. Now that the winner has been decided, it is very likely that a settlement will be reached before the court makes a decision.
I would not "jump the gun" in saying "a winner has been decided".
The issue that I see as being a hurdle for the plaintiff to overcome is his previous testimony (in unemployment) that he stored the gun in his armrest & not the glove compartment. That is a big, big issue for the plaintiff (its a killer for his suit).
The plaintiff has the burden of proof.
The university and the plaintiff, in their court pleadings, stated that the gun was in the glove compartment.
Normally, there is a section of an appeal known as "statement of facts" .. I assume that the plaintiff listed there that the gun was in the glove compartment.
The university may have not cared about the armrest v. glove compartment aspect of the case because they focused on another section of the law in their summary judgment (I'm guessing from the appellate court memo linked in this thread).
If he routinely had a gun in the car and only once kept it in his arm rest or elsewhere (other than his glove compartment) then he has a problem; even if not related to the day of his termination. And other defenses are still available (finding our a lie on his employment application, etc..many things can justify a termination after the fact).
Now he'll have to go in court and give testimony that directly contradicts his previous testimony with the unemployment department testimony.
Will this case settling out of court ? hard to say... neither one wants a crap shoot decision... although the university may have the upper hand here if the guard testifies that the gun was in the arm rest as opposed to the glove compartment. If that happens, the plaintiff has just lost his case I think. If the guard testifies "he can't remember" then a settlement may be the result. If the guard says the glove compartment then the plaintiff should be able to take it to trial if he wants or take a more generous settlement (like that will ever happen that an employee turns on his employer).
Just my analysis of the limited facts presented ... and my knowldge that judges & juries lean heavily against plaintiffs in these types of cases. And where they are the most favorable in employment cases, they are more anti-gun.