can find a way to fire them that will always hold up under challenge. As far as firing them for guns in their car, a smart manager would never, ever, state that as the reason for termination.

Although I currently work in a non-union business (Thank the Good Lord!), my early career was spent as a manager in strong union environments. I also created paper trail and terminated employment of union members that went to national arbitration and were upheld, so I intimately understand paper trail. Those terminations included "protected classes". No one is invulnerable.

Also, a smart manager can create a case that will also support getting unemployment denied. However, there are also cases where I simply wanted the person gone ASAP and was willing to pay the unemployment to get them out.

Our company policy does not allow firearms in the parking lot. I am not willing to take this issue on and officially change the company policy, because I see no point in becoming the "nail that sticks up gets hammered down". It is sufficient for me to know I cannot get legally charged with a crime and I know any other so-called "employment protections" are illusory and meaningless in the real world.

SA_Steve wrote:Every city has a couple / three dozen employment lawyers that keep busy successfully extorting money from employers.

There are also plenty of businesses that extort employees and/or skirt the laws and rules.

I have some experience on the being fired for reason. Trust me unless the employer dots ever i and crosses every t you have a good chance of winning unemployment payments. you also have the right to appeal the first decision the unplemoyment office makes.

The first time I was fired was when my boss found out from another manager I was looking for a job. Although I never did any of it on company time he decided to fire me over it. But the reason the gave me was "performance issues". Well since my boss didn't know how to keep his mouth shut he went around bragged to a bunch of people in the office about it. well I happen to be good friends with a few people he said this to and had sent out an email about it. lets just say they got to pay me 4 months of unemployment. I know the HR manager was irritated about that. Ofcourse what goes around comes around and he got fired several months later for taking credit for other peoples work. So I never needed to tell his wife what her husband was doing at work with taking pictures of ladies with short skirts bending over to use the copier. lol


So yes you can be fired for any reason but they still may have to pay you unemployment.

oohrah wrote:Again wrong. The law protects the employee from prosecution for violating a law. It cannot protect an employee from company policies. And I know 30.06 only applies to "premises" (the legal definition). The parking lot law would protect you from being fired for that reason, but it doesn't matter.

Texas is an "at will" employment state. You can quit anytime you want, and you can be let go any time they want. No reasons have to be given. Example - layoffs.

Now, you have brought up discrimination issues. Yes, these are valid, and an employee can sue and try to prove this, and receive damages. But it doesn't change the basic "at will" situation.

As I understand it, and IANAL, the legal concept for wrongful termination in Texas is that a person cannot be fired for a reason that is a violation of public policy. The most common reason noted is for discrimination against a protected class. The protected classes include age (if over 40), gender, race, religion, handicap, national origin, and previous servitude (yep, still in the law). In some states, gender orientation is also a protected class but not in Texas yet. In Texas, carrying a firearm in your car is now a protected class by virtue of our parking lot law.

You can be fired, but if you are fired for this reason, you should prevail in a wrongful termination lawsuit. You should then win your job back and other damages. I am not sure if I would want to continue working there after that, but you might really like the job.

And remember, it is up to you to prove the reason you were fired. If they are stupid enough to say so, you may have an easy case, but very rarely will they give you the actual reason unless they know it will stand up in court.

I guess my situation is a little different from most. I have only had two "real" jobs in my life, the military and my current employment of over 22 years with a city government. You don't get fired from the military and with my current job, they MUST provide a written document stating the reason why you were fired. Like TAM stated, it's basically a "CYA" situation. As to the OP, I still can't carry on the job (policy, not law), but they did change the directive to allow employees to store their weapons in their vehicles when the law changed.

srothstein wrote: In Texas, carrying a firearm in your car is now a protected class by virtue of our parking lot law.

You can be fired, but if you are fired for this reason, you should prevail in a wrongful termination lawsuit. You should then win your job back and other damages.

Would the same be true if company policy (by way of the handbook) states CHLs can't carry on the job, but they don't use the proper 30.06 verbiage? As I understand it, in order for the "policy" to be legally binding, it would have to use the exact 30.06 verbiage, just like a sign on the door (I think English only would be OK in the handbook). If they don't, then you're legally allowed to carry (just like carrying past an incorrect 30.06 sign). Therefore, would the same "protected class" status apply to carrying on the job, just like keeping it in your car?

Granted, it would all come down to whether or not you could prove it was the reason you were fired, vs. generic "performance issues." I was fired once because "the company chose to go in a different direction", even though I had received an outstanding review from boss a few weeks earlier.

mloamiller wrote:

srothstein wrote: In Texas, carrying a firearm in your car is now a protected class by virtue of our parking lot law.

You can be fired, but if you are fired for this reason, you should prevail in a wrongful termination lawsuit. You should then win your job back and other damages.

Would the same be true if company policy (by way of the handbook) states CHLs can't carry on the job, but they don't use the proper 30.06 verbiage? As I understand it, in order for the "policy" to be legally binding, it would have to use the exact 30.06 verbiage, just like a sign on the door (I think English only would be OK in the handbook). If they don't, then you're legally allowed to carry (just like carrying past an incorrect 30.06 sign). Therefore, would the same "protected class" status apply to carrying on the job, just like keeping it in your car?

Granted, it would all come down to whether or not you could prove it was the reason you were fired, vs. generic "performance issues." I was fired once because "the company chose to go in a different direction", even though I had received an outstanding review from boss a few weeks earlier.

I don't believe so. The only thing that the exact 30.06 wording does is make you in violation of the law. If the handbook states handguns are not allowed and you choose to carry anyway, you are not in violation of law but your are in violation of company policy which may well result in termination. The reason the parking lot is different is because the law says they can't fire you for having it in your car. There is no law that says they can't fire you for violating company policy unless they include 30.06 wording. So you don't get cited for violating 30.06 but you still get fired.

jmra wrote:

mloamiller wrote:

srothstein wrote: In Texas, carrying a firearm in your car is now a protected class by virtue of our parking lot law.

You can be fired, but if you are fired for this reason, you should prevail in a wrongful termination lawsuit. You should then win your job back and other damages.

Would the same be true if company policy (by way of the handbook) states CHLs can't carry on the job, but they don't use the proper 30.06 verbiage? As I understand it, in order for the "policy" to be legally binding, it would have to use the exact 30.06 verbiage, just like a sign on the door (I think English only would be OK in the handbook). If they don't, then you're legally allowed to carry (just like carrying past an incorrect 30.06 sign). Therefore, would the same "protected class" status apply to carrying on the job, just like keeping it in your car?

Granted, it would all come down to whether or not you could prove it was the reason you were fired, vs. generic "performance issues." I was fired once because "the company chose to go in a different direction", even though I had received an outstanding review from boss a few weeks earlier.

I don't believe so. The only thing that the exact 30.06 wording does is make you in violation of the law. If the handbook states handguns are not allowed and you choose to carry anyway, you are not in violation of law but your are in violation of company policy which may well result in termination. The reason the parking lot is different is because the law says they can't fire you for having it in your car. There is no law that says they can't fire you for violating company policy unless they include 30.06 wording. So you don't get cited for violating 30.06 but you still get fired.

Violating company company policy is not always something it is against a law. 30.06 is required for prosecution.

The issue is being fired "for any reason", without justification. This is partially true provided the firing is not expressly forbidden by law, such as for protected classes, etc. They can't fire you because you are handicapped, for example, or for being a woman. But there is no law that says they can't fire you for having red hair, or having tatoos, or for shooting guns at the club on weekends, or for liking guns, much less having a gun on property.

It comes down to you right to have a gun on the property vs. their right to fire you for almost anything. This is especially true if the policy is in an employee handbook or part of the conditions of employment. Employers are prevented by statute from preventing you from carrying in the parking lot. So if they do they are in violation of a rule and can be sued. You, are still fired. Your lawsuit would include some damages presumably and possible remedies, which might include court ordered reemployment but until then you are still fired.

For this not to be the case there would need to be a statute that states that in Texas one can not be terminated from employment for carrying a legally possessed weapon in the employer's parking lot. Then a employer's parking lot gun possessor would be a legally protected class against the
Texas doctrine of "free will" termination.

tex

thetexan wrote:
For this not to be the case there would need to be a statute that states that in Texas one can not be terminated from employment for carrying a legally possessed weapon in the employer's parking lot. Then a employer's parking lot gun possessor would be a legally protected class against the
Texas doctrine of "free will" termination.

tex

This law does exist and was quoted earlier, it's 52.061 of the Labor Code.