Wal-Greens Pharmacist Update
Remember the guy who used his gun in self defense while working at Wal-Greens and who got fired? Now, he’s suing:
After he foiled a robbery by pulling a handgun out of his pocket, Benton Harbor pharmacist Jeremy Hoven said he was fired from his job at Walgreens.
Now, he’s fired back with a federal lawsuit against Walgreens alleging wrongful termination.
August 29th, 2011 at 9:44 am
This is not the kind of case I particularly like seeing go to trial… While Walgreens does have responsibility to protect its employees an employee who brings a gun to work knowing it is against company regulations takes his career into his own hands. I see it as being no different then a licensed carrier going into a store that bans weapons and saying he did it because it was a dangerous area… That would not fly with anyone… How about we follow the laws as they are and refrain from breaking the law to show that law is wrong… That always ends badly…. He made a personal choice and now he must take personal responsibility…
August 29th, 2011 at 11:14 am
I disagree a litle bit. I believe he had every right to break that “bad law” (company regulation?) in order to protect his life — he should have no regrets there. However, I don’t know if he is justified in taking this to court. It is a private company policy after all, right? Does the 2A guarantee his right to self-protection at the workplace?
Seems like if he is successful, this could bring a major change to 2A acceptance in the workplace. Conversely, if this case is taken to court poorly, it could setback the 2A movement at work.
August 29th, 2011 at 11:38 am
Best of luck to him, hope it works out as a win for everybody. It’s past time for companies to stop the “give them what they want, and maybe they won’t kill you anyway” approach.
August 29th, 2011 at 12:05 pm
If you have a right to self defense in the workplace via the 2nd amendment what happens to property owners rights?? When you agree to work for them you go by their rules on their property.. You are stating you are waiving those rights by accepting the job… If you do not like their rules work elsewhere. Don’t violate the law because you are forcing yourself to work in a place you disagree with 2nd amendment wise. Property owners have been gutted enough already… Never been a big fan of overreaching laws regardless of the direction they go…
August 29th, 2011 at 1:01 pm
I refuse to believe my right (or responsibilty)to self-protection ends the moment I clock in at work. I know my employers have no viable plan for my protection from armed intruders intent on harming me or the people I work with. I’m sure this pharmacist knew the same about his employer. I believe the pharmacist in question was correct in assuming that working in that store was dangerous and he made the right choice when he armed himself for this eventuatlity. He is a hero who likely saved lives. That night and in the future as other criminals will think about the consequences of entering that store again to commit a crime. However, he was most certainly aware of Walgreens policy concerning armed employees and made the decision to carry knowing that to do so jeapordized his job. Apparently a factor he was willing to accept until it actually did cost him his job. Perhaps his actions that day have made him less employable as all corporations and businesses are concerned about the liablilities surrounding this very issue. He might be suing because he cannot find a job. Perhaps some sort of tort reform could help mitigate this concern.I believe some employers would likely change their policies if they knew it would not expose them to increased liability costs.
August 29th, 2011 at 3:55 pm
He would have a better case if he sued Walgreens for not properly protecting him while it demanded he surrender his right to self defense.
August 29th, 2011 at 4:22 pm
Walgreens can’t collect on their dead peasant insurance if said peasant refuses to lay down and die.
August 29th, 2011 at 4:33 pm
This suit does not bother me so much. What other natural rights do we allow our employer to take. No one is fighting for the rights of employers being able to force workers to endanger themselves by work conditions (hello OSHA) so why should this work condition (unarmed) be any different?
August 29th, 2011 at 4:40 pm
They may not have actually had an official policy at the time.
The original story has gone behind a paywall, but there’s some more here. Even if they did have a written policy, he may have some legitimate claim due to Walgreen’s failure to adequately address employee concerns after at least two previous robberies.
His attorney was looking at a wrongful termination suit as far back as May. I’m betting there is some legitimate grounds for the suit here, and wonder if they had neglected to put the policy in the employee handbook before this happened.
August 29th, 2011 at 5:11 pm
He was exercising a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. “Property owners” must respect Constitutional rights, otherwise they aren’t really Constitutional rights, are they?
Once again, can a property owner decide to post a “no niggers” sign on his [business] property and get away with it? If not he shouldn’t be able to do this either.
The Second Amendment either protects a Constitutional right or it doesn’t.
August 29th, 2011 at 8:42 pm
John Smith: An employer’s workplace rule does not carry the force of law. Simply working somewhere does not mean that whatever they say goes.
If an employer invents a rule that says all female employees must perform oral sex on their manager or be fired immediately, is the employees’ only recourse to resign? Can an employer institute whipping as a punishment for minor employee infractions? How about chaining emergency exits shut, so employees can’t take unauthorized breaks?
August 29th, 2011 at 10:34 pm
So you are saying that the employer has absolutely no right to tell people who work for them what they can and cannot do on their premises???(Pro Union I take it.) When you are their dime you follow their rules… That is the agreement you made when you decided to work there… Constitutional rights are waived quite often… Like non disclosure agreements. That is a waiver to free speech… Working for walgreens is a waiver to the 2nd amendment… By the way since when has 2nd amendment rights been protected under EEOC guidelines??? If such things were covered under EEOC rules then non disclosure agreements would be unconstitutional… You could also tell you boss to fuck himself with a foot long dildo in front of customers and keep your job because of 1st amendment rights of free speech….. You guys have to choose whether you want over regulation one way or over regulation the other way… No cherry picking…
August 31st, 2011 at 6:25 pm
When a company has no realistic protection policy for employees and denies them the opportunity to protect themselves is an issue that needs more clarification. Personal rights of employees (and customers) v property rights of companies.