Brendan Fraser's Target Practice Cited in Gun Club Suit

Wrongful termination suit against shooting-club owner mentions exec giving permission to Fraser to use leaded bullets

By Natalie Finn Aug 14, 2008 9:15 PMTags
The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon EmperorJasin Boland/Universal Studios

Brendan Fraser had no problem whipping out the heavy artillery for the third Mummy movie. And that made some people uncomfortable.

Two former managers of a Burbank, Calif., shooting range have sued their ex-employer for wrongful termination, saying they were fired last summer after objecting to the after-hours use of leaded ammunition for special customers, when they were promised that they'd only be working with lead-free materials.

Fraser is not a party to the suit, but the plaintiffs cite an incident in July 2007 when a club exec allowed the actor "to utilize machine guns at the range using leaded ammunition" while training for his role in The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor, even after one of the plaintiffs explained to the studio's weapons handler that they only permitted unleaded ammo.

"This not only resulted in an unsafe work environment, but led to the contamination of the interior of the range," claim John and Patricia Rives, who have filed suit against Andrews International Training Center owner Andrews International Inc. and its CEO, Randy Andrews.

According to the complaint, even Fraser complained about the side-effects of tooling around with the lead bullets, which, per the suit, are cheaper than using the more environmentally friendly kind.

"Brendan Fraser actually complained about the smoke and he was warned to wash his hands, face and clothing before returning home," the suit states.

There has been no comment from the actor's camp—presumably because he's facing no legal action. Theoretically, however, he could be called upon to testify if the case goes to trial.

John Rives says that he showed his bosses test results stating that he had increased levels of lead in his blood and then he and Patricia were fired in August 2007.

The plaintiffs, alleging wrongful termination and intentional infliction of emotional distress, are asking for unspecified general and punitive damages.