TOTALLY GEEKED!

Another reason I don't like Waffle House.

While I understand the policy and agree with it, there are situations where heroic measures need to be commended, not punished. But I'm one who thinks LEO's should be able to shoot a fleeing felon.

she didn't get shot and no one else was shot either--good on her--she did right--she can always find another job since she's still alive and well

I think Waffle House had the right to fire her. I also think she did the right thing, but sometimes doing the right thing costs you.

Lindley wrote:

---

At a bobs big boy, (a restaurant chain that use to be in Ca.) A bus boy was fired for stopping a robbery. There was a big stink made about it by the public and they ended up rehire him.

To be fair when my sister worked at a bank they were told to just hand over the money, that it wasn't worth the risk of customers or them losing their lives over.

---

 What a throw back in time.  Big Boy's were actually a franchise. I had a friend growing up whose family owned 9 of them, it was the go to place for employment during High School.  

 

hot fudge ice cream cake and strawberry pie.

Miss their burgers and their hot fudge cake too!

Southern_Belle wrote:

---

Bob's Big Boy was always our first food stop when driving from Florida to New York. It was usually at 2 am since we didn't leave until evening. One time we were leaving just as the Rolling Stones tour bus pulled in. My older sisters were freaking out and my dad just kept driving.

---

 Lol! That is exactly what my dad would have done.  If it will make you feel better most likely it was their show crew and the stones would have taken a plane.

That's true. They may have been on the bus.

She knew the policy. She broke the policy. She paid the penalty per the policy.

Plus it was stupid to fire a gun in the air after the robbers were already departing. At that point the robbery was already over, and not even counting the danger of firing into the air, it was simply a waste of ammunition.

Funny how we turn the Victim into the victimizer. Maybe she should sue Waffle House for failing to protect her and causing her anxiety, pain, and suffering at being robbed? How about giving the victims the actual benefit of the doubt for a change? She did it, nothing bad happened, the robbers left. That should be the end of it.

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:

---

Funny how we turn the Victim into the victimizer. Maybe she should sue Waffle House for failing to protect her and causing her anxiety, pain, and suffering at being robbed? How about giving the victims the actual benefit of the doubt for a change? She did it, nothing bad happened, the robbers left. That should be the end of it.

---

 Except that if they ignore the employee breaking the rules they have set by bringing a gun onto the premises, then no employees will feel the need to follow the rule.

I think it's a stupid rule, but it's their restaurant and their rule, which, as an employee, she agrees to abide by when she takes the job.

 

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:

---

Funny how we turn the Victim into the victimizer. Maybe she should sue Waffle House for failing to protect her and causing her anxiety, pain, and suffering at being robbed? How about giving the victims the actual benefit of the doubt for a change? She did it, nothing bad happened, the robbers left. That should be the end of it.

---

 Except that if they ignore the employee breaking the rules they have set by bringing a gun onto the premises, then no employees will feel the need to follow the rule.

I think it's a stupid rule, but it's their restaurant and their rule, which, as an employee, she agrees to abide by when she takes the job.

 

---

 It was in her car.  She didn't take it into work.  This was an extreme situation and she went to get it.  

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:

---

Funny how we turn the Victim into the victimizer. Maybe she should sue Waffle House for failing to protect her and causing her anxiety, pain, and suffering at being robbed? How about giving the victims the actual benefit of the doubt for a change? She did it, nothing bad happened, the robbers left. That should be the end of it.

---

 Except that if they ignore the employee breaking the rules they have set by bringing a gun onto the premises, then no employees will feel the need to follow the rule.

I think it's a stupid rule, but it's their restaurant and their rule, which, as an employee, she agrees to abide by when she takes the job.

 

---

 It was in her car.  She didn't take it into work.  This was an extreme situation and she went to get it.  

---

 And her car was likely parked on Waffle House property, and she went and got the gun and brought it inside.  Unless you can show me where the policy says "employees may not bring guns to work except if they are able to sneak out during a robbery and get one" it doesn't matter.   I'm quite certain Waffle House is aware of their own propensity for getting robbed, and it hasn't changed their policy, yet. 

But she didn't leave the gun in the car, so that wouldn't matter even if it applies. She went out and got it and brought it back into the restaurant.

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

But she didn't leave the gun in the car, so that wouldn't matter even if it applies. She went out and got it and brought it back into the restaurant.

---

 The article does not say that.  It says she got her gun and fired into the air.  It doesn't say she brought it inside...

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

Ohfour wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

But she didn't leave the gun in the car, so that wouldn't matter even if it applies. She went out and got it and brought it back into the restaurant.

---

 The article does not say that.  It says she got her gun and fired into the air.  It doesn't say she brought it inside...

---

 You really think that matters?  You are splitting hairs.  If they tell their employees not to bring guns to work, that means exactly that.  And in order to fire the gun, she went and got it from her car. 

---

And in TN, an employer cannot disallow guns on the property.  In TN, if she did not take the gun into the building, she did nothing wrong. 

Ohfour wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

Ohfour wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

But she didn't leave the gun in the car, so that wouldn't matter even if it applies. She went out and got it and brought it back into the restaurant.

---

 The article does not say that.  It says she got her gun and fired into the air.  It doesn't say she brought it inside...

---

 You really think that matters?  You are splitting hairs.  If they tell their employees not to bring guns to work, that means exactly that.  And in order to fire the gun, she went and got it from her car. 

---

And in TN, an employer cannot disallow guns on the property.  In TN, if she did not take the gun into the building, she did nothing wrong. 

---

 And in Georgia, we are an at will state and they can fire her if they please.  And keeping a gun IN YOUR CAR is different than taking it out and using it ON THE PROPERTY.  It's Waffle House's property, Waffle House's policy and Waffle House's decision.  Had she not gone and got the gun and left it in her car, this wouldn't be an issue.  She did not.  

Well the TN law only protects employees STORING a gun in their vehicle in a legally permissible manner. It doesn't mean they can take it out and use it on the property.

"Tennessee’s “guns in trunks” law allows concealed carry holders to store firearms in the trunks of parked cars — even on a business’ private property, under the following conditions:

The vehicle is legally parked.
The vehicle is on business property.
The weapon is out of sight and locked in a trunk, glove box or container while the person is not in the vehicle.
As signed, the law permitted guns on work property, but the law didn’t prevent the employer from firing the employee for having a gun in the trunk of his or her car. A 2013 Tennessee Attorney General opinion found that “guns in trunks” legislation “does not impact the employer/employee relationship” and does not prohibit an employer from firing an employee for possessing guns or ammo on company property.

Tennessee Senate, House approve guns-in-trunks bill
But, that has since changed. A 2015 amendment to the law now allows an employee to sue his or her employer for wrongful termination if the employer terminates the employee for having a gun legally stored in his vehicle. Employees can recover economic damages, plus attorneys’ fees and costs."

In Georgia -

Here’s the specific code section O.C.G.A. § 16-11-135
Public or private employer’s parking lots; right of privacy in vehicles in employer’s parking lot or invited guests on lot; severability; rights of action
(a) Except as provided in this Code section, no private or public employer, including the state and its political subdivisions, shall establish, maintain, or enforce any policy or rule that has the effect of allowing such employer or its agents to search the locked privately owned vehicles of employees or invited guests on the employer’s parking lot and access thereto.
(b) Except as provided in this Code section, no private or public employer, including the state and its political subdivisions, shall condition employment upon any agreement by a prospective employee that prohibits an employee from entering the parking lot and access thereto when the employee’s privately owned motor vehicle contains a firearm or ammunition, or both, that is locked out of sight within the trunk, glove box, or other enclosed compartment or area within such privately owned motor vehicle, provided that any applicable employees possess a Georgia weapons carry license.
(c) Subsection (a) of this Code section shall not apply:
(1) To searches by certified law enforcement officers pursuant to valid search warrants or valid warrantless searches based upon probable cause under exigent circumstances;
(2) To vehicles owned or leased by an employer;
(3) To any situation in which a reasonable person would believe that accessing a locked vehicle of an employee is necessary to prevent an immediate threat to human health, life, or safety; or
(4) When an employee consents to a search of his or her locked privately owned vehicle by licensed private security officers for loss prevention purposes based on probable cause that the employee unlawfully possesses employer property.
(d) Subsections (a) and (b) of this Code section shall not apply:
(1) To an employer providing applicable employees with a secure parking area which restricts general public access through the use of a gate, security station, security officers, or other similar means which limit public access into the parking area, provided that any employer policy allowing vehicle searches upon entry shall be applicable to all vehicles entering the property and applied on a uniform and frequent basis;

It doesn't say anything about discharging a weapon while standing one's ground. You have a RIGHT to protect yourself. I would fight this tooth and nail.

Ohfour wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

I don't think she should win a lawsuit. A company has the right to make policies regarding an employee brandishing a firearm while at work. Sure, this was fine, but what if she had been tackled, her gun went off, and a customer was hit by HER gun? What if her bringing the gun escalated the situation leading to a firefight? There are a lot of reasons employers might ban employees from having a weapon while working - workplace violence issues, safety issues, etc.

The point is that it is THEIR CHOICE. If the employee doesn't like it, they don't have to work there.

---

No, they don't have to work there, but they have a RIGHT to protect themselves.  That overrules the companies' rules. 

---

 She wasn't protecting herself, she was playing hero.  She was already out of the building and not in danger.  

Well one thing for sure, the robbers might think twice about robbing a store I hope.

Seems like we should be focusing on the actual ROBBERS. Nothing happened. She was in self protection mode. They left after she fired her weapon. Just because they left doesn't mean they weren't going to their car to get some reinforcements. You weren't there. It's over. They left. Nothing happened as a result. Sheesh.