[Forum Lawyers] Can’t you sue one of these companies?

[DaveTN]

I know that you can’t force a business to allow someone to carry, but can’t you do something about cases like the AutoZone worker being fired for getting a gun out of his truck and stopping a potential homicide, Or the pizza delivery guy having his hours cut for fending off attackers that were punching him in the face because he used a stick?

 

These companies have these policies because of their fear of lawsuits. But to take action against someone defending their life or the life of another is crazy. Can’t you use what they fear the most to make an example out of them?

 

To make sure I’m being clear here, I’m not saying they can’t have a policy agonist guns and they can’t fire someone for violating it. But to fire someone for violating it to save a person’s life is ridiculous.

 

Kinda like Tennessee’s gun laws. You can’t carry a gun without a permit, but if you do and you have to use it, you can’t be charged with a weapons violation if you are justified in using it.

 

???

[Stegall Law Firm]

As you probably know, you can sue anybody/company, for anything, at anytime, but something like this will not be successful.  What is the legal claim going to be based on?  Discrimination?  These rules are so the company can claim they are not discriminating.  That's what this is all about.  If Autozone gave a pass to the guy who stopped the armed robber, then the next Autozone employee who was caught with a gun in the car or on his person, even if he wasn't saving anyone's life, could claim discrimination because he's being treated differently.  So the company has an absolute zero tolerance, no exceptions policy. 

 

A court, or the EEOC, is not going to care that the employee was breaking the rule for a good cause.  That has nothing to do with discrimination.  As long as the company's action is not discriminatory (based on the law) then you're just not going to have a cause of action.  I had a lengthy discussion with Mrs. SLF, who works in HR for a big company, about the Autozone case.  She totally understood their position.  Said she would do the same thing.  Not that she liked it, but that's how things have to be done when you're managing lots of people she explained.   

[Sam1]

TN needs to implement a provision under the good Samaritan law that protects idividuals from reprisal from their employer if they act in defense of life.

Maybe something like that is the way to go?

[Dolomite_supafly]

Or maybe sue them because it will cost them more to defend the suit than it would to hire the person back. Not really sure how long the person would work until they were fired for some other reason but the cost would still be there.

 

They do this to save the money of defending lawsuits and if they realized it was going to cost them just as much either way maybe they would do the right thing.

 

Dolomite

[Guest PapaB]

Why can't they be sued for the emotional distress caused by policies requiring you watch someone get beaten, or preventing you from defending yourself while getting assaulted yourself? I would think that would be worth 10's of thousands of dollars.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Or maybe sue them because it will cost them more to defend the suit than it would to hire the person back. Not really sure how long the person would work until they were fired for some other reason but the cost would still be there.

 

They do this to save the money of defending lawsuits and if they realized it was going to cost them just as much either way maybe they would do the right thing.

 

Dolomite

As much as I agree with your sentiment, that's not what lawsuits should be for. That's lowering yourself to another's

level. It also says some bad things about the legal system when things like that are even allowed.

[Dolomite_supafly]

The "legal" system used to be about getting justice for someone who was wronged but that is not the case any longer. And if they want to screw a person over for no reason then then those doing the screwing should be open to some sort of justice.

 

As much as I hate frivolous lawsuits it is the Amerca we live in today. But in the Pizza Hut case I would think it would not be frivolous to sue for being punished for defending yourself. I can honestly say that if I sat on that jury I would give an award.

 

Ultimately the companies should do what is right, either of their own free will or through legal action.

 

Dolomite

[LawVol]

In Little v Eastgate of Jackson, LLC, the Tennessee Court of Appeals held:

 

"In sum, we agree with the trial court's recognition of a clearly-mandated public policy in favor of encouraging citizens to rescue others reasonably believed to be in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm, and find that this public policy may be the basis for an exception to the at-will employment doctrine in Tennessee."

 

In Little, the employee was working at a beer store and saw a woman being assaulted across the street.  He grabbed a baseball bat and ran outside to help.  Note, however, that the baseball bat was kept under the counter at the store.  

[LagerHead]

TN needs to implement a provision under the good Samaritan law that protects idividuals from reprisal from their employer if they act in defense of life.

Maybe something like that is the way to go?

 

More regulation is not the answer. He knew the rules. He broke the rules. That's just the way it is. One of the many reasons businesses and their rules are so screwed up today is the over-regulation of them.

 

Why can't they be sued for the emotional distress caused by policies requiring you watch someone get beaten, or preventing you from defending yourself while getting assaulted yourself? I would think that would be worth 10's of thousands of dollars.

 

Because nobody is forcing him to work there. My company has a no guns policy both in the building and in their parking areas. I don't like it but I feel the financial incentives they offer me are good enough that I work here anyway. If I got fired for breaking that policy it would be nobody's fault but my own and I would have zero reason to bitch about it, regardless of the reason or my intentions when breaking the rule. 

[Guest 6.8 AR]

The "legal" system used to be about getting justice for someone who was wronged but that is not the case any longer. And if they want to screw a person over for no reason then then those doing the screwing should be open to some sort of justice.

As much as I hate frivolous lawsuits it is the Amerca we live in today. But in the Pizza Hut case I would think it would not be frivolous to sue for being punished for defending yourself. I can honestly say that if I sat on that jury I would give an award.

Ultimately the companies should do what is right, either of their own free will or through legal action.

Dolomite

Well, then sue a company for complying with other laws is an answer and justification for being
frivolous. Stegall answered the problem companies have. I don't see how suing a company will

fix that. Frivolous lawsuits will only cost people their jobs and is a most unproductive use of the

courts and company's time. I would rather seek a better business climate with fewer laws

regulating them. All the excessive laws do is cause the paradox we have.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited January 3, 2013 by 6.8 AR

[Sam1]

<blockquote class='ipsBlockquote'data-author="LagerHead" data-cid="875096" data-time="1357223617"><p>
More regulation is not the answer. He knew the rules. He broke the rules. That's just the way it is. One of the many reasons businesses and their rules are so screwed up today is the over-regulation of them.<br />
<br />
<br />
Because nobody is forcing him to work there. My company has a no guns policy both in the building and in their parking areas. I don't like it but I feel the financial incentives they offer me are good enough that I work here anyway. If I got fired for breaking that policy it would be nobody's fault but my own and I would have zero reason to bitch about it, regardless of the reason or my intentions when breaking the rule.</p></blockquote>


Sometimes regulations are a good thing. Like those pesky ones that restrict Chinese companies from selling baby formula here that was made from dried antifreeze and flavored with strichnine.

Nothing ever works perfectly, just like the good samaritan legislation in the first place. If that wasn't in place, someone would be able to hold you accountable for a broken finger during a scuffle if you intervened during a rape.... That is just as stupid as being adminstratively punished for saving a life.

[RobertNashville]

The "legal" system used to be about getting justice for someone who was wronged but that is not the case any longer. And if they want to screw a person over for no reason then then those doing the screwing should be open to some sort of justice.

 

As much as I hate frivolous lawsuits it is the Amerca we live in today. But in the Pizza Hut case I would think it would not be frivolous to sue for being punished for defending yourself. I can honestly say that if I sat on that jury I would give an award.

 

Ultimately the companies should do what is right, either of their own free will or through legal action.

 

Dolomite

He's being punished for breaking his employer's rules; not for defending himself.  A minor distinction perhaps but an important one I think.

 

If I owned a pizza delivery shop I don't even know whether or not I'd have this kind of rule as I can see good and bad on both sides of the issue; I'd like to think I'd come down on allowing my employees to carry if they decided to do so (and assuming they did so legally) but I would have to think long and hard about as well as talk with my attorney.

[Dustbuster]

One thing that wasn't mentioned: condition of pre employment. Mr. Autozone voluntarily signed an agreement to adhere to company policy and adhere to safety policy and guidelines.When he voluntarily signed that agreement as a condition of employment he waived his right to do what he wanted and agreed to do what autozone wanted within reason on their time while under their employ.

 

People sue because their pissed off,anyone can sue,it doesn't mean they'll win, it means they'll spend money,or pay a lawyer contingent, to make a point, hopefully receiving compensation for loss or damage incurred. AND LEGAL FEES INCURRED.....

 

open thought: The potential victim may ( and #$ should) sue auto zone because auto zone presented a false sense of security for shoppers by having cameras, a lit parking lot if at night, and BURDENING an employee who held regard for the customers life at best interest.

 

12 jurors would not see auto zone as the champion on this if done right........nor would auto zone handle the bad publicity...........A new lawyer still sweating from his bar admission exam would win that argument in under an hour......

 

 

In mid tn we had an almost victimized  jets pizza guy blast a robber.the jets guy was NOT prosecuted and was NOT fired from jets last i heard.go jets

[DaveTN]

I was thinking more along the lines of a wrongful death suit. Let’s say that when Mr. AutoZone got out he ran and called 911 instead of going back and chasing off the armed robber. Let’s say that Mr. AutoZone said he had a gun, but he couldn’t reenter the store because he is a new father and needs his job, and that AutoZone would fire him.

 

Let’s say the armed robber executed the Manager before he fled the office. Sure the murderer is responsible but I can’t help think that AutoZone is complicit in his death. Deadly force was justified and was available, but not used because of fear of what the store would do.

 

I know Good Samaritan laws don’t cover getting fired; but they should.

[Sam1]

I know Good Samaritan laws don’t cover getting fired; but they should.

 

Agree 100%.

[Ebow1]

Guys, guys, there's a very simple solution to this, at least for people who work at a pizza place. You use the equipment that is necessary to the operation of the store AS a weapon. For example, hurling a pizza oven at somebody. Pizza Hut can't exactly fire you for having the oven in the store THEY put it there. Also, it helps if you're a driver, as nobody screws with the guy who threw the pizza oven. In all seriousness there's all KINDS of crap inside a kitchen that can be used as a weapon that you didn't put there and can't be defined as you having a weapon.