ConocoPhillips and several other employers sued the state of Oklahoma, claiming that two state laws forcing them to allow employees to keep guns in their locked cars in workplace parking lots prevented employers from maintaining workplace safety.

What happened. Oklahoma's state statutes include two laws protecting the right of individuals to bear firearms. These laws are the Oklahoma Firearms Act (OFA) of 1971, (OKLA. Stat. Tit. 21, Sec. 1289.1 et seq) and the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act (OSDA) of 1995, (OKLA Stat. Tit. 21, Sec. 1291.1 et seq). The OFA was written to define ways in which the use of firearms can be controlled while still allowing people to use guns lawfully to defend their lives, homes, and property. The OSDA creates exceptions to the OFA, mainly to allow licensed users to carry concealed handguns.

In 2004, the Legislature amended these two laws, adding to each a provision that read, "No person, property owner, tenant, employer, or business entity shall be permitted to establish any policy or rule that has the effect of prohibiting any person, except a convicted felon, from transporting and storing firearms in a locked vehicle on any property set aside for any vehicle." The amendments' creator insisted that these provisions were necessary to protect the rights of law-abiding gun owners who carried their weapons in their vehicles.

ConocoPhillips is a Delaware corporation with numerous facilities in Oklahoma. Its company policy prohibits possession of firearms on property owned or controlled by the company, including in parking lots and garages.

ConocoPhillips and several other companies sued Oklahoma Governor C. Brad Henry, claiming that the law forced them to allow firearms on company property. They argued that this violated various laws, including the federal Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act. It asked a federal district court sitting in Oklahoma to prevent the state from enforcing the new provisions of the OFA and the OSDA.

What the court said. Under the OFA and OSDA as amended, employers would have to allow their employees to bring various types of guns onto company property, including unloaded pistols, rifles, and shotguns and their appropriate ammunition as well as loaded, concealed handguns, and clip- and magazine-loaded rifles and shotguns. Any attempt to control or regulate guns on work premises would be a criminal act.

ConocoPhillips argued that forcing them to permit guns on company premises would interfere with their ability to maintain workplace safety. The company submitted statements from law enforcement officers that the presence of firearms on work premises, even if they are inside locked vehicles, increases the risk of violence in the workplace.  The company argued that this ran counter to the purposes of the OSH Act.

The OSH Act states that its purpose is to provide safe and healthful working conditions for all workers by encouraging employers to reduce occupational health and safety hazards in the workplace. Each employer must provide every employee a workplace that is free from "recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees." This is known as the general duty clause, because it requires employers to do whatever they can to ward off unanticipated hazards. Employers that fail to do so can be cited by the U.S. Department of Labor.

The court found that employers were justified in creating company policies to prevent gun-related violence, which would qualify as a "hazard likely to cause death" under the OSH Act. Requiring employees to keep their guns locked in their vehicles was not sufficient protection because employees could easily retrieve their weapons and commit violent acts at work.

The court accepted ConocoPhillips' argument that the amendments materially impeded an employers' ability to comply with the OSH Act's general duty clause. This created an untenable conflict between federal and state law. The court ordered the laws made invalid to the extent that they conflicted with the federal OSH Act. ConocoPhillips v. Henry, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, No. 04-CV-820-TCK-SAJ (10/04/07).

Point to remember: The OSH Act imposes a heavy responsibility on employers to keep workers safe, and this ruling illustrates the court's recognition of this burden.