Walgreens Pharmacist Sues for Firing Over Self Defense

[yellowfin]

Hat tip to PAFOA:

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2011/08/benton_harbor_pharmacist_who_s.html

Any chance our guys would give him a hand? Since it's just starting, it'd be able to make it to Circuit level on the heels of Williams and/or Masciandaro, possibly even following one of the May Issue cases. Whatcha say?

[wash]

I hope he wins big.

I can't see this helping with any LTC issuing cases but it can definitely prevent employers from discriminating against employees who actually think their life is worth defending.

[Crom]

I don't think he will win, but the case has some interesting facts such as when he notified management about making security enhancements and none were made.

[Cali-Shooter]

That pharmacist is a hero. I guess Walgreens can't appreciate one when it saves their s**t. Lawsuit time.

[Peaceful John]

I hope he wins big.

I can't see this helping with any LTC issuing cases but it can definitely prevent employers from discriminating against employees who actually think their life is worth defending.

Granted, it's not terribly relevant to today's litigation, but it might help with all those private "No Guns" signs that are anticipated after Williams. For example, if business owners can be successfully sued if they prevent legally carried guns on their commercial property ... well, that could be a good thing, don't you think?

[Stonewalker]

Interesting... I have a friend who is a pharmacist for a small family owned pharmacy in Northern (really north) CA. Apparently they've been robbed so many times that the owners are keeping shotguns in all three stores.

I haven't spoken to my friend directly, I haven't seen him in over a year but I'll get the details out of him soon.

[wash]

Granted, it's not terribly relevant to today's litigation, but it might help with all those private "No Guns" signs that are anticipated after Williams. For example, if business owners can be successfully sued if they prevent legally carried guns on their commercial property ... well, that could be a good thing, don't you think?

I don't think it will get there. If a business owner sees you carrying a gun in his building, he should be able to ask you to leave if he likes.

If you work there, you aren't really there by choice (even if it's called "at will employment"), so employers should have to respect your rights more than a customer.

What is really dumb is deciding to fire an employee for deciding they don't want to die that night. They really should have had an armed guard if they wanted to enforce a no guns policy in such a dangerous business.

[yellowfin]

What it's really important in is making LTC's practical for those who work every day. If you work 8-9 hours a day plus an hour commute, sleep 6-8 hours, then what's really left? If there's not some legally established minimum for respect for RKBA at work that allows for meaningful functionality of that right, then we're still left with a vaguely interesting occasional hobby rather than a practical right that means something in real life in modern society.

[G60]

Wishing him the best of luck. Retail pharmacies attract a lot of crazies, and you can imagine how irate some people become when something comes between them and their fix, or something they had planned on turning around and selling that day.

[Dreaded Claymore]

I'd like him to win, but I'm not sure if he has a case. Is there any law or precedent that would require them to allow employees to carry guns and defend themselves?

[taperxz]

Unfortunately rights are rights. Walgreens also has the right to dictate what you can and can't do during the hours that you work for them. If they don't like the way you perform, or like the things you say, they can terminate your employment. If Walgreens had a no gun rule on the job its their choice. (not saying good or bad)

If the pharmacist didnt like that policy he could have look for employment elsewhere. Obviously he chose not to. In the end the money was more important than his life. He chose to break company policy to protect his life. (i would have also) It was the pharmacists option and he is still alive and will probably get another job elsewhere.

IMHO lawsuits like this are bogus because basically two entities rights are being put into question. It really all came down to one low life trying to hold the place up.

[POLICESTATE]

Walgreens, where have the right... to DIE!

[scarville]

I wonder how much of this is because of the insurance companies. Maybe it is more profitable to let a few employees get injured or killed in a robbery than to pay off for a wounded thug.

[taperxz]

I wonder how much of this is because of the insurance companies. Maybe it is more profitable to let a few employees get injured or killed in a robbery than to pay off for a wounded thug.

That is absolutely the case!! Insurance companies dictate policy. The insurance company isn't worried about a clean kill of a hold up, in their eyes they are protecting themselves from a disguntled employee shooting someone

Don't get me wrong here an idiot is an idiot. Employed or not!! Insurance cares about one thing, collecting their premium and not paying out on claims!!!! AND lets not forget about the workers comp insurance thing! PITA

[POLICESTATE]

That is absolutely the case!! Insurance companies dictate policy. The insurance company isn't worried about a clean kill of a hold up, in their eyes they are protecting themselves from a disguntled employee shooting someone

Don't get me wrong here an idiot is an idiot. Employed or not!! Insurance cares about one thing, collecting their premium and not paying out on claims!!!! AND lets not forget about the workers comp insurance thing! PITA

One sometimes wonders why disgruntled people don't go postal on insurance companies rather than some of the other targets they choose, but they're crazy anyway. Can't figure out crazy.