While we all sit and wait for a concealed or open carry case involving civil liability to rear its ugly head I thought I would report on a recent employment law case involving a concealed-carry issue. The case addresses a very interesting topic that has many employers concerned and confused all at the same time – a gun in an employee’s car in the parking lot.

The case is Bruce Holly v. UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Inc., et al. and it is pending in the U.S. District Court in Louisville, Kentucky.  (2016 WL 698161).  On February 19, 2016 the district court issued its opinion, granting summary judgment for the defendant employer.  We will wait and see if this ruling is appealed to the Sixth Circuit.

Facts Of Case

• On 4/1/13 the plaintiff had car trouble on his way to work at UPS Supply Chain Solutions. When he arrived to work, he was given permission to leave work and take his car to the repair shop.
• As the plaintiff was leaving, he remembered he had a handgun in his car.
• The plaintiff asked a co-worker if he could store his gun in the co-worker’s car while the plaintiff took his car to be repaired and the co-worker agreed.
• In the UPS parking lot, the plaintiff removed his gun from his car and put it in his co-worker’s car. When the plaintiff returned to the UPS parking lot later that day, he returned the gun to his own car.
• 7 weeks later, the plaintiff’s employment with UPS was terminated for a poor performance review in 2011 and because he had a subordinate co-worker do a personal favor for him on company time.
• The plaintiff claims the reasons for his termination changed over time and he believed the stated reasons for a pretext with the real reason being he had a gun in his vehicle.

Plaintiff’s Allegations

• The plaintiff alleged UPS violated Kentucky Revised Statute Sections 237.106 and 527.020 by firing him and that he was wrongfully discharged.
• Section 527.020 is part of the penal code but also creates a civil cause of action. The statute provides: No person or organization, public or private, shall prohibit a person licensed to carry a concealed deadly weapon from possessing a firearm, ammunition, or both, or other deadly weapon in his or her vehicle in compliance with the provisions of KRS 237.110 and 237.115. Any attempt by a person or organization, public or private, to violate the provisions of the statute may be the subject of an action for appropriate relief or for damages.
• Under section 237.110, “[p]ossession of weapons, or ammunition, or both in a vehicle on the premises [of a business enterprise] shall not be a criminal offense so long as the weapons, or ammunition, or both are not removed from the vehicle or brandished while the vehicle is on the premises.” The section also states that the “[c]arrying of a concealed weapon, or ammunition, or both in a location specified in this subsection by a license holder shall not be a criminal act but may subject” an employee to “disciplinary measures by the employer.”
• Under section 237.106 an employee who is legally entitled to possess a firearm has a right to possess a firearm in a vehicle on his employer’s property. There are four situations listed in which a firearm may be “removed from the vehicle or handled”: (1) self-defense, (2) defense
• of another, (3) defense of property, or (4) as authorized by the owner, lessee, or occupant of the property. The statute imposes civil liability on “[a]n employer that fires, disciplines, demotes, or otherwise punishes an employee who is lawfully exercising a right guaranteed by the statute and who is engaging in conduct in compliance with the statute.”

Court Findings

• The plaintiff’s actions of moving his gun from one vehicle to another in the company parking lot is specifically NOT protected conduct under section 527.020(4) because it states an employee may be disciplined for carrying a concealed weapon on an employer’s premises. Therefore, UPS could not be held liable for violating that section.
• UPS did not violate subsection (8) of section 527.020 because once the plaintiff removed his gun from the enclosed compartment in his car, he was no longer protected by the statute.
• Firing an employee for an incident involving a gun is not per se unlawful.
• If the plaintiff left the gun in his vehicle, he would have been protected by section 237.106 but as soon as he removed it from his vehicle for a reason not included in the statute, he lost his protection.

Image courtesy of Panpote at FreeDigitalPhotos.net