Ivette Ros carries her 9-millimeter handgun almost everywhere, saying it makes her feel safe. Then she brought it to her job at Wells Fargo, where she worked as a branch manager, and it got her fired.
So Ros is suing the bank, saying it violated her constitutional rights and other protections afforded under Florida law. The bank, which bans employees from carrying guns on company premises, replied in a court filing that only the government, not a private employer, can be sued over alleged constitutional violations. The case in Florida is unfolding as part of a bigger debate on how far the rights of gun owners extend into the workplace.
Wells Fargo & Co. bans employees from bringing guns into work except in very limited cases, such as when employees are granted permission by a chief security officer at the bank. Says the bank: “Possessing firearms and weapons on company premises or at company-sponsored events is dangerous to team members and is strictly prohibited.”
Things started to unravel around July. Wells Fargo’s corporate security received a complaint that Ros was bringing a gun to work. So corporate security came to her branch and asked her if she had a gun in her car and if she’d ever brought it inside the building. She said yes. The following week, she was fired.
Things started to unravel around July. Wells Fargo’s corporate security received a complaint that Ros was bringing a gun to work. So corporate security came to her branch and asked her if she had a gun in her car and if she’d ever brought it inside the building. She said yes. The following week, she was fired.
They're right on the Constitutional issue, regardless of how much I disagree with their policy.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, it's interesting how some on the left like lawsuits that complain about the violation of constitutional rights when it's about discrimination against blacks, gays, women, etc., and some on the right like lawsuits that complain about violation of constitutional rights when it's a different kind of discrimination such as Christians told not to wear crosses, Sikh's told they can't wear a turban, etc.
How about we all just sit down, set aside our hot buttons, and either decide that private property owners have the right to be assholes on their property (and we have a corresponding right to boycott and ostracize them for their assholish racism, etc.), or that they have to protect all Constitutional Rights.
I'm for protecting our rights everywhere. A for-profit business isn't a person, no matter how many foolish rulings to the contrary are issued by the Supreme Court. Individual rights trump business rights.
DeleteWhat you think and what the law is, are two different things. Change the law, follow the law, or just break the law. We are a nation of laws.
DeleteThat's a funny story. Only in Florida could somebody that off-base get an attorney to take their case.
ReplyDeleteSimon. Banning guns does not equate with "being assholes." Laws concerning true discrimination, (look it up), will always apply to any private property that is open to the public. What's your take on Rand Paul's Civil Rights Act rant? I'm starting to think that you're a little bit unhinged. Do they really tell children in schools they are not allowed to wear crosses? Sounds like malarkey to me. I think it was France that was discriminating against Muslims. Despicable stuff wherever it occurs. Absolutely nothing to do with gun rights.
Simon,
DeleteYes, the French banned Muslims from wearing the hijab at school--they did it by a law that also pissed off some Catholics because it forbade any overt religious display at school--banning crosses as well as hijabs.
However, I wasn't talking about schools. I was thinking of EEOC cases that you see where a Christian sues because their boss told them to put their cross inside their shirt or take it off, or told a Sikh they couldn't wear their turban because of a dress code, etc.
I would think those things, if pushed to the point of firing, would qualify as "true discrimination."
Don't know what incident you're calling Rand's Civil Rights Act rant, so I don't know if I've seen it or not, but I can give you my opinion in my own words--Let people refuse service to whoever they want for whatever reason they want, whether it's a good reason, a bad reason, whatever, because it's their property. AND, if someone is discriminating against people, target them for boycotts, to cut off their suppliers, etc. and run them out of business.
I don't say this because of some secret desire to discriminate--I hate racism more than you know--I once broke off a relationship when I had just started ring shopping because I found out the lady had some deep seated issues with a the interracial couples at my church. I don't tolerate that shit. I just have a similarly staunch desire to see private property rights respected, even if I find the person's chosen exercise of those rights (and by extension the person themself) disgusting.
I think you are quite correct regarding an employer forbidding an employee to display a simple symbol of their religion. It would fall under the category of prohibited practices, the sub-category of dress code.
DeleteMoreover, if the dress code conflicts with an employee's religious practices and the employee requests an accommodation, the employer must modify the dress code or permit an exception to the dress code unless doing so would result in undue hardship.
Rand Paul shortly after winning the Kentucky primary in the senatorial race made a now famous statement in which this rather damning interchange took place.
Asked by Ms. Maddow if a private business had the right to refuse to serve black people, Mr. Paul replied, “Yes.”
Most of us bleeding heart hardcore liberals believe that this was the statement which was the dog whistle that propelled him to national stardom. He went on to qualify his remarks.
“I’m not in favor of any discrimination of any form,” Mr. Paul continued. “I would never belong to any club that excluded anybody for race. We still do have private clubs in America that can discriminate based on race. But I think what’s important about this debate is not written into any specific ‘gotcha’ on this, but asking the question: what about freedom of speech? Should we limit speech from people we find abhorrent? Should we limit racists from speaking?”
I thought the Supreme Court already ruled that a company has a right to ban guns on their premises? Am I wrong?
ReplyDelete