Fifth Circuit Holds That Firing For Having Gun at Work May Be Wrongful Discharge

Kollman & Saucier
Kollman & Saucier
08/12/2016

The public debate about the breadth of the Second Amendment remains ongoing and a subject that provokes deeply held passions and beliefs on both sides — including recent comments on the topic by a certain presidential candidate.  Amidst this debate, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held this week that an employee who was terminated for bringing a gun to work may bring a lawsuit for wrongful discharge under Mississippi law.  Swindol v. Aurora Flight Sciences Corp., No. 14-60779 (5th Cir. Aug. 8, 2016).

In 2006, the Mississippi legislature enacted a so-called “Bring Your Gun to Work” law stating that, with limited exceptions, “a public or private employer may not establish, maintain, or enforce any policy or rule that has the effect of prohibiting a person from transporting or storing a firearm in a locked vehicle in any parking lot, parking garage, or other designated parking area.”  Miss. Code § 45-9-55(1).  In addition to Mississippi, at least 21 other states (Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and Utah) have a “Bring Your Gun to Work” law on their books.  Neither Maryland, Washington, D.C., nor Virginia have a “Bring Your Gun to Work” law on their books.

Robert Swindol worked at the Columbus, Mississippi plant of Aurora Flight Sciences Corporation (“Aurora”).  Aurora’s company policy strictly prohibited firearms on company property.  In May 2013, however, Swindol kept his firearm inside his locked truck and parked the truck on Aurora’s employee lot.

When management learned about Swindol’s firearm, it promptly terminated him for violating the policy.  Aurora’s HR manager also conducted a plant-wide meeting to let everyone know that Swindol posed a “security risk” under the circumstances.

Swindol then sued Aurora for wrongful discharge and defamation.  Aurora moved to dismiss the complaint and the district court agreed.  Swindol appealed.

After asking the Mississippi Supreme Court to weigh in on how the 2006 law affected Swindol’s claim, the Fifth Circuit unanimously reversed the dismissal of Swindol’s wrongful discharge claim.  The Court adopted the state supreme court’s reasoning that the statute provided “express legislative action” creating a public policy against terminating employees who carry guns onto employer parking lots.  The Court also concluded that Swindol’s defamation claim was properly dismissed because he failed to identify any allegedly false statements.

It is an odd consequence of “Bring Your Gun to Work” laws that, in those states, it may now be easier for employees to fire a gun in or near their workplace than it is for employers to fire the employee for firing that gun.  In other words, employers are forced to be reactive, rather than proactive, to the risk of workplace tragedies.

The decision reinforces the impact that state laws have on employer policies.  In the meantime, however, it is clear that the Swindol decision would have come out in Aurora’s favor in Maryland, Washington, D.C., Virginia, and the other jurisdictions lacking such laws.

 

No Comments
prev next
Email Updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Loading