In October 2002, GoGreen Corporation hired a security company to search all the vehicles in its parking lot for drugs and guns. The security company’s officers employed four sniffer dogs. Guns were found in several vehicles, but no drugs were found. The corporation felt that all employees whose vehicles had weapons had violated a company policy on ban on the possession of weapons at the workplace. Therefore, on the basis of the search, the corporation terminated four employees and eight contractworkers. In response, the employees immediately sued the corporation for wrongful termination.
Based on the situation, answer the following questions:
What arguments can the employees make in their suit?
What arguments will GoGreen Corporation make in response to the suit for wrongful termination?
Is it likely that the decision will be in favor of the employees, not the corporation? Why or why not?
The firings outraged individuals of a rural community in the foothills of the Ouachita Mountains, where carrying firearms in one’s car is a common practice, especially during deer-hunting season. As a result, the Oklahoma legislature overwhelmingly passed a law stating that “no person, property owner, tenant, employer, or business entity shall be permitted to establish any policy or rule that has the effect of prohibiting any person, except a convicted felon, from transporting or storing firearms in a locked vehicle on any property set aside for any vehicle.” Before the law could be passed, however, several prominent companies protested against it.
What arguments are available to the plaintiffs?
What arguments will the state of Oklahoma make in response?
Which party should prevail? Why?
When analyzing and answering these questions, you can refer to the following information on the Internet:
Warren, S. (2004, November 26). In Oklahoma, a ban on guns pits state against big firms. The Wall Street Journal, p. A1.
The case of Ramsey Winch Inc. v. Henry, 555 F.3d 1199 (10th Cir. 2009) from the Internet using the keywords “Ramsey Winch Inc. v. Henry, 555 F.3d 1199 (10th Cir. 2009).”