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. Is it possible to amend an order for child support due to false paternity?

  2. He did not have an "unlicensed handgun" in his pocket. Firearms are not licensed in Indiana. He apparently possessed a handgun without a license to carry, but it's not the handgun that is licensed (or registered).

  3. Once again, Indiana's legislature proves how friendly it is to monopolies. This latest bill by Hershman demonstrates the lengths Indiana's representatives are willing to go to put big business's (especially utilities') interests above those of everyday working people. Maassal argues that if the technology (solar) is so good, it will be able to compete on its own. Too bad he doesn't feel the same way about the industries he represents. Instead, he wants to cut the small credit consumers get for using solar in order to "add a 'level of certainty'" to his industry. I haven't heard of or seen such a blatant money-grab by an industry since the days when our federal, state, and local governments were run by the railroad. Senator Hershman's constituents should remember this bill the next time he runs for office, and they should penalize him accordingly.

  4. From his recent appearance on WRTV to this story here, Frank is everywhere. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy, although he should stop using Eric Schnauffer for his 7th Circuit briefs. They're not THAT hard.

  5. They learn our language prior to coming here. My grandparents who came over on the boat, had to learn English and become familiarize with Americas customs and culture. They are in our land now, speak ENGLISH!!

ADVERTISEMENT