pkbites
Regular Member
I've been over seas for a few weeks so forgive me if I'm Johnny come lately regarding THIS story.
It seems that Wisconsin state statute 175.60(15m) is pretty clear on the employers rights:
(15m) Employer restrictions.
(a) Except as provided in par. (b), an employer may prohibit a licensee or an out-of-state licensee that it employs from carrying a concealed weapon or a particular type of concealed weapon in the course of the licensee's or out-of-state licensee's employment or during any part of the licensee's or out-of-state licensee's course of employment.
But wait! Then there is paragraph b that says:
(b) An employer may not prohibit a licensee or an out-of-state licensee, as a condition of employment, from carrying a concealed weapon, a particular type of concealed weapon, or ammunition or from storing a weapon, a particular type of weapon, or ammunition in the licensee's or out-of-state licensee's own motor vehicle, regardless of whether the motor vehicle is used in the course of employment or whether the motor vehicle is driven or parked on property used by the employer.
It appears to me that this clause was written specifically for such situations such as the Uber driver and I think he has a valid case against them.
What do you think?
It seems that Wisconsin state statute 175.60(15m) is pretty clear on the employers rights:
(15m) Employer restrictions.
(a) Except as provided in par. (b), an employer may prohibit a licensee or an out-of-state licensee that it employs from carrying a concealed weapon or a particular type of concealed weapon in the course of the licensee's or out-of-state licensee's employment or during any part of the licensee's or out-of-state licensee's course of employment.
But wait! Then there is paragraph b that says:
(b) An employer may not prohibit a licensee or an out-of-state licensee, as a condition of employment, from carrying a concealed weapon, a particular type of concealed weapon, or ammunition or from storing a weapon, a particular type of weapon, or ammunition in the licensee's or out-of-state licensee's own motor vehicle, regardless of whether the motor vehicle is used in the course of employment or whether the motor vehicle is driven or parked on property used by the employer.
It appears to me that this clause was written specifically for such situations such as the Uber driver and I think he has a valid case against them.
What do you think?