ILNews

Mishawaka man sues Walgreens over alleged violation of 'guns in workplace' laws

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A former Walgreens store employee plans to file a lawsuit Thursday in St. Joseph County alleging the company fired him for lawfully carrying his gun into another Walgreens location where his wife worked.

Jonathon C. Hartzell and his wife worked at separate Walgreens locations in Mishawaka when he visited her on Sept. 27 on his day off. Hartzell has a valid license to carry a handgun and had a gun on him when he went into his wife’s store. A Walgreens employee asked him to leave because he was not allowed to have the gun inside the store per Walgreen rules.

Hartzell told company representatives that Walgreens’ policy violates Indiana’s “guns in the workplace” statutes. He was placed on temporary suspension on Oct. 2 and fired Oct. 8.

Attorney Guy Relford filed the suit on behalf of Hartzell and claims the company violated 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.

“Plaintiff’s lawful possession of a firearm on September 27, 2012 was the sole basis for the termination of his employment,” the suit says. “Therefore, Walgreen conditioned Plaintiff’s employment on his agreement to ‘forgo his lawful possession of a firearm’ in direct contravention of Ind. Code 34-28-8-6.”

Relford also argues Walgreens’ “policy against workplace violence” is overly broad and in violation of 34-28-7-2 because it forbids guns anywhere on company property, even if it is stored in an employee’s locked car and out of plain sight.

Hartzell seeks actual damages, punitive damages, attorney fees, court costs and an injunction ordering Walgreens to amend its policy against workplace violence to comply with the Indiana statutes at issue.

This is the second lawsuit Relford has filed challenging company policies that allegedly violate the “guns in the workplace” statutes. A suit filed in September in Morgan County against a security company claims ADM Enforcement Inc. required armed security guard Thomas Jordan to disclose whether he had any guns that weren’t approved by the company. The suit also alleges the company adopted a policy prior to Sept. 1, 2012, that prohibited any ADM employee from possessing a gun not approved by the company, including those locked in an employee’s vehicle and stored out of plain sight.
Relford said discovery is just beginning in the Morgan County case, Thomas Jordan v. ADM Enforcement Inc., 5502-1209-PL-1981.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • comment
    It wasn't his workplace he brought the gun into, it was his wife's. He knows what he did was wrong.lol it eludes me why he felt he needed to carry the weapon into the store with him when visiting his wife. if i were an employee i'd suspect that he wanted to harm someone. get the bull out of the china shop and all. from my experience, if a store is in a high crime area, Walgreens hires a security guard for the store anyway.

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. Hmmmmm ..... How does the good doctor's spells work on tyrants and unelected bureacrats with nearly unchecked power employing in closed hearings employing ad hoc procedures? Just askin'. ... Happy independence day to any and all out there who are "free" ... Unlike me.

  2. Today, I want to use this opportunity to tell everyone about Dr agbuza of agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com, on how he help me reunited with my husband after 2 months of divorce.My husband divorce me because he saw another woman in his office and he said to me that he is no longer in love with me anymore and decide to divorce me.I seek help from the Net and i saw good talk about Dr agbuza and i contact him and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my husband back within 2 days.am totally happy because there is no reparations and side-effect. If you need his help Email him at agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com

  3. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  4. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  5. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

ADVERTISEMENT