Disney Employee Fired

[Palmach]

The Disney employee, a security guard at Animal Kingdom who was suspended last week was officially fired on Monday July 7th.

I have posted the text of the Florida Guns to Work Law, so that you can see that the exception that Disney is claiming would not apply to them according to the wording of this law. They are not in the primary business of fireworks.

(e) Property owned or leased by a public or private
208 employer or the landlord of a public or private employer upon
209 which the primary business conducted is the manufacture, use,
210 storage, or transportation of combustible or explosive materials
211 regulated under state or federal law, or property owned or
212 leased by an employer who has obtained a permit required under
213 18 U.S.C. s. 842 to engage in the business of importing,
214 manufacturing, or dealing in explosive materials on such
215 property.

Further, the law also requires that the Florida Attorney General represent any individual whose rights are violated under this law, including the seeking of monetary damages. This does not preclude the victim from also bringing their own civil suit.

This might be a good double whammy for Disney being sued by both the Attorney General as well as the fired employee.

It is good to know that there are still those who will stand up for their rights.

http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sectio...3&Session=2008

[Bob]

AFTER PROTESTING GUN RULES, DISNEY GUARD IS FIRED
Scott Powers | Sentinel Staff Writer
July 8, 2008

Walt Disney World fired a security guard on Monday after he protested
the company's decision not to allow people with concealed weapons
permits to keep guns in their cars on Disney property.

Disney terminated Edwin Sotomayor, 36, of Orlando for violating three
Disney employee policies, essentially for failing to cooperate with an
internal investigation, said spokeswoman Zoraya Suarez. Sotomayor vowed
to continue his fight.

At issue is Florida's new law that allows people with concealed weapons
permits to keep firearms in their vehicles in employee parking lots.

Disney advised its employees late last month that the theme-park resort
is exempt from that state law, and that they may not bring firearms onto
the property. Disney stated that its gun policy is based on safety
concerns for visitors and employees.

Sotomayor alerted local media last week that he intended to challenge
Disney's claim of an exemption to the new law by bringing a gun to work,
locked in his vehicle. When he showed up for work at Disney's Animal
Kingdom on Friday, he declined to let Disney authorities search his car.
Disney suspended him pending an investigation, then fired him Monday.

Sotomayor expressed distress about the end of his 13-year career at
Disney, but not regret. He said he expects the security guards' union,
Security Police & Fire Professionals of America Amalgamated Local 603,
to challenge his termination, and he intends to continue his own
challenge of Disney World's gun policy.

"I am not going to stop this fight," he said. "This is going to end
somewhere good."

The security guards' union, Local 603, would not comment, referring
inquiries to Disney World.

Link
After protesting gun rule, Disney guard is fired -- OrlandoSentinel.com

[KimberPB]

Sucks that he got fired but props that he stood up to Disney. I hope he continues to fight this because I don't think Disney has a leg to stand on. If he has a valid permit and left the gun locked in his car he's covered by the new law that just went into affect. I have also not seen anywhere were it says Disney property is exempt from this new law.

Maybe this will force them to change there gun policies.

[Bob]

If the Orlando Sentinel article is accurate then I have some problems
as to how this will be played out.

First, if Mr.Sotomayor was suspended pending an investigation then
one would assume that on or prior to Friday he violated a
Disney World work rule; thus triggering the investigation. If
he failed to cooperate in the disciplinary investigation he would be
dismissed which is what Disney World is asserting.

Second, since Mr.Sotomayor contacted the local media prior to his
termination then again my guess is that his intentions were to
set the stage for a test case which he may have had if he had
chosen to cooperate with the disciplinary investigation.

I do not think that this will be a Second Amendment issue but
rather a Disney World personnel issue that deals with a
uncooperative and disruptive employee.

In conclusion, I applaud Mr.Sotomayor's effort to challenge
his employers work place rules vis a vis the Second Amendment
but he was sloppy in his execution.

Best wishes All!

[Palmach]

If the Orlando Sentinel article is accurate then I have some problems
as to how this will be played out.

First, if Mr.Sotomayor was suspended pending an investigation then
one would assume that on or prior to Friday he violated a
Disney World work rule; thus triggering the investigation. If
he failed to cooperate in the disciplinary investigation he would be
dismissed which is what Disney World is asserting.

Second, since Mr.Sotomayor contacted the local media prior to his
termination then again my guess is that his intentions were to
set the stage for a test case which he may have had if he had
chosen to cooperate with the disciplinary investigation.

I do not think that this will be a Second Amendment issue but
rather a Disney World personnel issue that deals with a
uncooperative and disruptive employee.

In conclusion, I applaud Mr.Sotomayor's effort to challenge
his employers work place rules vis a vis the Second Amendment
but he was sloppy in his execution.

Best wishes All!

According to the new law, Disney does not have the right to question, ask, investigate, search, or take action against an employee with a CWL who keeps a firearm locked in their vehicle. It was Disney that violated the newly signed law.

It will really come down to how the courts interpret the exception for those in the business of explosives, and whether is exception relates to Disney simply because they have nightly fireworks displays. In the plain reading of the law, Disney does not have a leg to stand on.

BTW, when is the liberal anti gun media ever accurate?

[FN1910]

Interesting point to this is Disney could not have fired him for having a gun in his car because there was no proof that he had one. He screwed up and can't challenge Disney on the gun law but will now have to challenge them on his firing for disruption of the work place.

Someone posted that the AG is supposed to defend anyone charged with the gun possesion law but in this case it won't apply. The fellow screwed up and is a Dumb A$$ as far as I am concerned. I may be wrong but it looks to me like he doesn't have aq case.

[Palmach]

Interesting point to this is Disney could not have fired him for having a gun in his car because there was no proof that he had one. He screwed up and can't challenge Disney on the gun law but will now have to challenge them on his firing for disruption of the work place.

Someone posted that the AG is supposed to defend anyone charged with the gun possesion law but in this case it won't apply. The fellow screwed up and is a Dumb A$$ as far as I am concerned. I may be wrong but it looks to me like he doesn't have aq case.

He was fired for violating company policy and failing to cooperate with their investigation. It stems from his refusal to have his car searched.

Disney has openly admitted to firing him for violating this specific policy

According to the new law, no employer has the right to search an employees car who has a CWL and keeps a firearm locked in their car. They are not even allowed to question, or ask the employee if they have a firearm.

I think he has a great case

[tcotariu]

(e) Property owned or leased by a public or private
208 employer or the landlord of a public or private employer upon
209 which the primary business conducted is the manufacture, use,
210 storage, or transportation of combustible or explosive materials
211 regulated under state or federal law, or property owned or
212 leased by an employer who has obtained a permit required under
213 18 U.S.C. s. 842 to engage in the business of importing,
214 manufacturing, or dealing in explosive materials on such
215 property.

If Disney does indeed have a permit "under 18 U.S.C. s. 842 to engage in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in explosive materials on such property". Then he might not have much of a case. Having such a permit would indeed exempt them from this law.

[Palmach]

(e) Property owned or leased by a public or private
208 employer or the landlord of a public or private employer upon
209 which the primary business conducted is the manufacture, use,
210 storage, or transportation of combustible or explosive materials
211 regulated under state or federal law, or property owned or
212 leased by an employer who has obtained a permit required under
213 18 U.S.C. s. 842 to engage in the business of importing,
214 manufacturing, or dealing in explosive materials on such
215 property.

If Disney does indeed have a permit "under 18 U.S.C. s. 842 to engage in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in explosive materials on such property". Then he might not have much of a case. Having such a permit would indeed exempt them from this law.

The question becomes whether or not shooting off fireworks at night constitutes being in the business of importing, manufacturing or dealing in explosive materials.

Sec 842 refer to Sec 844 J for definitions

(j) For the purposes of subsections (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), and (i) of this section, the term ''explosive'' means gunpowders, powders used for blasting, all forms of high explosives, blasting materials, fuzes (other than electric circuit breakers), detonators, and other detonating agents, smokeless powders, other explosive or incendiary devices within the meaning of paragraph (5) of section 232 of this title, and any chemical compounds, mechanical mixture, or device that contains any oxidizing and combustible units, or other ingredients, in such proportions, quantities, or packing that ignition by fire, by friction, by concussion, by percussion, or by detonation of the compound, mixture, or device or any part thereof may cause an explosion.

If you notice in the above Sec 232 par 5 is referred to, which states:

(5) The term "explosive or incendiary device" means (A) dynamite
and all other forms of high explosives, (B) any explosive bomb,
grenade, missile, or similar device, and (C) any incendiary bomb or
grenade, fire bomb, or similar device, including any device which
(i) consists of or includes a breakable container including a
flammable liquid or compound, and a wick composed of any material
which, when ignited, is capable of igniting such flammable liquid
or compound, and (ii) can be carried or thrown by one individual
acting alone.

Any good 2nd Amemdment attorney is going to raise the issue that Disney is not in the business of explosives. They are in the business of theme parks and entertainment. Explosives is not part of their primary function. The law is not written to encompass a theme park that shoots off fireworks, and the legislators that wrote the bill made it clear that this was to exempt defense contractors, and others that deal primarily in their business with explosives.

[Scarecrow]

disney's thing is that they are so far gone from all their magical make believing crap that they think they are above the law... so law abiding people get fired for having a gun in their car... but they will hire known child sex offenders... something wrong with this magical story.