Well, there may be another option for the guy:
http://www.ignatius-piazza-front-si...monday-blog-confusion-and-walgreens-shooting/
http://www.ignatius-piazza-front-si...monday-blog-confusion-and-walgreens-shooting/
How will this play out - Judged by 12 rather then carried by 6
- Thread starter usmarine0352_2005
- Start date
- Status
mortablunt
Member
I sure hope that he wins, but I doubt he will.
Hopefully his lawyer can push this argument.
"My client has been robbed before at work and Walgreens didn't do anything to help him be safer. They were derelict in their duty to protect their employees safety and my client took steps to protect himself and his friends/co-workers who were in fear for their life."
Plus the "I was defending my life since nobody was helping me, least of all Walgreens." argument.
Hope he wins and employers start to wake up that being prepared for self-defense is not a bad thing and is wise to allow.
"My client has been robbed before at work and Walgreens didn't do anything to help him be safer. They were derelict in their duty to protect their employees safety and my client took steps to protect himself and his friends/co-workers who were in fear for their life."
Plus the "I was defending my life since nobody was helping me, least of all Walgreens." argument.
Hope he wins and employers start to wake up that being prepared for self-defense is not a bad thing and is wise to allow.
Who knows what happens here. The fact that Walgreens would have preferred he and others be murdered rather than defend himself is pretty disgusting.
OTOH, you can't have a rule and not enforce it, or it tends to become moot. It is not an easy call.
There is some evidence that passivity when confronted with criminals is somewhat safer overall.
OTOH, you can't have a rule and not enforce it, or it tends to become moot. It is not an easy call.
There is some evidence that passivity when confronted with criminals is somewhat safer overall.
patentnonsense
Member
Depends a LOT what state it happened in. What if the plaintiff's team were to include a class action complaint on behalf of all Walgreen pharmacy employees, wherever located? Injunctive relief is easy to craft, but I think there's some potential for class damages too.
Just my two cents, not legal advice - if you want legal advice, get your own lawyer.
Just my two cents, not legal advice - if you want legal advice, get your own lawyer.
Rob G
Member
I'm relatively certain that Walgreens or any other employer are under no legal obligation to protect their employees from the actions of people not employed by or associated with the company. SCOTUS once ruled that police have no obligation to protect the lives of citizens so following that line of logic I doubt any court, much less SCOTUS, would uphold a decision against Walgreens for not protecting their people from robbers. Plus if that were a valid argument bank tellers all over the country would be rolling in cash and early retirements. I think the Pharmacist would better spend his time looking for a new job. Although considering the job climate for his particular specialty I have little doubt he's long since found one.
I'd be curious to see if the robbery rate would go down if they allowed CCW. As a robber, if you knew that any pharmacist at Walgreens could be packing, you might not try.
That being said, it might increase the robbery rate at CVS where they couldn't carry. Market forces would then take affect. Less customers at CVS, more robberies, better qualified Pharmacists moving to Walgreens because they would be safer, etc.
'twould be an interesting social experiment.
That being said, it might increase the robbery rate at CVS where they couldn't carry. Market forces would then take affect. Less customers at CVS, more robberies, better qualified Pharmacists moving to Walgreens because they would be safer, etc.
'twould be an interesting social experiment.
I think employers should be found liable for failure to protect employees from dangers that can reasonably be anticipated when they prevent the employee from protecting themselves.
Robberies from armed and dangerous individuals are quite common and easily anticipated in pharmacies. Likewise at gas stations, liqor stores, and a host of other places that deal in cash with the public, especially when they are open late hours.
Prohibiting self defense at one while simultaneously failing to provide armed guards or other measures is negligence on the part of the employer.
Either you allow people to defend themselves or you take on the responsibility at a minimum.
Likewise, but not as much of a given, this attitude that employers can prohibit whatever they want is being taken a bit far.
Employers cannot prohibit whatever they want. They cannot have a hiring policy based on age, gender, sexual orientation, race, etc They cannot legally fire someone if they later learn they are gay/lesbian for that reason for example.
Yet it is well established that women in general make less desirable employees.
For example statistics and studies show they are more likely to cost more in many ways:
1. Women use health care a lot more, including for a variety of regular checkups. While men are less likely to see a doctor and use their health coverage less. Everyone pays in, but women use it more. Women spend most of the money and health care costs more for everyone. So company/corporate and private policies cost more for everyone because of women, if only men were part of the policy health care would be much less expensive, but discrimination based on gender is illegal irregardless.
Healthcare is a major cost to employers, and especially for lower income employees where it makes up a considerable percentage of the overall cost of an employee. The ability to discriminate based on gender could drop health care costs considerably (insurance companies are likewise restricted in their ability to discriminate.)
2. Women are entitled to maternity leave many places, this means it is quite likely an employer will have to pay them for more time they are not at work than men.
3. Women have been shown to be less likely to sacrifice their family for increased job performance. Now this is arguably a positive quality, but from an employers perspective it means they are less dedicated employees. They are less likely to work off the clock, or neglect their family and children for the benefit of the company and their career. This means men make better workaholics.
4. A considerably percentage of women can suddenly become stay at home mothers and quit a job they were previously perfectly happy at. This is very unlikely with men, but not with women. So they are even less dependable as a group from the perspective of a number crunching employer.
5. There is many tasks they are less suited to, like moving various supplies and objects even in an office environment where such things are not part of the typical job. This means men are going to be available to do various tasks.
Yet in spite of all these real life facts discrimination based on gender is illegal. Clearly employers cannot legally hire and fire as they wish. This is not to put down women, they can and do make great employees. But rather it is to demonstrate an example that even when evidence supports an employer's decision there is legal restrictions or prohibitions on making certain decisions. Employers cannot do as they wish, even if it makes financial sense.
Now consider how it could apply to firearms and self defense:
The 2nd was ruled a Constitutional right (although it has not been clarified as to what right of carry this extends to.) Self-defense is considered a universal right. Police have been ruled to have no duty to protect those who are not in their custody and do not arrive in most situations in time to do more than take a report and start looking for the perpetrator (but they do have a duty to protect those who are.) So by conclusion people and companies need to provide for their own immediate defense, others cannot and by law nobody else has to.
I can certainly see a case built that someone has a right to self-defense with a firearm in spite of an employer's desires.
Making it just as unlawful to discriminate against someone for using a gun to defend themselves in a lawful manner as it is to discriminate against them because of gender, race, and all the other things they legally cannot.
However I think the best avenue to pursue at this point is that an employer is negligent if they fail to protect employees from reasonable and clearly anticipated dangers posed on the job, while simultaneously preventing the employee from having the most reasonable means of protecting themselves (even if they provide it at their own cost).
The result of success with such legislation is that employers would have to weigh the potential costs of allowing and disallowing self defense, and it would be a more even scale that caused them to allow it more frequently.
Rather than worrying solely about the cost of an employee using a firearm and so creating policies that forbid self-defense and even desiring a dead employee instead of being sued over an employee's actions, they would also have to worry about the cost of not allowing an employee to use a firearm resulting in injury or death to an employee they were liable for.
If I hired an employee to work with hazardous materials and failed to provide protective gear from readily anticipated risks, while simultaneously preventing them from providing their own protective gear even at their own cost, I would be liable for resulting injury or sickness.
There is no difference in failing to provide armed security to employees who are frequent targets of robbery while simultaneously preventing them from having a means of protection from a readily anticipated and easily foreseen risk.
Pharmacists are one of the most robbed targets in the country. Companies employing large numbers of them are quite aware of how often they are targeted.
This clearly makes the employer liable in my opinion for anything resulting from this negligence to provide or even allow protection from a known and frequent on the job threat to employees.
Robberies from armed and dangerous individuals are quite common and easily anticipated in pharmacies. Likewise at gas stations, liqor stores, and a host of other places that deal in cash with the public, especially when they are open late hours.
Prohibiting self defense at one while simultaneously failing to provide armed guards or other measures is negligence on the part of the employer.
Either you allow people to defend themselves or you take on the responsibility at a minimum.
Likewise, but not as much of a given, this attitude that employers can prohibit whatever they want is being taken a bit far.
Employers cannot prohibit whatever they want. They cannot have a hiring policy based on age, gender, sexual orientation, race, etc They cannot legally fire someone if they later learn they are gay/lesbian for that reason for example.
Yet it is well established that women in general make less desirable employees.
For example statistics and studies show they are more likely to cost more in many ways:
1. Women use health care a lot more, including for a variety of regular checkups. While men are less likely to see a doctor and use their health coverage less. Everyone pays in, but women use it more. Women spend most of the money and health care costs more for everyone. So company/corporate and private policies cost more for everyone because of women, if only men were part of the policy health care would be much less expensive, but discrimination based on gender is illegal irregardless.
Healthcare is a major cost to employers, and especially for lower income employees where it makes up a considerable percentage of the overall cost of an employee. The ability to discriminate based on gender could drop health care costs considerably (insurance companies are likewise restricted in their ability to discriminate.)
2. Women are entitled to maternity leave many places, this means it is quite likely an employer will have to pay them for more time they are not at work than men.
3. Women have been shown to be less likely to sacrifice their family for increased job performance. Now this is arguably a positive quality, but from an employers perspective it means they are less dedicated employees. They are less likely to work off the clock, or neglect their family and children for the benefit of the company and their career. This means men make better workaholics.
4. A considerably percentage of women can suddenly become stay at home mothers and quit a job they were previously perfectly happy at. This is very unlikely with men, but not with women. So they are even less dependable as a group from the perspective of a number crunching employer.
5. There is many tasks they are less suited to, like moving various supplies and objects even in an office environment where such things are not part of the typical job. This means men are going to be available to do various tasks.
Yet in spite of all these real life facts discrimination based on gender is illegal. Clearly employers cannot legally hire and fire as they wish. This is not to put down women, they can and do make great employees. But rather it is to demonstrate an example that even when evidence supports an employer's decision there is legal restrictions or prohibitions on making certain decisions. Employers cannot do as they wish, even if it makes financial sense.
Now consider how it could apply to firearms and self defense:
The 2nd was ruled a Constitutional right (although it has not been clarified as to what right of carry this extends to.) Self-defense is considered a universal right. Police have been ruled to have no duty to protect those who are not in their custody and do not arrive in most situations in time to do more than take a report and start looking for the perpetrator (but they do have a duty to protect those who are.) So by conclusion people and companies need to provide for their own immediate defense, others cannot and by law nobody else has to.
I can certainly see a case built that someone has a right to self-defense with a firearm in spite of an employer's desires.
Making it just as unlawful to discriminate against someone for using a gun to defend themselves in a lawful manner as it is to discriminate against them because of gender, race, and all the other things they legally cannot.
However I think the best avenue to pursue at this point is that an employer is negligent if they fail to protect employees from reasonable and clearly anticipated dangers posed on the job, while simultaneously preventing the employee from having the most reasonable means of protecting themselves (even if they provide it at their own cost).
The result of success with such legislation is that employers would have to weigh the potential costs of allowing and disallowing self defense, and it would be a more even scale that caused them to allow it more frequently.
Rather than worrying solely about the cost of an employee using a firearm and so creating policies that forbid self-defense and even desiring a dead employee instead of being sued over an employee's actions, they would also have to worry about the cost of not allowing an employee to use a firearm resulting in injury or death to an employee they were liable for.
If I hired an employee to work with hazardous materials and failed to provide protective gear from readily anticipated risks, while simultaneously preventing them from providing their own protective gear even at their own cost, I would be liable for resulting injury or sickness.
There is no difference in failing to provide armed security to employees who are frequent targets of robbery while simultaneously preventing them from having a means of protection from a readily anticipated and easily foreseen risk.
Pharmacists are one of the most robbed targets in the country. Companies employing large numbers of them are quite aware of how often they are targeted.
This clearly makes the employer liable in my opinion for anything resulting from this negligence to provide or even allow protection from a known and frequent on the job threat to employees.
Last edited:
Rob G
Member
Actually there's a huge difference. You hired them specifically to work with hazardous materials which means two things.
1. They WILL come in to contact with hazardous materials.
2. The employer is forcing them to do so as part of their job.
Therefore the employer is liable if anything happens to that employee and must provide equipment and training to minimize any risks associated with handling Hazmat.
In the case of someone working in a retail store the situation is a little different.
1. You MAY come in to contact with a robber. It's possible. But it is by no means certain.
2. Your employer is NOT forcing you to be robbed at gunpoint as a condition of employment. Again, it might happen, but your employer is not out paying people to come in and rob the place. They do that of their own volition and your employer is not involved in that decision.
Therefore the two situations are very different, especially from a legal point of view.
Loosedhorse
member
All true. And yet all seem perverse in the face of one fact: the employee was fired for surviving. Is there any right more basic that his right to life?
One should not have to choose between being employed, and being alive.
If the courts refuse to give him redress, which is likely, perhaps this case will spur a change in law, the way that protections for the above listed "protected classes" came about. Certainly, we have here the perfect demonstration of the need for a change in law.
Or the courts may surprise us, after Heller, and say that a ban on legal carry (especially in such an obviously dangerous environment) cannot stand.
What the employee should really do is sue the employer under a different theory: the employer caused, by failure to provide adequate security, the need for the employee to protect himself. That foreseeable need, due to the employer's failure, has caused harms: emotional distress, loss of income and benefits, legal costs--and all these result from the employer's failure.
I know how I'd vote on THAT jury.
Last edited:
- Status