Parking-Lot Laws: An Assault on Private- Property Rights and Workplace Safety

J.D. Candidate, The University of Iowa College of Law, 2008; M.P.H., Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 2005; B.A., Luther College, 2001.

"For all its talk about defending civil rights, the NRA has little respect for any rights that might be in tension with pervasive and unaccountable ownership and use of firearms. The danger of this vision is not so much that it will lead to more violence, but that it brings us closer to a society where everyone is armed and nobody is really free." 1

I. Introduction

Workplace homicides are the fourth-leading cause of work-related deaths and the second-leading cause of deaths among women in the workplace.2 Workplace homicides accounted for nine percent of all workplace fatalities in 2006.3 Eighty-one percent of these homicides were committed with a firearm.4 In 2006, ninety people suffered firearm-related injuries in their workplaces.5

The effects of workplace violence on businesses and their employees are far-reaching and include physical and psychological harm; losses to property and productivity; increased security, workers' compensation, and litigation costs; and decreased employee morale.6 According to the National Safe Workplace Institute, workplace violence cost employers $4.2 billion in missed days of work and legal fees in 1992.7 From 1992 to 2001, workplace homicides cost society an estimated $6.5 billion.8

Although there is no single cause of workplace violence, forty-six percent of employees attribute such violence to the availability of firearms.9In fact, businesses that allow firearms are five to seven times more likely to have a homicide occur on the premises than those that ban firearms.10Accordingly, approximately two-thirds of employers have violence- prevention policies that address the presence of firearms at work.11 Many businesses ban firearms from their properties altogether.12

In response to the increasing number of businesses that ban firearms from their premises, the National Rifle Association ("NRA") is pushing state legislatures to pass laws that prohibit property owners from banning firearms from their parking lots.13 Oklahoma became the first state to pass such a law by adding new sections to the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act and the Oklahoma Firearms Act on March 31, 2004.14 The amended sections state:

No person, property owner, tenant, employer, or business entity shall maintain, establish, or enforce any policy or rule that has the effect of prohibiting any person, except a convicted felon, from transporting and storing firearms in a locked motor vehicle, or from transporting and storing firearms locked in or locked to a motor vehicle on any property set aside for any motor vehicle.15

Part II of this Note explains the impetus behind the Oklahoma legislature's decision to pass such a "parking-lot law."16 While other states have followed Oklahoma's lead in passing such laws, a number of national and Oklahoma-based companies have challenged the Oklahoma law's constitutionality.17 In response to these challenges, on October 4, 2007, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma issued an order in ConocoPhillips Co. v. Henry permanently enjoining the enforcement of the law against employers.18

Part III of this Note analyzes the merits behind the ConocoPhillips plaintiffs' claims that the Oklahoma parking-lot law violates both the Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendments and the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.19 While ultimately rejecting the plaintiffs' due-process claim, this Note concludes that parking-lot laws effect a "taking" without just compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment.

Part IV discusses the policy implications of parking-lot laws. Both proponents and opponents of the laws allege that their respective positions enhance employee and customer safety. This Note concludes, however, that the arguments set forth by parking-lot-law opponents are more convincing than those of their proponents. Further, despite a recent amendment that portends to immunize property owners from liability, employers may still face liability for possible injuries or deaths arising from state parking-lot laws. Employers also will likely face increased security-related costs in order to protect their employees and customers adequately from the consequences of such laws. Finally, parking-lot laws may constrain both employee satisfaction and work productivity. Because of the safety hazards and the additional burdens imposed upon employers, this Note concludes that state legislatures should not pass parking-lot laws.

II. Background

A. The Consequences Of Shall-Issue-Concealed-Carry Laws

With the advent of shall-issue-concealed-carry laws, also known as carrying-conceale...

If you are already a vLex customer, Access Here