Published 12 September 2023
In a state that mandates all motorcycle riders under age 25 to wear a helmet, may an employer terminate an employee who refuses, claiming it is his constitutional right to ride without one? This question was posed by a manager of a courier service in Missouri.
The manager shares that some of their employees own motorcycles, which facilitate quick travel during rush-hour traffic. One of the employees is 23 years old, married, and they have a 5-year-old daughter. The company requires the use of helmets, but the employee has refused, citing personal freedom and discomfort. The manager emphasizes the obligation to adhere to safety laws and protect the company from potential liabilities.
Understanding the Legal Framework
Motorcycle attorneys indicate that a properly fitted helmet does not obstruct vision. A lawyer in Kansas City highlighted the long-term consequences for families affected by motorcycle accidents, especially when safety laws are disregarded.
As highlighted in various discussions, non-compliance with personal protective equipment (PPE) regulations, such as wearing a motorcycle helmet, can lead to dismissal. Employers have a responsibility to ensure safety in the workplace.
Discussion with the Employee
In a recent session with the employee and his wife, the conversation began with a call for mutual respect and understanding. Drawing a parallel to the use of seat belts, the discussion aimed to bring awareness to the importance of safety measures.
The employee expressed that the requirement to wear a helmet infringes on his freedom. However, the discussion revealed deeper concerns, particularly regarding the fears his wife has for their family’s well-being in case of an accident.
It is crucial to recognize that laws aimed at public safety, such as those mandating helmet use or seat belt adherence, are enacted to protect individuals and their families. While some may view these regulations as limitations on personal freedom, they ultimately serve a greater societal purpose.
The Family’s Perspective
During the conversation, the emotional stakes became apparent. The employee’s wife expressed her deep fears for her husband’s safety and their family’s future. This led to a crucial moment where the employee was urged to reflect on his values and priorities regarding his family and hobbies.
Sharing personal experiences can be impactful; recalling a past accident led to a sobering realization of the potential consequences of a motorcycle mishap. The final question posed was one of love and responsibility, urging clarity in priorities.
The Outcome
Following the discussion, a positive transformation occurred; the employee’s commitment to family led him to sell his motorcycle. This decision not only alleviated his wife’s fears but also reinforced the importance of safety and family well-being over personal desires.
This case illustrates a broader theme: workplaces must navigate the delicate balance between individual rights and communal safety, often requiring difficult conversations that prioritize health and protection.
Disclaimer
This article presents the views of the contributing adviser, not the editorial staff. Adviser records can be checked with the SEC or with FINRA.
