Employer immunity when allowing concealed carry?

[dws999]

I work for a Texas company that was bought a couple of years ago by a corporation based in Missouri. They have just recently put in place a corporate wide "Weapons in the Workplace" ban, which includes CHL holders. In doing my research, it appears that some states provide companies that exclude CHL holders from such bans, with some immunity from liability. It appears there is no such immunity in Texas. Am I correct? Is there a chance of this being put in place in the future? It does appear that in Texas employers do have immunity for incidents that happen the parking lot.

[RoyGBiv]

The "Parking Lot Law" provides for employer immunity, but only for places mandated under the law (employer parking lots).
See 52.063 here: http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82 ... 00321F.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If the employer allows guns inside the building, I am not aware of any immunities in TX code.
I believe you could be in trouble under OSHA (failure to provide a safe workplace) as well as in civil court.

I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice, just my personal opinion.

[JKTex]

It sounds like it doesn't matter what Texas law does or does not do, the company has a blanket policy. If you're planning to present to them, legal advice (sort of) to convince them to change the policy, I think I'd rather confidentially take it up the chain of command to get permission to carry if that's what you are concerned with.

Even if you think you could affect change to policy, consider whether a company would change written policy that applies to different states, and specifically amend, in writing, a policy for 1 state. I'm going with, it ain't gonna happen. They're usually written with a lot of consideration and legal guidance and they're making a decision based on the companies risk exposure pure and simple.

[C-dub]

Some states tried using OSHA as an excuse not to pass "parking lot" bills until OSHA said they didn't care or guns in the work place weren't within the scope of there interest or something like that.

I would like to see something done to put employers at ease about liability in cases like this. It might help more employers relax their policies on firearms.

[dws999]

Here is the relevant part of the Wisconsin CC law concerning employer immunity.

Any entity which opts in good faith not to prohibit the carrying of concealed weapons in the course of a employee’s job duties, or in a building or on property controlled by the entity, is immune from any criminal or civil liability for an act or omission resulting from the decision. Instructors conducting qualified firearms safety and training courses are similarly immunized.

Subsequently in this commentary from the Wisconsin Law Journal, the writer recommends that employers allow concealed carry to take advantage of the immunity provided
http://wislawjournal.com/2012/08/29/tor ... -immunity/

That's why I'd like to see this become part of the Texas law. It seems that 1) given the record of how law abiding CHL holders are, and 2) a strong argument can be made that an employer was negligent by prohibiting CC, that adding immunity to the law could have a strong influence on employers to exempt CHL holders from a weapons ban.

[Jumping Frog]

Ohio law simply makes it clear that an employer is not liable for actions of licensees, regardless of whether the employer chooses to post or not.

O.R.C. 2923.126(C)(2)(a) A private employer shall be immune from liability in a civil action for any injury, death, or loss to person or property that allegedly was caused by or related to a licensee bringing a handgun onto the premises or property of the private employer, including motor vehicles owned by the private employer, unless the private employer acted with malicious purpose. A private employer is immune from liability in a civil action for any injury, death, or loss to person or property that allegedly was caused by or related to the private employer’s decision to permit a licensee to bring, or prohibit a licensee from bringing, a handgun onto the premises or property of the private employer. As used in this division, “private employer” includes a private college, university, or other institution of higher education.

[dws999]

That's even better.

So how do we go about getting the Texas CHL law amended to include that kind of immunity (besides writing the legislature.)?

Who else thinks it would be a good change? Or is it a bad idea?

[mewalke]

That's even better.

So how do we go about getting the Texas CHL law amended to include that kind of immunity (besides writing the legislature.)?

Who else thinks it would be a good change? Or is it a bad idea?

I think it would be a great change. Although I don't see my employer changing their policies anyway...

[dws999]

It's hard to predict. I'm not management material. My simple minded view is that the risk of being sued is a strong motivator for companies putting weapon bans in place. Give them an option that will reduce their liability, and they just might take it.

Imagine a company bans CC and an incident of workplace violence occurs. The company is sued based on the idea that banning CC created a dangerous environment by removing something that could have prevented it. I'm no lawyer, but I'm guessing that in Texas at least, there would be a decent chance of the company losing. Convince a company that allowing CC is less risk than banning it, and I think a smart company would consider it, if not jump on it outright.

Any lawyers out there?

[C-dub]

It's hard to predict. I'm not management material. My simple minded view is that the risk of being sued is a strong motivator for companies putting weapon bans in place. Give them an option that will reduce their liability, and they just might take it.

Imagine a company bans CC and an incident of workplace violence occurs. The company is sued based on the idea that banning CC created a dangerous environment by removing something that could have prevented it. I'm no lawyer, but I'm guessing that in Texas at least, there would be a decent chance of the company losing. Convince a company that allowing CC is less risk than banning it, and I think a smart company would consider it, if not jump on it outright.

Any lawyers out there?

Fortunately or unfortunately, it is very unlikely that a company will ever be held liable for the actions of a an individual. It does seem strange because my company can beheld liable if I do something wrong related to my job that causes death or injury to another. There are some caveats to that, but they can. Personally, I don't understand why my company couldn't be held liable if another employee were to come in and shoot the place up and by policy I was disarmed and therefore unable to defend myself. I just don't get it. If my company failed to provide or make other safety equipment available they would held liable if I were injured by something that the safety equipment would have prevented.

[dws999]

Thanks for everyone's input. I think it's an idea worth pursuing. I think I'll start contacting people I know, CHL instructors, and legislators. If you agree, I hope you will too.

I welcome all ideas and suggestions, especially if you have experience in business management, or law.

Thanks,
dws

[tacticool]

If they allow cars are they liable for collisions that occur in the parking lot? If they don't ban cell phones, are they liable if an employee makes a harassing phone call?

[mewalke]

If they allow cars are they liable for collisions that occur in the parking lot? If they don't ban cell phones, are they liable if an employee makes a harassing phone call?

Regarding collisions in the parking lot, I'm guessing companies have been held liable in the past, which is why so many companies now have speed limit and stop signs in parking lots even though many states do not extend traffic laws onto private property. Insurance company won't continue to provide coverage if the employer doesn't take "reasonable" steps to ensure traffic safety in their parking lot.

The cell phone example isn't as relevant, since most likely both parties wouldn't be located on company property, and there is no property damage.