Employee stopping me from entering my own building What can I do if an employee or group of employees (like security guards), employed by me, stop me from entering my own building? They don't let me enter my own building. Lets say I own a company that makes videogames and I have security guards at the doors. They suddenly stop me from entering the building saying another employee of mine ordered them, and I told them they are fired and they just laugh at me and don't let me enter my building. Can I call the police; can the police do something about it? Do I have to prove I own that company? I'm in Mexico but I'm pretty sure laws are similar in both countries.
There are numerous practical solutions, such as calling their supervisor, or calling the employee of yours who set up this arrangement, or providing some kind of proof that you are the ultimate boss. From a legal perspective, (1) the guards are acting as your agents which gives them some authority to exclude people but (2) you can revoke that authority. There are many things that security guards can do to keep people out, and some of them would be technically illegal (others would be blatantly illegal and we can skip that). I'll cite Washington state criminal law, and you can probably find analogs in Mexican law. First, are they on your property? If you revoke permission to be in the property, that is trespass: (9A.52.070: Criminal trespass in the first degree.) (1) A person is guilty of criminal trespass in the first degree if he or she knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in a building. (9A.52.080 Criminal trespass in the second degree.) (1) A person is guilty of criminal trespass in the second degree if he or she knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in or upon premises of another under circumstances not constituting criminal trespass in the first degree. How are they stopping you? If they are physically stopping you, that is assault (battery), the severity of which depends in the degree of force: (9A.36.031: Assault in the third degree) (1) A person is guilty of assault in the third degree if he or she, under circumstances not amounting to assault in the first or second degree: (d) With criminal negligence, causes bodily harm to another person by means of a weapon or other instrument or thing likely to produce bodily harm; or (f) With criminal negligence, causes bodily harm accompanied by substantial pain that extends for a period sufficient to cause considerable suffering; or (9A.36.041: Assault in the fourth degree) (1) A person is guilty of assault in the fourth degree if, under circumstances not amounting to assault in the first, second, or third degree, or custodial assault, he or she assaults another. Another possibility is 9A.40.040 Unlawful imprisonment: (1) A person is guilty of unlawful imprisonment if he or she knowingly restrains another person. They don't have to actually use force, they can simply threaten to do so, which is 9A.36.070: Coercion. (1) A person is guilty of coercion if by use of a threat he or she compels or induces a person to engage in conduct which the latter has a legal right to abstain from, or to abstain from conduct which he or she has a legal right to engage in. Though the police are supposed to enforce the law, they may decline to act if it us not clear to them that there is a violation of the law. It would not really help to prove that you own the company, because nobody really knows the relationship between the company and the building – maybe you own the company, someone else owns the building, and you've been legally evicted. So looking for a legal solution isn't the most productive use of your time. Instead, make sure you can contact the guard supervisors, company colleagues in charge of security, and carry your ID badge with you. Let us suppose that the guard company, guards, and your security chief are conspiring to rob you. The long-term and slow solution is to get a court order plus sue the pants of everybody who has done you wrong. The crux of the matter for the police would be, who owns the building (what evidence do you have that you own the building). I could actually show the police proof that I own my house. If the crooked security chief shows up with a document saying that he owns the building, you'd be stuck. But otherwise, establishing ownership of the building should cause them to stop the guards from blocking you. Unless the cops are part of the conspiracy. There's nothing you can do to absolutely protect yourself against a well-planned conspiracy (they make movies based on that).
There appears to be no general federal statute addressing the legality of a male entering a female-labeled bathroom, or vice versa, within federal jurisdiction. There are various regulations that touch on bathrooms, for example the OSHA regulations pertaining to sanitation require that "toilet facilities, in toilet rooms separate for each sex, shall be provided in all places of employment in accordance with table J-1 of this section", but "Where toilet facilities will not be used by women, urinals may be provided instead of water closets". These are regulations imposed on employers, and there is no provision for enforcement by employers, for instance no clause saying that the employer must call the police, or in any way intervene or sanction an employee, if a person enters a bathroom of "the wrong sex". It is apparently not a crime, as reflected anywhere in the US Code, for a male to enter or remain in a female bathroom, or vice versa. Building managers have some discretion regarding the operation of federal facilities, for example courthouses, which could extend to requesting a male to not enter a female bathroom or vice versa, but there isn't a practical way to determine what departmental regulations exist that would allow eviction of a bathroom-cross-user. Federal law does not protect against sex/gender discrimination in public accommodations. As for Maryland law, the owner of private property has the right to control his property up to the point that state law take that control from him, and therefore in principle he could call the police to remove a person trespassing in a bathroom (this article addresses the trespass angle in North Carolina). Maryland does not appear to have any case law or statutory exception to trespass laws related to labeling of bathrooms, so enforcement actions would be at the discretion of the owner. At the lower end of the political hierarchy, Baltimore has an ordinance requiring single-use bathrooms to be gender neutral, and a proposal exists to enact a state law with this effect. In other words, there does not appear to be any direct, enforceable legal requirement regarding bathroom entry and sex. Trespass laws could be used, but are at the discretion of the property owner (who might be civilly sued for his actions, but the police don't decide the merits of a discrimination suit before evicting a trespasser).
The default rule is that a landlord can refuse to rent to anyone for any reason, in which case the landlord can refuse to rent in this case. There are civil rights laws that limit this discretion in the case, for example, of discrimination based on race, or family status. But, those laws often have exemptions for owners of small amounts of property (e.g. a unit in their own home), which can't easily be determined from the question. If a civil rights law applies, the landlord must choose among potential renters on a non-discriminatory basis - the landlord doesn't have to rent to anyone in particular, but can't use the prohibited reasons to make the choice. If the default rule does not apply because a civil rights law unrelated to immigration bars discrimination against a tenant, someone's undocumented immigrant status probably doesn't provide an absolute defense to the civil rights law, but might be one factor among many that a landlord could consider in choosing among available tenants in much the same way that credit ratings, income, and a prospective tenant's criminal record, and other factors might be considered.
You would report unpermitted lock replacement to the home owner. The building code regulates new construction and renovations, and is not a requirement of any and all residences. This seems to correspond to a "secondary suite", which is supposed to be registered with the city (if it is allowed in your city). Here is a link for Vancouver, for instance. Such suites are supposed to be registered and inspected, the inspection being carried out by Development, Building and Licencing: By-Law Compliance &amp; Administration (a division of the city government). This article discusses some of the legal problems that can arise from an illegal secondary suite, however the penalties would land on the property owner, and he may not have approved of this subletting or the basement suite. A less-nuclear first step would therefore be reporting it to the property owner.
In Texas, as in most of the US, the law is "Employment at Will". This means that an employer is free to fire people at any time, for any reason, or none, as long as it is not for one of the few reason forbidden by law, such as racial or age discrimination. Hourly employees are entitled to overtime pay in such cases, but "exempt" employees are not. Nor are they entitled to comp-time as a matter of law, that is at the option of the employer. (The question seems to imply that the employee in question was "exempt" but does not actually say so.) The only really effective recourse against that sort of "death march" is to quit and find a better job, or to threaten to do so while they still need you, unless the conditions return to acceptable ones. I have heard of people in such a situation who "get sick" every day at 5:30pm, because local law forbid requiring ill employees to work. But that is pretty much inviting an arduous and possibly expensive administrative and/or legal battle, and will depend on the specifics of the state/local law. In any case, it is too late for the person in question to try that. On the facts as stated, there might be a valid claim of age discrimination. But additional facts would be needed to establish this, and it would be in my view unwise to try it without consulting a good employment lawyer. Such a lawyer could advise exactly what must be proved and how, and what the probable chances of any recovery would be.
Firstly: that depends on the jurisdiction. It might not even be possible at all for employers to attempt to sue their own employees for damages caused by negligence. Even terminating an employment contract for reasons of negligence is quite difficult in many jurisdictions. Second, if it is possible, the question is wether such legal proceedings could be expected to be successful. Employees making mistakes is part of the risk of doing business, and distinguishing a "mistake" from "negligence", "gross negligence" , or "intentional wrongdoing" by the employee ought to place quite a burden of proof on the employer. To be held negligent in the first place, the employer will have to to prove that the employee was aware of the fact that the password they used was common, well-known and extremely insecure. Knowledge of which passwords are common and well-known is, unless you are considered a skilled IT security professional, not something that a typical employee can reasonably be expected to know. Before there can be a case for negligence by the employee, the employer needs to make a strong case that: either the employee is that skilled IT security professional that really should have know better or the company can demonstrate that they provide all employees with adequate instruction and security training that includes how to select good passwords and which bad ones to avoid and that they seriously ensure both awareness of their password and security policies and compliance. even then, not enforcing a good password policy in your IT systems and assigning or allowing users to select weak passwords is in itself already negligent...
I can't find any law that would prevent an employer from requiring this. Under current Florida law, an employer can even demand passwords and access to an employee's social media accounts. A bill was proposed to prohibit this, but it hasn't passed. Generally, an employer can require anything they want as a condition of employment, as long as it is not illegal. Florida has at-will employment so the employer could certainly fire the employee if they don't comply.
Washington's building codes can be found at https://apps.des.wa.gov/sbcc/Page.aspx?nid=14. They have adopted the 2015 International Fire Code (IFC) (with amendments that aren't relevant here). IFC Chapter 10 discussess "Means of Egress". (Sorry for the slightly messed up formatting.) A Costco store seems to be a Group M building under Section 202. The doors you describe are referred to as "delayed egress locking systems" and are explicitly allowed, with the maximum delay specified as 15 seconds: [BE]1010.1.9.7 Delayed egress. Delayed egress locking systems, shall be permitted to be installed on doors serving any occupancy except Group A, E and H in buildings that are equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system in accordance with [217]Section 903.3.1.1 or an approved automatic smoke or heat detection system installed in accordance with [218]Section 907. The locking system shall be installed and operated in accordance with all of the following: 1. 1.The delay electronics of the delayed egress locking system shall deactivate upon actuation of the automatic sprinkler system or automatic fire detection system, allowing immediate, free egress. 2. 2.The delay electronics of the delayed egress locking system shall deactivate upon loss of power controlling the lock or lock mechanism, allowing immediate free egress. 3. 3.The delayed egress locking system shall have the capability of being deactivated at the fire command center and other approved locations. 4. 4.An attempt to egress shall initiate an irreversible process that shall allow such egress in not more than 15 seconds when a physical effort to exit is applied to the egress side door hardware for not more than 3 seconds. Initiation of the irreversible process shall activate an audible signal in the vicinity of the door. Once the delay electronics have been deactivated, rearming the delay electronics shall be by manual means only. Exception: Where approved, a delay of not more than 30 seconds is permitted on a delayed egress door. 5. 5.The egress path from any point shall not pass through more than one delayed egress locking system. Exception: In Group I-2 or I-3 occupancies, the egress path from any point in the building shall not pass through more than two delayed egress locking systems provided the combined delay does not exceed 30 seconds. 6. 6.A sign shall be provided on the door and shall be located above and within 12 inches (305 mm) of the door exit hardware: 1. 6.1. For doors that swing in the direction of egress, the sign shall read: PUSH UNTIL ALARM SOUNDS. DOOR CAN BE OPENED IN 15 [30] SECONDS. 2. 6.2. For doors that swing in the opposite direction of egress, the sign shall read: PULL UNTIL ALARM SOUNDS. DOOR CAN BE OPENED IN 15 [30] SECONDS. 3. 6.3 The sign shall comply with the visual character requirements in [219]ICC A117.1. Exception: Where approved, in Group I occupancies, the installation of a sign is not required where care recipients who, because of clinical needs, require restraint or containment as part of the function of the treatment area. 7. 7.Emergency lighting shall be provided on the egress side of the door. 8. 8.The delayed egress locking system units shall be listed in accordance with [220]UL 294. The rationale, presumably, is a compromise between safety of occupants (so that people can get out without excessive delay) and security of goods (to hinder people trying to steal goods and run away). I'll also point out that the delay feature is required to deactivate under certain circumstances. If your hypothetical earthquake caused the sprinkler or fire detection systems to activate, or it caused the power to fail, the door could be opened immediately. If Washington's legislators thought this provision was a bad idea, they could certainly create an amendment that would apply within Washington. It seems they have not seen fit to do so.