Florida bank manager fired for carrying concealed

[BC1]

OK, so now we know that FL has the same parking lot protections we have, and according to the article Bob M quoted, even more protections are true. To wit:



Assuming that is quoted from the statutes accurately (S&W645? apbvguy?), seems there's only one question left to answer which will probably have to be answered in court, but the question is, did the person who reported it actually see it, thought they saw something that "looked like" a gun, or just saw a print where no part of the gun was showing? The reason I say it will have to be answered in court is because if the statute is quoted accurately, the person making the accusation has to be cross-examined now that it's a (literal) constitutional and discrimination case (according to the terminology of the statute).

I know what your instincts are here BC, but is your evaluation of the frivolity of the case altered in light of the quoted statute?


Blues

If that truly is the law then the gun issue is moot. And I would then say the law makes her case better. But...... work at will state? Don't need a reason to let someone go. Doesn't that play into it? If I were firing her it wouldn't be for carrying a gun. If you want her out there's smarter ways to get rid of her. I never understood companies that fire someone and tell them why if the law doesn't require it. But if I can't trust her to follow the rules as she promised when accepting employment, then I can't trust her with my business. At least that's how I feel about it. To me it isn't even a gun issue, it's more about trust. So if it were me dealing with her I would have let her off with an admonishment and then let her go without cause if there's another problem. Whenever I had to let someone go I didn't give a reason. I didn't tell them if I was laying them off or firing them. I gave them their record of employment, severance, vacation and sick pay as per their hand-book. I thanked them for their services and escorted them to the door. Less room to get sued. Kind of cold when you think about it.
.
Ask me if I think the bank manager should be allowed to be armed at work and I would say absolutely. According to the FBI there were over 5,000 bank robberies in 2011 with losses of over $38 million.

 

[telpinaro]

If the lawsuit is frivolous she should be fined for "trying." Her lawyer knows better than to do this. If I were the judge I would dismiss the suit with prejudice and assign the defense costs to her.

True. We'll see what happens. Should be interesting either way.

I suppose I just enjoy any opportunity to point out to antis how nuts it is to not allow employees to carry. I get insurance, company policies, etc... Though I do think it often occurs that employees aren't handed a copy of the policies until after they've accepted the job, so those who really need the job may just stick with it (if I'm wrong here please correct me). I'd be interested in her reasons for carrying while knowing it was against policy. If it was in a crappy part of town I might risk keeping a gun on me, too, rather than leaving it in a vehicle to get stolen.

 

[BluesStringer]

If that truly is the law then the gun issue is moot. And I would then say the law makes her case better. But...... work at will state? Don't need a reason to let someone go. Doesn't that play into it? If I were firing her it wouldn't be for carrying a gun. If you want her out there's smarter ways to get rid of her. I never understood companies that fire someone and tell them why if the law doesn't require it. But if I can't trust her to follow the rules as she promised when accepting employment, then I can't trust her with my business. At least that's how I feel about it. To me it isn't even a gun issue, it's more about trust. So if it were me dealing with her I would have let her off with an admonishment and then let her go without cause if there's another problem. Whenever I had to let someone go I didn't give a reason. I didn't tell them if I was laying them off or firing them. I gave them their record of employment, severance, vacation and sick pay as per their hand-book. I thanked them for their services and escorted them to the door. Less room to get sued. Kind of cold when you think about it.
.
Ask me if I think the bank manager should be allowed to be armed at work and I would say absolutely. According to the FBI there were over 5,000 bank robberies in 2011 with losses of over $38 million.

I get it BC, really I do. But I went looking for the code section and sho' 'nuff, the link Bob M posted got it right. It's Section (4) Prohibited Acts:, #2(e) of 790.251 if anyone wants to check for themselves. The paper reprinted it verbatim though.

In light of that code, I think she could get significant damages and have the bank ordered to give her her job back. The language in that code makes it a civil rights issue using the words "discriminate" and "constitutional right to keep and bear arms." The legislature defined their intent with those words, and like you said BC, the bank already gave the reason for the firing, so I don't see how they could take her back under court order and immediately fire her for "no stated reason" again.

Personally, I think the code may just be a bit of sloppy writing. I think the intent was to separate the employee's right to leave a weapon in their car, while protecting a permission-slipped CC'er's right to not be expelled from a business unless they're "exhibiting" their firearm. I don't see that separation as being clear though. In fact, I don't see it at all, I just kind of "surmise" that that's what happened.

Oh well, be an interesting case to watch.

Blues

 

[Banjarmon]

"Banks" another GUN FREE ZONE asking for trouble. Are they willing to take on the responsibility of protecting their employees during a robbery or some other problem where guns are involved?? Are they willing to risk a law suit where there is loss of life because the bank did not protect everyone including costumers. I would want this Lady in my bank any day of the week.

 

[chilipeppernorm]

If I read the report correctly, it states a co-worker observed her weapon in her purse and reported her. If she doesn't carry her purse on her person all day at work then it must not have been secured in a desk or locker or drawer, but out in the open where it could be observed (I am assuming the reporting employee didn't open her purse and paw through it). Florida State Statute for Concealed Carry states in part: (2) “Concealed firearm” means any firearm, as defined in subsection (6), which is carried on or about a person in such a manner as to conceal the firearm from the ordinary sight of another person." This doesn't just apply to a weapon being carried on your person, but extends to whatever device you're carrying the weapon in, such as a purse, bag, backpack or whatever.

Common sense gun safety holds if you're not directly in control of your weapon it needs to be secured in a manner in which it can't be casually accessed by another. It wouldn't seem as if this is the case, so she's likely guilty of sloppy carry practice. That aside, I don't think she'll prevail in this case if the anti-gun in the workplace is published company policy. Being in management means she can't claim ignorance which then implies willful violation. I do not agree with the policy, nor am I defending it in any way, I just don't see any legal way around it.

 

[SR9]

Looks to me like the employee that reported their manager for having the gun, may have a gripe with their boss and figured this was a good way to get even. Is it possible that the one doing the reporting wants to be manager of the bank?

 

[BC1]

"Banks" another GUN FREE ZONE asking for trouble. Are they willing to take on the responsibility of protecting their employees during a robbery or some other problem where guns are involved?? Are they willing to risk a law suit where there is loss of life because the bank did not protect everyone including costumers. I would want this Lady in my bank any day of the week.

The bank, or any other establishment, is not under any obligation to protect anyone. Even the police are under no obligation according to a Supreme Court decision.

 

[Dunewolf]

im just gonna throw this out here..

A bank, that participates in government funds handling/etc - can get "bailed out" by taxpayer moneys.. Shouldn't have a leg to stand on when its own employees express their rights (god given or otherwise permitted)..

More so when said bank got 36billion dollars, Link Removed

Call me silly but seriously that's some screwed up crap if that bank is allowed to fire anyone who carries that has their government permission slips (as some call em) lol
Used to be a time when banks/etc liked the idea of employees carrying, then it all went to hell..

Oh and I know that "insurance wise it costs more to insure" stuff from another thread - ie insurance is more expensive because of employee carrying -- well to that I say insurance is just a blood sucking scam - They take money from you, to protect/cover you incase stuff happens.. then when stuff happens, they find any reason to invalidate the claim..

 

[BC1]

im just gonna throw this out here..

A bank, that participates in government funds handling/etc - can get "bailed out" by taxpayer moneys.. Shouldn't have a leg to stand on when its own employees express their rights (god given or otherwise permitted)..

More so when said bank got 36billion dollars, Link Removed

Call me silly but seriously that's some screwed up crap if that bank is allowed to fire anyone who carries that has their government permission slips (as some call em) lol
Used to be a time when banks/etc liked the idea of employees carrying, then it all went to hell..

Oh and I know that "insurance wise it costs more to insure" stuff from another thread - ie insurance is more expensive because of employee carrying -- well to that I say insurance is just a blood sucking scam - They take money from you, to protect/cover you incase stuff happens.. then when stuff happens, they find any reason to invalidate the claim..

I would submit that as a business owner I need the very best employees, not just those who aren't afraid of guns. This issue will never tilt in favor of gun owners.