ILNews

Lawsuit challenges ‘guns in the workplace’ statutes

IL Staff
September 20, 2012
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A Carmel attorney has filed a lawsuit claiming a Morgan County security company has violated laws that prohibit most employers from asking whether an employee owns, possesses, uses or transports firearms and from preventing employees from having a gun locked up and out-of-sight in their vehicles.

Guy Relford filed the suit in Morgan Circuit Court Wednesday on behalf of Thomas Jordan, who worked at ADM Enforcement Inc. from April 2012 to September 2012 as an armed security guard. The suit alleges that the company required Thomas to disclose whether he owned, possessed or transported firearms that weren’t approved by ADM. It also alleges that the company adopted a policy prior to Sept. 1, 2012, that prohibited any ADM employee from possessing any firearm not approved by the company, including guns locked in an employee’s vehicle and stored out of plain sight.

Relford argues this violates Indiana Code 34-28-8-6 – which prohibits most employers from creating a policy that requires employees to disclose whether they possess, use, own or transport firearms – and 34-28-7-2, – which prohibits most employers from creating a policy preventing employees from having a gun locked in an employee’s car and out of plain sight. The laws were passed in 2011 and 2010 respectively.

Jordan allegedly told ADM that their disclosure requirements violated Indiana law. He was fired Sept. 1 for allegedly violating the company resolution that no ADM employees should have any rifle or shotguns in their cars while on duty.

Relford claims that this suit is the first challenge to these “guns in the workplace” statutes. Jordan seeks damages, payment of lost wages, and an injunction ordering ADM to refrain from any additional violations of these two statutes.

The case is Thomas Jordan v. ADM Enforcement Inc., 5502-1209-PL-1981.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. My daughters' kids was removed from the home in March 2015, she has been in total compliance with the requirements of cps, she is going to court on the 4th of August. Cps had called the first team meeting last Monday to inform her that she was not in compliance, by not attending home based therapy, which is done normally with the children in the home, and now they are recommending her to have a psych evaluation, and they are also recommending that the children not be returned to the home. This is all bull hockey. In this so called team meeting which I did attend for the best interest of my child and grandbabies, I learned that no matter how much she does that cps is not trying to return the children and the concerns my daughter has is not important to cps, they only told her that she is to do as they say and not to resist or her rights will be terminated. I cant not believe the way Cps treats people knowing if they threaten you with loosing your kids you will do anything to get them back. My daughter is drug free she has never put her hands on any of her children she does not scream at her babies at all, but she is only allowed to see her kids 6 hours a week and someone has to supervise. Lets all tske a stand against the child protection services. THEY CAN NO LONGER TAKE CHILDREN FROM THERE PARENTS.

  2. Planned Parenthood has the government so trained . . .

  3. In a related story, an undercover video team released this footage of the government's search of the Planned Parenthood facilities. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXVN7QJ8m88

  4. Here is an excellent movie for those wanting some historical context, as well as encouragement to stand against dominant political forces and knaves who carry the staves of governance to enforce said dominance: http://www.copperheadthemovie.com/

  5. Not enough copperheads here to care anymore, is my guess. Otherwise, a totally pointless gesture. ... Oh wait: was this done because somebody want to avoid bad press - or was it that some weak kneed officials cravenly fear "protest" violence by "urban youths.."

ADVERTISEMENT