deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,595078761,00.html
Justices uphold guns ruling
Fired workers who violated the ban had sued AOL
By Linda Thomson
Deseret Morning News
The Utah Supreme Court on Tuesday asserted that employees do not have the right to bring guns onto company property if there is a policy prohibiting weapons.
The high court's ruling underscored the strength of Utah's long-standing, at-will employment law — which means workers can be fired or quit at any time.
The decision was prompted by a wrongful termination lawsuit filed by three America Online employees, Luke Hansen, Paul Carlson and Jason Melling, who were sacked in 2000 after they transferred guns among their cars in the company's leased parking lot at its Ogden call center.
AOL had a policy, which the employees knew about, that prohibited firearms in the company building and parking lot.
The lawsuit spawned numerous debates about such issues as private property rights vs. the constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms, and what rights employers and workers have under Utah law.
"There remains an evolving discussion about the role of firearms in our society. While certain areas of that debate are more developed than others, the mature at-will employment law in the state of Utah rejects the idea that, in the face of a freely entered-into agreement to the contrary, an employee has the right to carry a firearm on his employer's premises," the court wrote.
The three AOL employees were off work and planned to go target shooting at a local firing range. A company security camera recorded them moving guns from two of the cars to the third man's car, which also had a gun inside. Four days later, the men were fired.
Although these were at-will employees, AOL said the men were fired because they had violated its "Workplace Violence Prevention Policy."
The men filed suit, arguing AOL's actions constituted wrongful termination because possessing guns was protected by public policy, namely the constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
They also argued the at-will employment rule has an exception that permits individuals to sue for wrongful termination in certain instances, such as a worker who gets fired after refusing a request from a boss to do something illegal.
A trial court decided in favor of AOL, and the men appealed the decision.
The unanimous Supreme Court ruling, written by Justice Ronald Nehring, noted that the Utah Legislature heatedly debated such issues in 2004 in its discussion over a chapter in the "uniform firearms laws" that eliminated a policy favored by the University of Utah, which had banned weapons on campus.
"This debate amply captures the tension between two familiar antagonists: the right to regulate one's own private property and the right to keep and bear arms," the Supreme Court opinion said.
"We read the language of (the state law) to indicate that the Legislature has purposefully declined to give the right to keep and bear arms absolute pre-eminence over the right to regulate one's own private property," the ruling said.
Mike O'Brien, who represented several businesses that sided with AOL and filed a friend-of-the-court brief, said his clients are pleased.
"Obviously, we think it's the right result. Obviously, employers should be able to choose on this issue," O'Brien said. "We don't say ban guns or allow them — we just say employers should be allowed to choose, and this decision allows employers to make this choice."
O'Brien said the issue could be revisited by the Legislature, and any changes might spark a flurry of new lawsuits.
"There are very strong private property interests up at the Legislature, but also strong gun interests," O'Brien said. "There could be a very interesting clash of those interests."
Rob Sykes, an attorney representing the three former AOL workers, said his clients are "saddened" by the ruling.
"We respect the courts but have to disagree with them on that particular decision," Sykes said.
|
|
