Judge Derails Railroad's Gun Law Challenge

A federal judge in Arkansas just told Union Pacific that neither railroad law nor a union contract can override a state's gun-rights statute.

State of play: Arkansas Code § 11-5-117 bars employers from stopping workers from keeping a lawfully owned gun locked out of sight in their vehicle at work. Union Pacific hates that law. When employee Randy Franklin got disciplined for having a gun in his locked vehicle in a company lot, he fought back — an adjustment board cut his punishment and reinstated him, but Union Pacific vowed its zero-tolerance firearms policy would stand anyway. The railroad sued in federal court seeking a declaration that federal law trumps the state statute. Franklin and a second employee countersued, and Arkansas intervened to defend its own law.

This isn't Union Pacific's first swing and miss. The company initially argued the Federal Employers' Liability Act meant Arkansas's employer-liability protections — and the gun-parking provision riding along with them — couldn't apply to railroads at all. The Arkansas Supreme Court shot that down, ruling the provisions severable. So Union Pacific came back with two new federal theories: that the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act preempts the law because it "discriminates against railroads," and that the Railway Labor Act preempts it because Franklin's union contract supposedly waived his state-law gun rights through collective bargaining.

The legal question: Can a company bargain away an employee's statutory gun rights, and can federal railroad statutes nuke a state's parking-lot protections? U.S. District Judge Lee P. Rudofsky said no to both.

"This is a gun-rights case. But it is not a usual one. It does not implicate the Second Amendment, at least not directly. Instead, this case asks whether federal laws concerning the operations of railroads prevent this Court from enforcing against a railroad a generally applicable gun-rights law adopted by the State of Arkansas. To cut to the chase, the answer is no."

The intrigue: Union Pacific's ICCTA argument required claiming the law singles out railroads unfairly — a tough sell when the statute is a generally applicable protection for employees statewide. And the RLA argument essentially asked the court to let a collective bargaining agreement function as a waiver of a state-conferred individual right, something Rudofsky wasn't willing to bless.

What to watch: The ruling denied summary judgment, so the case isn't over — Union Pacific's original suit and the employees' countersuit both continue, with a status conference ahead to figure out next steps. But two losses in a row, first at the Arkansas Supreme Court and now in federal district court, leaves the railroad's legal track looking pretty worn down.

The bottom line: A company can't use federal railroad statutes or a union contract as a backdoor around a state's gun-rights law for employees — at least not according to this judge.