Bruce Holly v. UPS Supply Chain Solutions, 680 F. App'x 458

Background

Holly was hired by UPS SCS and worked as an operations supervisor; he held a Kentucky concealed-carry license and routinely kept a handgun in his car in the UPS parking lot.
On April 1, 2013, Holly asked subordinate Kenneth Moore to store Holly’s handgun in Moore’s vehicle while Holly’s car was being repaired; Moore later reported the incident.
Holly was warned that UPS policy prohibited weapons on UPS property but was not disciplined that day; he retrieved the gun at day’s end.
UPS learned of the incident during a later investigation, suspended Holly on May 10, 2013, and terminated him on May 20, citing prior poor performance and misuse of company time (asking a subordinate for a personal favor).
Holly sued under Kentucky statutes (Ky. Rev. Stat. §§ 527.020 and 237.106) and for wrongful termination contrary to public policy; defendants removed to federal court and moved for summary judgment.
The district court granted summary judgment for UPS; the Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding Holly’s conduct on April 1 (removing the gun from his vehicle and placing it in another vehicle) fell outside the protection of the cited statutes and thus did not trigger the public-policy exception to at-will employment.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Ky. Rev. Stat. § 527.020 and § 237.106 protect Holly’s conduct and bar his termination	Holly: statute protects possession of a concealed weapon in an employee’s vehicle on employer property; he argued this covered his conduct and provided a wrongful-termination claim	UPS: statutory protection is limited to possession in the employee’s vehicle in compliance with KRS 237.110/237.115; moving the gun to another vehicle is not protected and employer may discipline for weapons on premises	Held: Not protected — Holly removed the gun from his vehicle, so §§ 527.020 and 237.106 do not apply to the April 1 conduct and provide no statutory protection for termination.
Whether Holly’s discharge falls within Kentucky’s public-policy exception to at-will employment	Holly: employer actually fired him for legally keeping a gun in his car (protected conduct), and proffered reasons were pretext	UPS: even if true, employer may fire at-will employees for violations of company policy when conduct is outside statutory protection	Held: No public-policy exception — because no statutory protection applied, the wrongful-termination claim fails as a matter of law.
Whether circumstantial evidence created a triable issue of fact (pretext)	Holly (dissent): circumstantial evidence (timing of investigation, emails, HR actions) supports inference employer’s real motive was to stop him from having a gun on property	UPS (majority): even if pretext could be shown, it is irrelevant because the underlying conduct was not statutorily protected	Held: Majority: pretext is legally irrelevant here; summary judgment for UPS. Dissent would have found a genuine issue of fact.
Scope of statutory protection after a single unprotected handling event	Holly: a one-time removal should not permanently strip protection for lawful storage of a gun in vehicle at other times	UPS: statutory language requires compliance (e.g., concealment in vehicle); removal falls outside protection	Held: Majority: removing the gun from his vehicle on UPS property placed the incident outside statutory protection; dissent argues protection isn’t necessarily forfeited forever but Holly failed to raise a triable fact on that point.

Key Cases Cited

Grzyb v. Evans, 700 S.W.2d 399 (Ky. 1985) (sets Kentucky’s at-will rule and narrow public-policy exception)
Firestone Textile Co. Div. v. Meadows, 666 S.W.2d 730 (Ky. 1983) (at-will employment principle)
Mitchell v. Univ. of Ky., 366 S.W.3d 895 (Ky. 2012) (three-factor test for public-policy wrongful termination)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment standard)
Tysinger v. Police Dep’t of City of Zanesville, 463 F.3d 569 (6th Cir. 2006) (standard of review for summary judgment)