Skip to comments.Bank manager, fired after carrying gun into work, files suit
Posted on 02/22/2014 10:51:12 PM PST by Daffynition
TAMPA Ivette Ros grew up in a house where her father kept guns. For her, it was a natural step to get a concealed weapons permit and then to carry a 9 mm handgun.
The 37-year-old Tampa resident is a single mother of three children and said she carries the gun for safety.
Its just something about having it versus not having it, she said. I feel naked when I dont have my gun.
Her employer didnt feel the same way. Carrying the gun got her fired, she said.
(Excerpt) Read more at tbo.com ...
Employers have rights, too.
Should have concealed it better, and kept it concealed.
“What ‘they’ don’t know, can’t hurt me.”
The bank is not a government. They also have the right to deny guns on their own property. One’s right does not trumps another’s property rights
There is the rub.
>> I feel naked when I dont have my gun.
Gun-grabbers are perverts!
Maybe she should have been upfront and tried to get company policy changed.
I saw that. :)
Asking permission is usually better received than going behind the back. If we were talking about the FedMob and not her employer it would be another matter. But they're supposed to be our employees and they've destroyed almost all cause for respect.
This of course is an issue that has come up many times over the years from pizza delivery men to cab drivers to convenience store clerks. There isn’t a publicly traded company of ANY significant size outside the firearms industry that allows employees to carry a weapon on the
premises. It stems from the fear....and it’s a logical
fear....that if the employee uses the gun for any reason and
anyone other than a criminal is harmed the company is liable. And in America with all the lawyers one can bet that
such an occurrence would cost a company money. The problem is that the legal system has given employers a pass on the issue. They have stated that to avoid such a liability an
company may disarm their employees. But the courts and legislatures refuse to address the other half of the issue.
That being when an entity refuses to allow citizens to protect themselves they need to accept the responsibility for that defense. That means that a company that disarms it’s employees needs to be held financially and if necessary
criminally liable for not taking ALL the available steps
to protect those employees while they are working. Right now companies get to have their cake and eat it also...and
that isn’t right. We need to be pushing legislatures HARD to make them hold employers liable for the safety of the
people they employ if they insist on them being disarmed.
That is where our efforts need to go. Once a major company has to shell out millions because they disarmed employees and someone then went postal and killed a few they will
RAPIDLY reevaluate their position on the matter.
Private property wins; the bank is within their legal rights. However, there may be many customers who will close their accounts in protest. I certainly would. One of my bank’s managers carries, and that (plus not taking TARP) is an added incentive to keep my money there.
Arguments that it is private property are compelling, but how can that argument be rationalized when some bakeries have been shut down because they refuse to bake cakes for gay weddings. Or that it is illegal for a company to refuse to service to blacks?
Yet, a company can deny Constitutional Rights if they are not politically correct Constitutional rights because they are a private company?
Courts have already come down on the issue of where a private company’s rights end... and it all seems to hinge on political correctness or special interests. (Which kind of throws the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Under the Law concept on its head.)
I just hope her last official act at work was to screw up the account(s) of the little brown-shirt who ratted her out.
I feel this woman’s plight. Having worked in a situation for decades, where employees were not allow to carry, one is faced with the risk of being *found out*. Even if the work place is dangerous, in a high crime area, frequently under lock-down due to suspicious goings-on....one is left to the cops to be a heartbeat away....and we know how that works.
Hi Pollster1, I hope you are well.
Oklahoma went open carry 15 months ago. The week after the law went into effect, I noticed that the “No Weapons” sign was taken off of my bank’s front door. I asked if they had replaced the glass, and forgotten to put the restriction on the door. They told me “No, we feel much safer if we allow firearms.”
Guess which bank gets my deposits.
I’ve got an account in a Nevada institution, also. Behind closed doors I have compared “carry” handguns with the female bank manager. They have the prohibition on their door. Her attitude, and belief, is that if the bad guys carry surreptitiously, she will too.
It can when they find out. As she discovered.
LOL...I had to do a banking transaction at Wells Fargo [not my usual bank]....the employees were the rudest, most inefficient business people I have ever encountered....I mean, they make the DMV look like high achievers in a five-star hotel! I would never ever, do business with them again, or heaven forbid use their *services*. My *encounter* with them had me so riled up....if I was carrying...I would have been tempted to shoot the place up. Instead, left an *ear full* with the branch manager, which was pretty satisfying in itself. Meh.
Those are strong arguments you make, but the Constitutionally correct solution is to allow bakeries and other to refuse service.
My wife did that. Her company (she's now retired) didn't even allow guns to be locked up in a car on its property. My wife started parking on the street and when asked why, she told them she didn't want to break the rules and get fired for protecting herself. her boss was a good guy and liked her, so he helped push to at least allow employees to secure their weapons in their cars.
Attorney Noel Flasterstein, left, is representing Ivette Ros in a suit
Cute picture, but they still don’t have a legal leg to stand on. Companies set their own HR policies and can fire employees who violate them.
Before allowing more lawyers more excuses to sue the remaining productive sectors in America, perhaps we should consider the following fact: If you don’t like the job and its rules, do not take the job.
Despite the best efforts of commies, Libturd lawyers, and commie Mass Media, THERE IS NO “RIGHT” TO A JOB ! ! ! !
In a free society, a willing employer and a willing employee agree on work performed for money and/or benefits, whatever.
If Pizza-Pricks-R-Us won’t let you drive & deliver armed, don’t work for the Pricks.
As for the hypothetical case of a Pizza-Pricks-R-Us employee ‘going postal’ on a customer over the tip, IMHO only if that ‘gone postal’ employee had displayed behavior such that a “reasoned and prudent person” would have concluded there was a risk of “Gone Postal Syndrome” would the employer be liable.
Evil exists, and allowing lawyers to destroy America will not stop evil people acting out their inner demon and doing evil things.
I not that if the hypothetical customer of Pizza-Pricks-R-Us had chosen to be armed, the armed employee would not have been able to commit evil on a helpless victim.
A Pox On Shysters!
Wrap thyself in the Second Amendment and gun totin’ evil persons can be dealt with.
No lawyer needed, either.
May I note in closing that the above suggestion also makes more lawyers get an honest and productive job.
All of you that are saying “private property wins” don’t know Florida law. This is from Florida Statutes 790.251 (4)(c):
No public or private employer shall condition employment upon either:
1. The fact that an employee or prospective employee holds or does not hold a license issued pursuant to s. 790.06; or
2. Any agreement by an employee or a prospective employee that prohibits an employee from keeping a legal firearm locked inside or locked to a private motor vehicle in a parking lot when such firearm is kept for lawful purposes.
(d) No public or private employer shall prohibit or attempt to prevent any customer, employee, or invitee from entering the parking lot of the employers place of business because the customers, employees, or invitees private motor vehicle contains a legal firearm being carried for lawful purposes, that is out of sight within the customers, employees, or invitees private motor vehicle.
(e) No public or private employer may terminate the employment of or otherwise discriminate against an employee, or expel a customer or invitee for exercising his or her constitutional right to keep and bear arms or for exercising the right of self-defense as long as a firearm is never exhibited on company property for any reason other than lawful defensive purposes.
See my post #24. The one thing in question is whether she actually displayed the weapon at work, but she cannot be prohibited from carrying a legally permitted concealed weapon if she carries it in the lawful manner.
Wrong. See my post 24.
I am a huge 2A guy (the moniker might be a clue!), but I am really quite amazed if this is FL law.
You mean that a private company has no right to demand employees not carry, so long as they do so without displaying the firearm, and that is state law? Really?
That is rather draconian, don’t you think?
I mean, I thought the right to do what you will with your own property was the REASON for 2A?????
Please comment and enlighten me.
I think she saw a chance to get her 15 minutes of fame and jumped on it.
Amen. That's what I've been saying for years.
When their insurance costs go up for being anti-gun. They'll stop being anti-gun. Right now feel-goodism is free for them. It shouldn't be.
Thanks for looking that up. Sounds like a slam dunk to me.
Until laws concerning liability and the property owner's duty to protect is changed, I'm all for it.
Wow. Florida is a very civilized state. NC needs to follow suit.
I realize, these are not the same circumstances:
A couple of years ago, Jim Goldberg was arrested when an employee *saw* his holstered gun when his shirt flapped open, when Goldberg was picking up some take-out at a restaurant. The employee called the cops....who turned up in force and arrested Goldberg. Turns out the cops stupidly *misinterpreted* the CT law which allows for open-carry. This ended up as a test-case for legal carry.
We have to know what our individual state laws are, and educate the scare-d-cats to mind their own business.
Ahh, but then they didn’t not know it any more!
“Ones right does not trumps anothers property rights”
Your person is the highest form of private property.
Our founding fathers wrote it best that our rights are God given, so why do you feel a man can take them away? A person and their rights are not separable.
If someone cannot tolerate another person’s rights then have no business asking others to come onto their property.
She's got the Jolie-collagen lips right.
I don’t think it’s draconian. I think it’s a protective measure to prevent concealed carry permit holders from having to jump through hoops to determine when they can and cannot carry. It’s to prevent situations like what we have here with this lady who was fired for carrying on the job. The only recourse that the bank has is if she was not carrying legally. There is some indication in the article that she may not have been, because it says that someone “noticed that she had a gun” and reported her for it. If her gun was ghosting to the point where people could see it through her clothes, or if she actually brandished it inside the bank or showed it off to someone, then she wasn’t complying with the law and the employer can act. However, it’s just as likely that an employee who knows that she carries concealed and has a grudge against her reported her just to get her in trouble, without actually seeing anything. I don’t think the bank has much of a case here in their own defense.
You’re both wrong. See my post #24.
Good for her! You never know unless you ask if you can arrive at an equitable solution.
An excellent post!
I have to retract my post. A friend directed me to some case law that seems to show that the courts have not interpreted that paragraph E literally. They are saying that statutory construction dictates that it must be taken in the context of the overall statute which is in regards to keeping a firearm locked in your vehicle while you are at work.
I owe you guys an apology. Apparently the courts in Florida have decided that this paragraph (e) that I posted does not stand on its own. They only view it as applying in the case where the gun is kept locked in the car while on the employer’s property. That makes sense, since it’s in the context of locked guns in the car, but that paragraph doesn’t make that linkage. The courts have said that it should, so this woman most likely has no case.
Thanks for the clarification RF...as is so often the case, cops don’t know what the law is, and make faulty judgement/s and the citizen is left with the short shrift. This has happened many times here in Connecticut.
*Let’s pass this law and see what is in it*...our FF must be doing back flips in their graves!
We’ll see what her attorney, Noel Flasterstein has up his sleeve, and what he does under the pressure.