VA man forced to resign over legally stored handgun in truck.

He was accused of "having a gun at the workplace". He should have said "I do not have any gun at my workplace" and left it at that, since his vehicle was parked on a public street and not on the workplace property.

This would have denied (honestly) that he had any firearm at the workplace, and if they had any problems with that they could have searched the workplace all they wished, as is their purview.

He should never have made ANY concessions to his employer over something not on the employer's property and not any of his business.

He may have still been forced into resigning, but they would have an even weaker legal stand on the matter.
 
They can't "force" anyone to resign. That may hurt him in the suit.
Also there is something wrong with the story, how did they even know about a gun unless he had been bragging about it or he actually had the gun on the job and let someone know it previously.
 
Sometimes in an employment situation there is very little difference between being "forced" and being "coerced".
What he really needs is an employment attorney. It won't matter one bit that he "retired" since I feel certain he was more than likely coerced into that action. The link wouldn't work so I'm guessing that there was an underlying issue and they wanted him gone....
 
Last edited:
When you're in front of your employer and you're given a choice between "resign" or "be terminated", there's most definitely an element of coercion involved, especially when they make it clear that one option (termination) means he's not going to be employable by any other city in the area. While a person DOES technically have a choice here, there are consequences to either action which bear a direct impact upon the person's employability and benefits. How much those consequences weigh to the individual is based on how much either one impacts their financial situation.

And that, in my opinion, makes it "forced".

Virginia is an "employment at will" state...meaning termination can be for any reason, or no reason at all, so long as the termination isn't for something based on race, color, national origin, sex, pregnancy, religion, age, disability, or citizenship. So Portsmouth will have to be careful about the reason(s) why...because if it pertains to something that federal, state, or other jurisdictional law says a person has a right to enjoy the benefits of, then they'll likely lose. On the face of things, it would appear that not only does the claimant have the right under law, what this is over didn't even pertain to his employer as it wasn't located at the place of business or within company vehicles.

Of course, we only know what the article says...and we all know that isn't likely to be the full picture.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom