Employer Prohibited from Terminating Employee for Storing Gun in Truck in Mississippi – Multiple States Potentially Impacted
Time 4 Minute Read

In a decision that could trigger similar action in multiple states, the Fifth Circuit recently decided that an employee could bring a wrongful-termination claim in Mississippi after being terminated for having a gun in his truck, which was parked on company property.   Following the Mississippi Supreme Court’s decision on referral, the Fifth Circuit held that a Mississippi statute—which prohibits employers from establishing, maintaining, or enforcing policies that prohibit an employees from storing a firearm in a vehicle on company property and from taking action against an employee who violates that policy—creates an exception to the state’s employment-at-will doctrine.

The Fifth Circuit certified the question to the Mississippi Supreme Court based on lack of precedent.  The Mississippi Supreme court was very clear in its decision, holding that generally, an employer may discharge an employee for a “good reason, bad reason, or no reason at all[;]” however, an employer may not discharge an employee for a reason that is “independently declared legally impermissible.”  The court held that the employment-at-will doctrine “must yield to express legislative action”—i.e., the plain language of Mississippi Code § 45-9-55(1), which makes discharging an employee for storing a firearm inside his or her vehicle on company property legally impermissible.  The court also held that § 45-9-55(5) did not shield Aurora from civil liability.  The case is Swindol v. Aurora Flight Sciences Corporation.  The Mississippi Supreme Court’s opinion is available at 2016 WL 1165448, and the Fifth Circuit’s opinion is available at 2016 WL 419136

Like Mississippi, a number of states have laws that prohibit employers from establishing or enforcing a policy or rule that effectively prohibits a person from storing a firearm in a vehicle on company property.  These states include Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Wisconsin.  Swindol could impact employers in these states as employees seek to exercise their right to bear arms, even at work.

In Swindol, Aurora Flight Sciences Corporation (“Aurora”) discharged Robert Swindol for violating company policy after learning that he had a firearm locked inside his truck, which was parked on company property.  Mr. Swindol filed suit under state law for wrongful termination and defamation, arguing that Aurora’s policy ran afoul of a Mississippi law, Mississippi Code § 45-9-55(1), which prohibits “a public or private employer [from] establish[ing], maintain[ing], or enforc[ing] 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.”  The statute also protects employers from civil liability for “damages resulting from or arising out of an occurrence involving the transportation, storage, possession or use of a firearm”  § 45-9-55(5).  Aurora moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim, arguing that Mr. Swindol’s claim did “not fit within any recognized exception to Mississippi’s employment at-will doctrine.”

The district court agreed and rejected Mr. Swindol’s argument that the court should create or find a public-policy exception to the employment-at-will doctrine based on Mississippi’s long-standing public policy of advancing the right of its citizens to bear arms.  The district court noted that the Mississippi Supreme Court had not weighed-in on whether § 45-9-55 could be read as creating such an exception to the employment-at-will doctrine.  The district court also noted that Mississippi courts for decades have been reluctant to expand the “narrow” and “specific” public-policy exceptions announced in McArn v. Allied Bruce-Terminix Co., 626 So. 2d 60 (Miss. 1993).

Mr. Swindol appealed.  Finding no controlling precedent on point, the Fifth Circuit certified the following question to the Mississippi Supreme Court: “Whether in Mississippi an employer may be liable for a wrongful discharge of an employee for storing a firearm in a locked vehicle on company property in a manner that is consistent with Section 45-9-55.”  As stated above, the Mississippi Supreme Court answered the question in the affirmative and explained that although the “[c]ourt zealously applies the employment-at-will doctrine, th[e] doctrine is not absolute.”  Based on the Mississippi Supreme Court’s opinion, the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of Mr. Swindol’s wrongful termination claim and held that Mr. Swindol stated a claim for wrongful termination under Mississippi law.

Even while evaluating workplace safety issues in the context of today’s headline news reports of gun violence, employers who operate in Mississippi, and in other states with similar laws should be mindful of such laws when crafting employment agreements, employment policies, and employee handbooks.  If you need assistance concerning these matters or with other state laws relating to employer-employee relations, please contact a member of Hunton & Williams LLP’s Labor & Employment Team.

  • Partner

    Juan is a partner in the firm’s Labor & Employment Team resident in the Miami office. Juan represents domestic and international clients in discrimination and harassment lawsuits, wage and hour collective actions, enforcement ...

  • Partner

    Roland’s practice focuses on employment and labor law. Roland has exclusively handled employment cases since 1992. Roland’s experience includes handling cases of first impression in California involving class actions ...

You May Also Be Interested In

Time 2 Minute Read

A new law addressing workplace violence restraining orders, which expands employers ability to obtain temporary restraining orders in non-violent situations of harassment, was signed into law on September 30, 2023, became effective on January 1, 2025.

Time 1 Minute Read

Please join Hunton Andrews Kurth’s workplace safety attorneys for a complimentary webinar on Tuesday, October 29.  Our team will provide a complimentary CLE, A Year in Occupational Safety and Health Law - Workplace Violence, Heat, Marijuana, HazCom and More.

Time 1 Minute Read

HuntonAK labor and employment partner Roland Juarez was listed among the Los Angeles Business Journal’s 2021 Top Leaders of Influence: Top Litigators & Trial Lawyers. This is Roland’s third consecutive year to be included, he was selected from over 300 nominations.

Time 2 Minute Read

Earlier this month, the U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) seeking to repeal a 2011 rule that significantly impacted the compensation of hospitality workers.  Specifically, the NPRM proposes to allow hospitality employers to control the distribution of the tips they pool assuming their employees are paid the full minimum wage.  By way of background, the FLSA requires employers to pay employees a minimum wage (currently $7.25 per hour) plus overtime for all hours worked over 40 in a single workweek.  Employees who “customarily and regularly receive tips” must still receive the minimum wage, but employers may elect to take a “tip credit” by counting up to $5.12 per hour of those employees’ tips toward the minimum wage, meaning employers may pay a reduced wage of $2.13 to tipped employees.  Historically, employers that take the tip credit have been prohibited from sharing money from a tip-pooling system to employees who do not traditionally receive direct tips (cooks, dish washers, etc.).  In 2011, the DOL extended the tip-pooling prohibition to apply to employers even if they do not take the tip credit and pay their employees the full federal minimum wage.

Search

Subscribe Arrow

Recent Posts

Categories

Tags

Authors

Archives

Jump to Page