Levine v UL - Parking lot CCL storage

[Euler]

From today's ISRA email "Bulletin" (and an eye-poke from SiliconSorcerer):

ISRA said:

...

Levine v. UL LLC (Plaintiff fired allegedly for storing CCL firearm in company parking lot) – Circuit Court Judge dismissed case for failure to state a claim (stated grounds not a public policy exception to at-will employment rule). Currently on appeal in First District Appellate Court, opening Brief filed 3/14/23.

...

 

There is Federal precedent from the 7th Circuit: Judicial Second Amendment Case Discussion > Ameren Illinois vs IBEW , LOCAL UNION 51 - Our side wins!

[Jeffrey]

Sorry OP I'm going slightly OT, I was reading the same news letter and there was a "tidbit" of historic dating related to Humvee's.  He goes on to say how GM considered bringing them back but nothing in the works.  There is literally 2 brand new Hummers at the Cadillac dealer out front nearest me right now.  SMDH

[Euler]

This case was originally heard in Cook County. UL (aka Underwriters Laboratories) has locations in downtown Chicago and in Northbrook.

Case Number	Calendar	Date Filed	Division
2022L005173	LCALQ	06/09/2022	District 1
Plaintiff(s)	Case Type	Defendant(s)	Attorney
STEVEN LEVINE	Other Personal Injury / Wrongful Death - Jury	UL LLC	DAVID SIGALE SEYFARTH SHAW LLP

Case Activities:

Activity Date:	12/09/2022	Event Desc:	Request For Preparation Of The Record	Comments:	Request for Preparation of Record on Appeal
Activity Date:	12/06/2022	Event Desc:	Notice Of Appeal Filed	Comments:	Notice of Appeal
Activity Date:	12/06/2022	Event Desc:	Notice Of Filing Filed	Comments:	Notice of Filing (of Notice of Appeal)
Activity Date:	11/14/2022	Event Desc:	Defendant Motion To Dismiss W/Prejudice - Allowed	Comments:
Activity Date:	10/14/2022	Event Desc:	Response / Reply - Filed	Comments:	Defendant's Reply In Support of Section 2-615 Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint
Activity Date:	09/16/2022	Event Desc:	Notice Of Filing Filed	Comments:	Notice of Filing (Response to Defendant's 5/2-615 Motion to Dismiss)
Activity Date:	09/16/2022	Event Desc:	Response / Reply - Filed	Comments:	Response to Defendant's 5/2-615 Motion to Dismiss
Activity Date:	08/18/2022	Event Desc:	Strike,Withdraw Compl,Amended Compl,Portion Thereof -Cnt -	Comments:
Activity Date:	08/18/2022	Event Desc:	File Amendment, Additional, Amended Pleadings - Allowed -	Comments:
Activity Date:	08/18/2022	Event Desc:	File Amendment, Additional, Amended Pleadings - Allowed -	Comments:
Activity Date:	08/08/2022	Event Desc:	Notice Of Motion Filed	Comments:	Notice of Motion
Activity Date:	08/08/2022	Event Desc:	Assign To Judge Within Division	Comments:	1942 j sherlock
Activity Date:	08/08/2022	Event Desc:	Case Set On Individual Calendar	Comments:
Activity Date:	08/05/2022	Event Desc:	Strike From Case Management Call - Allowed	Comments:
Activity Date:	08/05/2022	Event Desc:	Transfer To Judge Within Division	Comments:	2005
Activity Date:	08/05/2022	Event Desc:	Notice Of Motion Filed	Comments:	Notice of Motion
Activity Date:	08/05/2022	Event Desc:	Motion To Dismiss Filed	Comments:	Defendant's Section 2-615 Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint
Activity Date:	07/08/2022	Event Desc:	Summons Served - Corporation/Company/Business	Comments:	Sheriff ID: 50184114, Sheriff Filename: 2022l00517350184114.pdf
Activity Date:	07/06/2022	Event Desc:	Electronic Notice Sent	Comments:
Activity Date:	07/06/2022	Event Desc:	Electronic Notice Sent	Comments:
Activity Date:	06/09/2022	Event Desc:	Other Personal Injury Complaint Filed (Jury Demand)	Comments:	Verified Complaint at Law
Activity Date:	06/09/2022	Event Desc:	Summons Issued And Returnable	Comments:	Summons
Activity Date:	06/09/2022	Event Desc:	New Case Filing	Comments:

 

It was probably a mistake to file the case in county court instead of federal court.

[Euler]

From the ISRA today:

 

ISRA said:

...

The ISRA is also happy to announce that the rights of Illinois Concealed Carry Holders have been affirmed by the Illinois First District Appellate Court. In Levine v UL LLC, the Illinois First District Appellate Court ruled that termination of a concealed carry holder for lawful storage of their firearm is a violation of public policy that can give rise to a wrongful termination suit. Therefore the case must be considered again on those grounds. This is a major win for Illinois Concealed Carry Licensees, and its thanks to provisions in the Concealed Carry Act that the ISRA fought for 10 years ago. The ISRA continues to support this case and the rights of those who exercise lawful concealed carry.

...

[AlphaKoncepts aka CGS]

ISRA's Mayhall is calling this a "major win". But I'm not sure it is yet since it was remanded to allow Levine to amend his case. I'm not so sure I'd suggest to a student to ignore company policy. 


https://cases.justia.com/illinois/court-of-appeals-first-appellate-district/2023-1-22-1845.pdf?ts=1687273908

[Not so fast]

AlphaKoncepts: the employee in this case was in compliance with his company policy. 

[Smallbore]

On 6/26/2023 at 7:55 PM, Not so fast said:

AlphaKoncepts: the employee in this case was in compliance with his company policy. 

The question is who trumps who? Does state gun storage "safe haven" law trump company policy or not. Do I understand that "safe haven" prevails thus protecting workers 2nd A rights?

[Not so fast]

On 6/27/2023 at 10:31 AM, Smallbore said:

The question is who trumps who? Does state gun storage "safe haven" law trump company policy or not. Do I understand that "safe haven" prevails thus protecting workers 2nd A rights?

Safe Harbor law protects CCL holders in all areas with the exception of Federal or Nuclear facilities. It is “Public Policy” and therefore if the employee was terminated due to the discovery of firearms stored in their vehicle due to a burglary in the company parking lot, the employer shouldn’t be able to terminate the employee. 

[AlphaKoncepts aka CGS]

On 6/26/2023 at 7:55 PM, Not so fast said:

AlphaKoncepts: the employee in this case was in compliance with his company policy. 

That's neither here nor there. Other companies may have policies specifically forbidding firearms. I read the ruling and believe UL's policy was ambiguous, and would agree he didn't violate any weapons policy. However for those companies who do have specific no-gun policies, I would not point to THIS case as an excuse to violate said policy. Also, I would point to this case as proof that if your employer wishes to terminate you, there is always a way, "You didn't violate policy A, but did violate policy B. Good bye."