Two recent court decisions in Seattle regarding regulation of firearms could cause employers and employees to question whether an employer can prohibit or regulate guns at work in Washington State.
Background
On February 10, 2010, King County Superior Court Judge Catherine Shaffer signed an Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment in the case of Chan v. Seattle (“State Court Order”). The State Court Order found that the Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation’s Rule/Policy No. P 060-8.14 (“Firearms Rule”) violates a Washington statute, RCW 9.41.290, and enjoined (stopped) the City from enforcing the Firearms Rule. As part of the State Court Order, Judge Shaffer found that “Plaintiffs have a clear legal or equitable right to carry firearms under federal and state constitutions.” The statute that the State Court Order is based on states, in part, that the state “fully occupies and preempts the entire field of firearms regulation within the boundaries of the state . . . . Cities, towns and counties or other municipalities may enact only those laws and ordinances relating to firearms that are specifically authorized by state law. . . . Local laws and ordinances that are inconsistent with, or more restrictive than, or exceed the requirements of state law shall not be enacted and are preempted and repealed. . . .”
On March 11, 2010, in a federal case called Warden v. Nickels, United States District Court Judge Marsha Pechman filed an Order Granting Motion to Dismiss (“Federal Court Order”) dismissing a challenge to the Firearms Rule. The Federal Court Order refers to the State Court Order, but the Federal Court Order addresses different issues; specifically, whether the Firearms Rule violates the U.S. or Washington State Constitutions. The Federal Court Order holds that the Firearms Rule is not unconstitutional under either the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment or Fourteenth Amendment or under the Washington State Constitution.
In other words, the City of Seattle’s Firearms Rule is no longer in effect because it violates a state law (RCW 9.41.290), but under the Federal Court Order, it would be possible for the City to enact a rule like the Firearms Rule if the state statute allowed for it. One or both of the orders could be modified by subsequent court decisions or legislative action, however.
Status of Rules Regulating Guns at Work
The State Court Order and Federal Court Order do not directly affect existing law on workplace rules regarding weapons, including guns. In a case called Cherry v. Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, 116 Wn.2d 794, 808 P.2d 746 (1991), the Washington State Supreme Court held that RCW 9.41.290 did not prevent public employers from adopting and enforcing work rules prohibiting employees from carrying weapons at work, including guns, even if the employees have valid concealed firearms permits. In deciding that RCW 9.41.290 was not intended to invalidate the authority of municipal employers to regulate or prohibit employee’s possession of firearms while on the job, the Washington State Supreme Court looked not only at the statute itself but also at the legislative intent. The Court also noted that nothing in the statute would prohibit private employers from having internal workplace policies prohibiting the possession of any type weapon, including firearms, by employees on the job.
The Bottom Line
The debates over regulation of firearms continue, but for the time being, both public and private employers in Washington State can adopt and enforce workplace rules restricting or prohibiting employees from having guns at work.
The above is a very brief general summary of a complex area of the law and should not be relied on for any purpose. Additionally, please be aware that the information and legal decisions in this post could change after the post was written on March 13, 2010.