Hansen v. America Online, Inc.
96 P.3d 950, 2004 UT 62, 504 Utah Adv. Rep. 20 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer's private property right to regulate the workplace by prohibiting firearms on company-controlled property is not superseded by the public policy protecting an individual's right to bear arms under Utah law. Therefore, terminating an at-will employee for violating such a policy does not constitute wrongful discharge.
Facts:
- Luke Hansen, Jason Melling, and Paul Carlson were at-will employees at an America Online (AOL) call center in Ogden, Utah.
- AOL leased and reserved for its exclusive use a portion of the public parking lot adjacent to its call center.
- AOL maintained a 'Workplace Violence Prevention Policy' which expressly prohibited employees from possessing firearms of any type at the call center or in its exclusive parking lot.
- Hansen, Melling, and Carlson were aware of this policy.
- On September 14, 2000, while off-duty, the three employees met in the AOL-leased parking lot where their cars were parked.
- Each employee had a firearm in his vehicle as they planned to go to a gun range for target shooting.
- An AOL security camera recorded two of the employees transferring their firearms to the third employee's car within the parking lot.
- Four days later, AOL discharged all three employees, stating the reason was their violation of the company's firearms policy.
Procedural Posture:
- Luke Hansen, Jason Melling, and Paul Carlson (the employees) filed a lawsuit for wrongful termination against America Online (AOL) in a Utah trial court.
- Both the employees and AOL filed motions for summary judgment.
- The trial court denied the employees' motion and granted summary judgment in favor of AOL.
- The employees, as appellants, appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the Supreme Court of Utah.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the termination of at-will employees for violating a company policy that prohibits possessing firearms in a company-leased parking lot contravene a clear and substantial public policy protecting the right to bear arms in Utah?
Opinions:
Majority - Nehring, Justice
No. The termination of at-will employees for violating a company's no-firearms policy on its property does not contravene a clear and substantial public policy. While Utah has a strong public policy supporting the right to keep and bear arms, rooted in its constitution, this right is not absolute and does not supersede an employer's fundamental private property rights. The court must balance the employer's legitimate interest in regulating its workplace for security and productivity against the employee's interest in exercising a legal right. Here, the Utah legislature has already performed this balancing act by enacting the Uniform Firearms Laws, which explicitly state, 'Nothing in this section restricts or expands private property rights.' This legislative declaration indicates a purposeful decision not to give the right to bear arms absolute preeminence over an employer's right to regulate its own property. Therefore, AOL was within its rights to establish its policy and terminate the employees for its violation.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the scope of the public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine in Utah, particularly in the context of Second Amendment rights. It establishes that an employer's private property rights can outweigh an employee's constitutional right to bear arms on company premises, including parking lots. The court's deference to the legislature's balancing of these competing interests signals that future wrongful termination claims based on the exercise of a legal right will face a high bar. This precedent strengthens an employer's authority to enforce workplace safety rules, even when those rules impinge on employees' off-duty conduct on company property.
