Protect Your Front Line Employees!
Prevent Situations from Escalating into Dangerous Events! ePanic Button is a PC-based incident notification system that gives everyone control and peace-of-mind. Request a Demo» Get a Free Trial»
Contact Us:
www.epanicbutton.com contact@epanicbutton.com 919-701-9707
DECISIONPOINT THE DECISION (continued from page 1)
On a motion for judgment on the pleadings before the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, the court found that the plaintiff failed to state a viable claim of termination in violation of public policy. The plaintiff alleged that the law permitted him to exercise his rights of self-defense, defense of others, and to carry a concealed weapon and, by firing him, his employer had violated
public policy. He alleged that these public policies are expressed in the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution; Article I, § 6 of the Michigan Constitution; Michigan Criminal Jury Instructions 2d 7.15; Michigan Compiled Laws § 780.951; Michigan Compiled Laws § 780.971 et seq.; Michigan Compiled Laws § 750.227; and Michigan Compiled Laws § 28.421 et seq. After the district court concluded that the plaintiff failed to state a claim for termination in violation of public policy, the plaintiff appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
On appeal, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff‘s claims. As the court explained, under Michigan law employers may discharge at-will employees ―at any time for any, or no, reason.‖ There is, however, a recognized exception where the reasons for the firing are ―so contrary to public policy as to be actionable,‖ the court explained. Yet, the court found that the plaintiff in this case did not establish that the exception applied.
The court found that although the federal and state constitutional provisions cited by the plaintiff ―limit some state interference with individuals‘ right to engage in self-defense and bear arms, they do not prevent interference with these rights by private actors,‖ like the employer in this case.
The court also found that the Michigan Self-defense Act did not confer a general right to engage in self-defense or the defense of others, or to carry concealed weapons. Therefore, the law does not provide extra protections in the employment context.
Finally, the court found that the Michigan laws pertaining to concealed carry permits did not prohibit an employer from barring an employee from carrying a concealed weapon during the course of their employment. Rather, the state laws only prohibit employers from barring employees from applying for or receiving the license, and prohibit employer interference in employee choice to carry a weapon during non-work hours. The court concluded that plaintiff ―has not shown there is a legislatively enacted general right of self-defense in Michigan.‖
LEARNING AND KEY CONSIDERATIONS
Every state now allows for the issuance of concealed carry permits. With the exception of parking lots, no state currently prohibits employers from banning firearms on company property.
In fact, over 20 states now allow Continued on page 24 23
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25