Recourse against employer who disregards SB 321?

CHL discussions that do not fit into more specific topics

Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton

User avatar

ScottDLS
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 4702
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 1:04 am
Location: DFW Area, TX

Re: Recourse against employer who disregards SB 321?

#16

Post by ScottDLS » Sat Jun 24, 2017 7:18 pm

1911 10MM wrote:
twomillenium wrote:
Scott65 wrote:Not sure about the OP, but some of us are subject to random searches... Makes for some potential high stakes gambling on a daily basis. :mad5
If they terminate your employment for that very reason, just think of the backpay and maybe punitive damages you may get. :tiphat:
Good luck proving that in an "At Will" state.
All 50 states in the Union, and DC are "at will" jurisdictions. Enough people still seem to be able to make a case out of being fired for reasons that are NOT prohibited by law to make it risky for an employer to fire you for something that IS specifically mentioned. If one was fired immediately after a random search discovered a firearm in said person's car, I'm sure you'd have a few contingency fee lawyers that would be willing to step up. And who are these employers that ACTUALLY conduct random searches of privately owned vehicles in their parking lots. I know lots that say they will, but how many really waste the effort? Do they require employees to open locked vehicles? Do they go through the trunk, glove box and other compartments? Do they have trained dogs sniff the cars? What kind of skilled employees work for these firms?
4/13/1996 Completed CHL Class, 4/16/1996 Fingerprints, Affidavits, and Application Mailed, 10/4/1996 Received CHL, renewed 1998, 2002, 2006, 2011, 2016...). "ATF... Uhhh...heh...heh....Alcohol, tobacco, and GUNS!! Cool!!!!"


Scott65
Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 60
Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2013 7:43 pm

Re: Recourse against employer who disregards SB 321?

#17

Post by Scott65 » Sat Jun 24, 2017 8:05 pm

"And who are these employers that ACTUALLY conduct random searches of privately owned vehicles in their parking lots. I know lots that say they will, but how many really waste the effort? Do they require employees to open locked vehicles? Do they go through the trunk, glove box and other compartments? Do they have trained dogs sniff the cars? What kind of skilled employees work for these firms?"
Some of the biggest names in industry. Yes, yes, yes. Well paid, best in their field, type folks that can pass fairly serious background checks... It's really fairly common in certain industries. And as an aside, they also scrutinize social media on their employees as well...

User avatar

ScottDLS
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 4702
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 1:04 am
Location: DFW Area, TX

Re: Recourse against employer who disregards SB 321?

#18

Post by ScottDLS » Sat Jun 24, 2017 10:06 pm

Scott65 wrote:"And who are these employers that ACTUALLY conduct random searches of privately owned vehicles in their parking lots. I know lots that say they will, but how many really waste the effort? Do they require employees to open locked vehicles? Do they go through the trunk, glove box and other compartments? Do they have trained dogs sniff the cars? What kind of skilled employees work for these firms?"
Some of the biggest names in industry. Yes, yes, yes. Well paid, best in their field, type folks that can pass fairly serious background checks... It's really fairly common in certain industries. And as an aside, they also scrutinize social media on their employees as well...
Interesting, because I've worked (on contract) for military and intelligence agencies, in SCIFs and secure facilities, and on military bases in locations that required TS/SCI clearances to be in, and they never bothered with searching the parking lots. Sure you had to pass the SSBI and polygraph to get your clearance to work in the facilities, but once you did they left you alone. I've never seen parking lot/vehicle searches and the only time I've ever heard of them is when they were looking for classified documents/media leaving the SCIF. Seemed like they couldn't care less about weapons or even 'dope' for that matter. The facility security always seemed to care more about keeping unauthorized people out than what the employees had in their cars or rental cars. I've heard of companies that do drug tests, but the last time I had one was in the Navy (then they gave them about once a month or two).

Some Aerospace & Defense companies like to tell you they'll search their parking lots, but they never have as far as I've seen. I'm talking Boeing, Northrop, Lockheed, L3....all have facilities in Texas. Interestingly regardless of what they tell you, if you are working as an employee in Texas for them they cannot prohibit you leaving your weapon in your car, even if they are are working a Defense contract. As far as federal facilities, the parking lots are specifically excluded from 18 USC 930 and in absence of other federal or state restrictions you can carry in you car.

I can't think of too many private companies that are so great to work for that really care to search vehicles. In my industry (IT), the big ones like IBM, Microsoft, Google, Amazon, HP, Dell, Oracle, SAP, Salesforce...none of them are particularly concerned what you have in your car. Most of them are even more worried about their LGBTQ inclusiveness, than whether you smoke rope (I don't). :lol: I'm sure they'd all be horrified if you keep a .357 in the glovebox, yet I've never seen them post a valid 30.06, or check your Facebook to see if you're in the NRA. :shock:

Who are these mystery companies that everyone is beating down the door to work at that also check your social media and have K-9 patrols sniffing your cars? Citibank, Goldman, Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase? Will my college pictures of doing beer bongs at the frat house get me fired from NASA? :evil2:
4/13/1996 Completed CHL Class, 4/16/1996 Fingerprints, Affidavits, and Application Mailed, 10/4/1996 Received CHL, renewed 1998, 2002, 2006, 2011, 2016...). "ATF... Uhhh...heh...heh....Alcohol, tobacco, and GUNS!! Cool!!!!"


jb2012
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 916
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2015 1:12 pm

Re: Recourse against employer who disregards SB 321?

#19

Post by jb2012 » Sat Jun 24, 2017 11:13 pm

"come and take it"

User avatar

Liberty
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 6240
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 8:49 pm
Location: Galveston
Contact:

Re: Recourse against employer who disregards SB 321?

#20

Post by Liberty » Sun Jun 25, 2017 8:00 am

The Petro Chem industry has had random searches of vehicles in the parking lots. Sometimes involving dogs. I've heard of people getting in trouble with hunting guns, and liquor. I got in some trouble once because they found a Bic lighter on the passenger floorboards of my car.

Searches of POVs are a real thing in the PetroChem field. Ironically I don't think they are as common today as they are previous to 911. The emphasis is on bombs and terrorist today instead of contraband and theft.
Liberty''s Blog
"Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom." John F. Kennedy


twomillenium
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 1693
Joined: Tue Mar 26, 2013 10:42 pm
Location: houston area

Re: Recourse against employer who disregards SB 321?

#21

Post by twomillenium » Sun Jun 25, 2017 8:27 am

1911 10MM wrote:
twomillenium wrote:
Scott65 wrote:Not sure about the OP, but some of us are subject to random searches... Makes for some potential high stakes gambling on a daily basis. :mad5
If they terminate your employment for that very reason, just think of the backpay and maybe punitive damages you may get. :tiphat:
Good luck proving that in an "At Will" state.
AS I said, if that is the reason they use to terminate you, then it has been proven, already.
Texas LTC Instructor, NRA pistol instructor, RSO, NRA Endowment Life , TSRA, Glock enthusiast (tho I have others)
Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit, wisdom is knowing not to add it to a fruit salad.

You will never know another me, this could be good or not so good, but it is still true.


CrimsonSoul
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 529
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 9:21 pm

Re: Recourse against employer who disregards SB 321?

#22

Post by CrimsonSoul » Sun Jun 25, 2017 9:36 am

Liberty wrote:The Petro Chem industry has had random searches of vehicles in the parking lots. Sometimes involving dogs. I've heard of people getting in trouble with hunting guns, and liquor. I got in some trouble once because they found a Bic lighter on the passenger floorboards of my car.

Searches of POVs are a real thing in the PetroChem field. Ironically I don't think they are as common today as they are previous to 911. The emphasis is on bombs and terrorist today instead of contraband and theft.
Chemical (and petrol chemical plants) the where they have guards at the parking lots 24/7 are still prohibited from carrying in their car just fyi
Approved 07/17/09
In hand 07/17/09

User avatar

ScottDLS
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 4702
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 1:04 am
Location: DFW Area, TX

Re: Recourse against employer who disregards SB 321?

#23

Post by ScottDLS » Sun Jun 25, 2017 9:50 am

CrimsonSoul wrote:
Liberty wrote:The Petro Chem industry has had random searches of vehicles in the parking lots. Sometimes involving dogs. I've heard of people getting in trouble with hunting guns, and liquor. I got in some trouble once because they found a Bic lighter on the passenger floorboards of my car.

Searches of POVs are a real thing in the PetroChem field. Ironically I don't think they are as common today as they are previous to 911. The emphasis is on bombs and terrorist today instead of contraband and theft.
Chemical (and petrol chemical plants) the where they have guards at the parking lots 24/7 are still prohibited from carrying in their car just fyi
Not legally, but they can use it to fire you.
4/13/1996 Completed CHL Class, 4/16/1996 Fingerprints, Affidavits, and Application Mailed, 10/4/1996 Received CHL, renewed 1998, 2002, 2006, 2011, 2016...). "ATF... Uhhh...heh...heh....Alcohol, tobacco, and GUNS!! Cool!!!!"


Soccerdad1995
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 3903
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 8:03 pm

Re: Recourse against employer who disregards SB 321?

#24

Post by Soccerdad1995 » Wed Jun 28, 2017 12:20 pm

twomillenium wrote:
1911 10MM wrote:
twomillenium wrote:
Scott65 wrote:Not sure about the OP, but some of us are subject to random searches... Makes for some potential high stakes gambling on a daily basis. :mad5
If they terminate your employment for that very reason, just think of the backpay and maybe punitive damages you may get. :tiphat:
Good luck proving that in an "At Will" state.
AS I said, if that is the reason they use to terminate you, then it has been proven, already.
And even if they don't state that as the reason, it would come down to proving it in court. If a person has glowing performance reviews, no policy violations in their file, and they are suddenly fired right after a random search finds a legally owned firearm in their vehicle, you probably won't even need a very good attorney.

Substitute the words "right after the employee comes out as gay" with finding a firearm, and you can probably find plenty of cases with significant settlement payments, or judgments in favor of the wrongfully terminated employee. My sister in law was terminated from her job a week after she told her supervisor that she was pregnant. She ended up with a cash payment equal to more than 2 years salary. That was after attorney's fees.

Back to the OP - I wouldn't hesitate to let the company know that their policy is in violation of the law. Make clear that you are mentioning this out of concern for the company. Then again, I am in a management position at my company so part of my job is to look out for the company's best interests. I would do the same thing if I thought that we might be violating tax regulations, export compliance, or anything else. It might go over better if worded as a question versus an accusation.
Ding dong, the witch is dead

Post Reply

Return to “General Texas CHL Discussion”