Lawyers, Guns and Money

Laws that allow people to keep firearms in their personal automobiles on their employer's premises do not necessarily create a public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine, as one former Caterpillar employee in Indiana learned.

Sudlow was a Caterpillar employee who was fired after another employee observed a partially visible gun in Sudlow's vehicle in the Caterpillar parking lot. Caterpillar had a written policy that allowed employees to store firearms in their personal vehicles in accordance with state law. Indiana law allows employees to store firearms in a personal vehicle on a company parking lot as long as the firearms are locked in the trunk of the employee's vehicle, kept in the glove compartment of the employee's locked vehicle, or stored out of plain sight in the employee's locked vehicle. (Georgia and Tennessee laws have similar provisions). Alas, poor Sudlow hurriedly stuffed his Ruger .357 Magnum handgun--for which he had a permit-- down between the center console and the driver's seat of his car, and that is where it was spotted by another eagle-eyed employee, who reported it to Caterpillar's head of security. Eventually, the head of security confirmed the presence of the weapon in the vehicle and Sudlow was suspended and later terminated for violating the company's Firearms Policy.

Sudlow filed a complaint against Caterpillar, alleging that Caterpillar had violated the Indiana Firearms Statute when it terminated his employment for violating the Firearms Policy. Sudlow took the position that the Indiana Firearms Statute "protects a lawful possessor of firearms from adverse employment action for reasonable and responsible possession of firearms, and Caterpillar's actions had the effect of prohibiting Sudlow from lawfully keeping his firearm in his car." The Indiana Court of Appeals disagreed, finding that the scope of the Indiana Firearms statute was not as broad as Sudlow's characterization of it. Sudlow further argued that the Firearms Statute created a public policy exception to the Indiana employment at will doctrine. The Indiana Court of Appeals disagreed with this argument as well, noting that the Indiana Firearms Statute did not apply because it did not confer any right to store a weapon in a vehicle in plain sight, which is what Sudlow had done.

The National Rifle Association submitted an amicus brief in support of Sudlow's arguments, prompting the Indiana Court of Appeals to drop a footnote pointing out that while Sudlow and the NRA made much of the right to bear arms as provided for by the state and federal constitutions, in reality, constitutional rights were not implicated in this case because the state and federal constitutional provisions do not apply to unauthorized acts of private citizens, such as Caterpillar.