Ramsey Winch v. Henry: Upholding Oklahoma’s Forced Entry Law

The Tenth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals overruled a federal district court decision and upheld state laws that make it illegal for employers to prohibit employees from keeping firearms locked in their vehicles in the company parking lot. In Ramsey Winch Inc. v. Henry, 555 F.3d 1199 (10th Cir. 2009)a group of employers had challenged the state laws, claiming that the laws prevent the employers from reasonably ensuring a workplace free of workplace violence, which, they contend, is their obligation under OSHA. Because the state law obligations conflict with the federal OSHA obligations, the employers claimed that the state laws must be void under the Supremacy Clause. The 10th Circuit found that OSHA does not require employers to ensure that the workplace is free of violence -- therefore the laws do not conflict and the state laws must be upheld.

BACKGROUND

In response to rising concern about workplace violence in the last decade, many employers have implemented policies prohibiting guns in the workplace, which includes any company property including parking lots. Many employers cite violation of the policy as grounds for termination.

In 2004 and 2005, Oklahoma passed legislation that made it a crime for employers to prohibit employees from storing their firearms in their locked vehicles on company property. Similar laws had been passed or proposed in many states – often drafted and heavily lobbied for by the National Rifle Association. The laws are referred to “forced entry” laws, because they force employers to allow guns on their property, whether they want to or not. Proponents of forced entry laws say they are necessary to protect the rights of law-abiding gun owners who carry their weapons in their vehicles.

ConocoPhillips, a Delaware corporation with operations in Oklahoma, along with several other Oklahoma employers, sued Oklahoma Governor C. Brad Henry, claiming that the forced entry laws were preempted by the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA). Specifically, the plaintiffs pointed to the purpose and general duty clause of OSHA, which require them to provide a safe workplace for their employees.

The general duty clause of OSHA mandates that each employer, “shall furnish to each of his employees employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees.” 29 U.S.C. section 654(a)(1). The plaintiff-employers asserted that Oklahoma’s forced entry laws, which imposed criminal liability on employers who prohibited firearms, directly conflicted with OSHA, which mandates that employers ensure that the workplace is free from “recognized hazards,” of which guns are one.

The federal district court for the Northern District of Oklahoma agreed with the employers, finding that the state law conflicted with OSHA in a way that it was not possible for employers to comply with both. Because federal law is supreme, OSHA preempted the state law, so the district court found Oklahoma’s forced entry laws unenforceable to the extent that they conflicted with OSHA. The district court decision is located at ConocoPhillips Co. v. Henry, 520 F. Supp. 2d 1282 (N.D. Okla. 2007).

Oklahoma filed this appeal to the 10th Circuit, which reversed.

OSHA does not preempt Oklahoma’s forced entry laws

The Tenth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals first considered the three types of federal preemption under the Supremacy Clause: “express” preemption, where Congress explicitly preempts state law; “field” preemption, where Congress’ extensive regulation in an entire field indicates Congress’ intent to have its interest dominate; and “conflict” preemption, where a conflict between state and federal law makes it impossible for someone to comply with both. This case obviously falls into the third category.

The court then looked closely at the general duty clause of OSHA. Because OSHA lacks any specific standard relating to workplace violence, federal preemption can only be found if gun-related workplace violence could be considered a “recognized hazard” under the general duty clause—only that interpretation could enable employers to prohibit guns locked in cars in the parking lot. This is the interpretation reached by the district court, leading to its striking of Oklahoma’s forced entry laws.

The 10th Circuit disagreed with the district court, finding that nothing in OSHA indicates “in any way that employers should prohibit firearms from company parking lots.  OSHA’s website, guidelines, and citation history do not speak at all to any such prohibition.” Ramsey Winch Inc. v. Henry, 555 F.3d 1199, 1206 (10th Cir. 2009). Moreover, the court noted that OSHA had previously declined an opportunity to promulgate a standard banning guns in the workplace. The court also pointed to the only decision on the issue, an opinion by an Administrative Law Judge, finding that potential violent behavior of people could not constitute a “recognized hazard.” Id. The Court noted that OSHA’s general duty clause cannot reasonably not force employers to police social behavior and protect employees from the potentially random and unpredictable acts of people.

Because the OSHA’s general duty clause cannot be construed to require employers to prevent all gun-related workplace violence, the 10th Circuit found that the general duty clause is too vague to conflict with, and thus preempt, Oklahoma’s laws.

The forced entry laws do not deprive employers of due process

The plaintiff-employers alternatively argued that Oklahoma’s laws violated their constitutional rights to property and due process by forcing them to provide an easement to people carrying firearms and by arbitrarily and irrationally prohibiting them from excluding certain employees from their property.

The 10th Circuit rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the laws constituted an unlawful “taking” of their property because the plaintiffs’ constitutional property rights are not being infringed. Rather, they are being required “to recognize a state-protected right of their employees.” 555 F.3d at 1209.

The Court also rejected the plaintiffs’ due process claim, finding that the rational basis test applied, and the Oklahoma legislature arguably did have a rational basis for passing the law – its claim that allowing people to carry firearms increases overall safety of the community. Because the law arguably had a rational basis, the plaintiffs’ due process claim had to fail. Id. at 1211.

CONCLUSION

At least ten states have passed forced entry laws similar to the Oklahoma laws at issue in Ramsey Winch Inc. v. Henry, and even more states are considering them. Many employers feel that these laws threaten their ability to comply with their OSHA obligations to provide a safe workplace. Employers are subject to citations by the Secretary of Labor for violation of the general duty clause, just as they are for more specific OSHA regulations. As a result, expect more employers to challenge these laws in other states on similar constitutional grounds to those raised by the Ramsey Winch Inc. v. Henry plaintiffs.

In the meantime, employers who are unable to ban firearms on company property due to these laws must be vigilant about taking appropriate steps when placed on notice of potential future workplace violence.

Connect on Linkedin®

Jeremy J. Gray

Also See:

Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Church v. EEOC: Supreme Court Confirms Ministerial Exception to Employment

US Airways, Inc. v. McCutchen: Third Circuit Limits ERISA Fiduciary Relief; Allows Equitable Reformation

Bates v. Dura Automotive Systems, Inc: An Employee on Legal Prescription Medication May be Fired For Safety Reasons as Long as the Employee is not “Disabled”

Reid v. Google: Stray Remarks May Be Considered Evidence of Discrimination

City of Ontario v. Quon: Limited Privacy Rights for Employer-Issued Equipment