Man Fired For Looking At Gun Web Sites

[DragonDoc]

Should this man have been fired for looking at gun web sites? This action seems a little extreme to me but I guess the employer has the right to terminate employment. I would think that this would not be considered inappropriate behavior. What have you all experienced in the work place?

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/10/09/taking_liberties/entry5373168.shtml

It's not unusual for employees to be fired for browsing pornographic Web sites at work. But a Pennsylvania gun owner named Tony Jackson may have been the first person ever fired for looking at Web sites featuring gun parts.

Jackson worked at a Lotus Notes administrator at Planco, a subsidiary of Hartford, Conn.-based insurance company The Hartford. He's a firearms instructor and self-described Second Amendment advocate who, while at work in May 2007, visited Web sites including shotgun maker Mossberg and Impact Guns's online store because he and his wife were planning on going skeet shooting and she needed a replacement part for her shotgun.

When Jackson was searching the Web for a replacement shotgun stock, supervisor Christie Vazquez -- who admitted in a subsequent deposition to being "very anti-gun" and had quarreled with him before about politics -- noticed what he was doing. Vazquez said she was scared because it was only a few weeks after the Virginia Tech massacre (see CBS News video), so she promptly reported her colleague's Web browsing to Planco's human resources department. Vazquez also informed the HR department that Jackson owned guns and was a member of the National Rifle Association.

You can guess what happened next: according to court documents, the HR representative, Jamie Davis, replied that reporting the visits to Mossberg.com and other sites was "the right thing" to do, and ordered the information technology department to investigate Jackson's Internet activity. After receiving a list of Web sites visited, Davis recommended that Jackson be placed on leave, which the company authorized. Planco disabled Jackson's front door and computer access and arranged for undercover police to be at the building the next morning.

(A side note: Jackson suffered a heart attack and stroke in January 2006, and was on medical leave for three months as a result. Later that year, his annual review from Vazquez said he worked hard but did not meet expectations, a conclusion that Jackson believes arose from discrimination relating to his decision to take medical leave. In fact, just a few weeks before the gun-Web-site incident, Jackson told HR he believed the unflattering review was a response to his medical condition.)

There is no evidence that Jackson was a violent person, and Davis later acknowledged that the list of Web sites were shopping sites that didn't have any violent pictures or anything that alarmed her. Nevertheless, Vazquez and another supervisor claimed they were concerned for their safety, and Planco fired Jackson six days later.

In October 2008, Jackson filed a lawsuit against Planco in federal district court in Philadelphia alleging that the gun-Web-site issue was a transparent pretext to fire him because of his medical condition.

The lawsuit, filed by Exton, Penn. attorney Mark Scheffer, noted that Jackson and supervisor Vazquez had -- at least at one point -- enjoyed a friendly relationship. Jackson, who has a legal concealed carry permit in Pennsylvania, accompanied Vazquez when she was hunting for apartments in dodgy areas of Philadelphia. He gave her a tour of the Philadelphia Inquirer, where he used to work, and took Vazquez to a shooting range and showed her how to use a gun. (She confirmed in a later deposition (PDF) that she enjoyed the outing.) Another employee who worked in the same department said he heard Vazquez ask Jackson about purchasing a handgun for protection.

Planco's response to the lawsuit, outlined in a 31-page legal brief (PDF), is simple: it had "legitimate concerns about employee safety" because "Jackson, an admitted gun enthusiast who owns a sizable gun collection, including an Uzi," was browsing gun-related Web sites. Planco said its managers decided to fire Jackson, who has "an apparent fascination with guns," rather than "risk the potential safety of other Planco employees."

(On the other hand, why would Planco's supervisors, all of whom knew that Jackson was a gun aficionado, suddenly be alarmed merely because they noticed he was shopping for replacement gun parts? Especially when one went shooting with him outside of work hours and enjoyed it?)

Planco also argued that Jackson violated the company's Internet policy (PDF), which would normally block access to gun-related Web sites through filtering software, by visiting them when the filter was down for maintenance. The policy broadly prohibits accessing "offensive" or "inappropriate" material, but doesn't mention gun sites; Jackson says the policy didn't apply to sites like Mossberg.com, and notes that plenty visits by other employees to non-work related Web sites went unpunished.

On September 29, U.S. District Judge Stewart Dalzell agreed with Planco and granted the company summary judgement, saying there wasn't enough evidence that Jackson suffered unlawful discrimination. "Jackson has not met his burden of showing that a discriminatory reason more likely motivated Planco," Dalzell wrote.

On Wednesday, I sent this note to Tim Benedict, the director of media relations at Planco's parent company, The Hartford:
Planco's policy says employees may not visit "inappropriate" web sites, but does not explicitly list gun sites as off-limits. Nevertheless, Jackon's at-work web browsing (he was shopping for firearms, apparently) alarmed co-workers and prompted him to be fired in May 2007. So I guess my questions to you are these: Does Planco/The Hartford believe employees should be fired if they visit gun sites at work? How about other time-wasting sites not relevant to work, like ESPN.com or Facebook?
Benedict replied on Thursday afternoon, pointing me to Planco's legal briefs and saying "I can't comment beyond that." If any readers know more about Planco's and The Hartford's Internet policies, I'd love to hear about it.

[SteyrAUG]

I think you should KNOW if it is ok to surf the net at work or not before you ever try it.

Of course his real mistake was arguing politics with his supervisor. From that moment on she was looking for an opportunity to get him fired and like a dumbass he gave her one.

[Spade]

IMO an employer should have the right to fire you for anything. Probably not a popular opinion but oh well. If I own a business & some fat guy works for me I should be able to fire him because he is fat. If a rapist works for I should be able to fire him as well. If I tell you not to wear a yellow shirt & you do I should be able to fire you. I think if you put your hard work into a company you should be able to do with it what you want. Let everyone smoke in the office. Your company will either grow or not based off of how you run it, not because the government says you what you can or can not do. So as much as I love my guns if a company said to me you can not be a gun owner & work here I would quit. However I believe the owner should have the right to do so.

[GackMan]

depends...

just for "guns" ? no, if other there is a standard "acceptable use policy” that allows employees to surf the web about shit like golf, stamp collecting, needlepoint, HAM Radios, curling, or some other ghey ass shit that they call a "hobby" then no – it is bull shit to single out a person for looking at guns anymore than it is to single out people for looking at shoes.

However - if the employer has a policy of monitoring what you do on the internet and all day all you do is **** all but surf gun forums and look at pictures of gun pr0n… then you are no different than the person that manages 27 fantasy football teams from your PAID JOB and the situation should be treated as a productivity issue between you and your manager.

[Belmont31R]

Unless expressly permitted I wouldn't be using work time and computers to surf gun sites, either. Employer is not paying you to surf the web at will unless you have a dream job...:cool:


Employer should be able to fire people for whatever reason they want.

[CarlosDJackal]

This should depend on the PUBLISHED policy. If he was specifically told that he could not look at particular websites, then he should be disciplined accordingly and maybe eventually fired if he does so repeatedly.

As much as I hate it, employers have the right to dictate the type of websites their employers can visit using corporate of government equipment. I've even worked for an organization that disallowed most of their employees from surfing the web at all. They were only allowed to visit a handfull of work-related websites. YMMV.

[loupav]

I look at gun web sites all the time at work. But it's different for me. My father owns the company and I've lived day in and day out with my co-workers for the past 28 years of my life. We've argued politics and religion in the past and the next day it's as if nothing ever happened.

However I have to agree with Styer AUG.

[Lumpy196]

I think you should KNOW if it is ok to surf the net at work or not before you ever try it.

Of course his real mistake was arguing politics with his supervisor. From that moment on she was looking for an opportunity to get him fired and like a dumbass he gave her one.



I think you should assume its not ok to surf the net at work. If you have an IT department, they watch and document what you look at. If you work for a tax-payer funded entity it becomes public record. When the time is right, they can and will use it against you in any number of ways ranging from mildly annoying to job threatening. This is especially true since the government guidelines now outline a "fascination with firearms" as potential work place violence.

And as much as it sucks to go to work and just shut up, do it. Everyone these days thinks they HAVE to be heard and as such will spout their opinions off in front of anyone and everyone at work. I never discuss politics or religion at work. My beliefs are my own, and not a single opinion I have is worth risking my paycheck.

Welcome to the brave new world.

[Thomas M-4]

We all have either seen or know of some one that freaks out at any mention of the subject of guns. It is sad to say but it is true and in a office environment where your job is on the line you have to tread carefully. I even tell my wife not to say any thing about my guns at her work out of the fear that she might be discriminated against because her husband's hobby is guns.

[chadbag]

Should he have? Hell no.

Was the company within their right? Maybe. Depends on the laws of the state and fed govt and I am not anywhere near an expert on those rights. Plus the company's written and published policy.

Does he have a case? Don't know. He claims that was a pretext and the real reason was his medical condition. Good luck to him.

[Safetyhit]

I think you should assume its not ok to surf the net at work. If you have an IT department, they watch and document what you look at. If you work for a tax-payer funded entity it becomes public record. When the time is right, they can and will use it against you in any number of ways ranging from mildly annoying to job threatening. This is especially true since the government guidelines now outline a "fascination with firearms" as potential work place violence.

And as much as it sucks to go to work and just shut up, do it. Everyone these days thinks they HAVE to be heard and as such will spout their opinions off in front of anyone and everyone at work. I never discuss politics or religion at work. My beliefs are my own, and not a single opinion I have is worth risking my paycheck.

Welcome to the brave new world.



While less than ideal, well stated and certainly realistic regardless.

[Lumpy196]

While less than ideal, well stated and certainly realistic regardless.



I hate saying it with every fiber of my being.

[militarymoron]

i hate to say it as well, but we're paid to work at work. i work for a big company with a big IT department, and the rules are clearly stated about surfing the net on company time. i think the company has been pretty lenient so far, but if they wanted to enforce the rules, amost people dinged would have no one to blame but themselves. if nothing else, this incident will make me more cautious about how much time i spend on the net at work - gun related or not.

[BSHNT2015]

My employers are clapping down as well and read the riot act to the staff, forget the fact that a manager was caught doing this and no action was taken, they allowed him to retire. Oh brother is my final response.:rolleyes:

[Safetyhit]

i hate to say it as well, but we're paid to work at work. i work for a big company with a big IT department, and the rules are clearly stated about surfing the net on company time. i think the company has been pretty lenient so far, but if they wanted to enforce the rules, amost people dinged would have no one to blame but themselves. if nothing else, this incident will make me more cautious about how much time i spend on the net at work - gun related or not.



While you are correct, I think we are now blending two points. Lumpy was referring to the bigger picture at the workplace.

But you probably know this. :)

[cschwanz]

This is really why I hoping for a job at a business that is dedicated to shooting and reloading. :)

I really hate the fact that this guy got fired for looking at shotgun parts, a stock non-the-less, for the simple reason that one uninformed person was scared bc he was looking at gun stuff and "owned an uzi".

This kind of crap just pisses me off to no end....sigh, i hate people sometimes...

[citizensoldier16]

This should depend on the PUBLISHED policy. .

Precisely. Laws pertaining to the firing of employees vary from state to state, but one could make an argument that if a certain ban of such websites was not published for employees' knowledge, then the employee should not have been fired.

The simple "I didn't know" excuse doesn't work...however, if its "I didn't know because it's not specifically laid out in the Employee Internet Use Policy" then the employer has some explaining to do.

[Gutshot John]

PA is an "at-will" employment state.

An employer or employee may terminate employment for any reason at any time.

[dhrith]

"**** all but surf gun forums and look at pictures of gun pr0n… "

UH OH...... I better log off quick like... ;p


So I've got to ask, how many responded to this at ...work? ;p




DING DING DING

[Abraxas]

IMO an employer should have the right to fire you for anything. Probably not a popular opinion but oh well. If I own a business & some fat guy works for me I should be able to fire him because he is fat. If a rapist works for I should be able to fire him as well. If I tell you not to wear a yellow shirt & you do I should be able to fire you. I think if you put your hard work into a company you should be able to do with it what you want. Let everyone smoke in the office. Your company will either grow or not based off of how you run it, not because the government says you what you can or can not do. So as much as I love my guns if a company said to me you can not be a gun owner & work here I would quit. However I believe the owner should have the right to do so.

I agree with this, but the question was whether he should have, and I don't think so. Having said that, I do think that a employer should have the right to do so. Also, we are at work to work not play online. Yes we all skate at some point, but we try to minimize it, but if even that is too much for our employer , well then......

[Icculus]

Was him being fired right?--I agree seems a bit harsh, we need more details and it sounds like all parties involved could have handled it better.
Was it within the company's rights?--Depends on the acceptable use policy but someone above said PA is an "at-will" state so I'd say yeah they were.

I'm the network administrator for a fairly large company and make the internet "work" at several facilities--which has its perks as far as surfing goes:D We have an acceptable use policy that is both straight forward and convoluted. It allows limited use of the internet but speaks against misuse of company resources so that parts a little vague. It does however strictly forbid porn and streaming media. Internet radio, etc. chews up production bandwidth that the average user doesn't really realize how much we pay for--close to $60K/month for 4 facilities.

At my work people are expected to basically be responsible adults. Do your work but its ok to take a look at the web if you've got a down few minutes. Yes we log where everyone goes but we don't actively monitor it. It only becomes an issue when one employee files a complaint against another. HR can then (and they are the only people who can, managers/supervisors can't) request a copy of both sites visited and time spent. It doesn't happen often but when it does I've only known people to get a slap on the wrist unless of course its porn. Maybe its just because everyone in our IT dept s super cool or because our HR people are down to earth but most of the time its not a huge deal; but I suppose it could be alot worse as my state is also an "at-will" state.

So the moral of the story:
1)Make friends with your co-workers so they don't snitch on you.
2)If you can arrange your office/cube/work area where people can't sneak up behind you, do it
3)Know your company policy.
4)Be nice to the IT people, we can really help you out and possibly warn of a potential problem before it escalates. Or we can be your worst enemy.
5)Do your work, be an adult, and conduct yourself in a responsible manner.
6)If you want to surf wherever you want, skirt filters, avoid logging, etc.; either go into networking and be the the guy/gal that makes it all work or see #4;):p

(All the previous information was completely fabricated if anyone I work with actually surfs this forum)

[militarymoron]

While you are correct, I think we are now blending two points. Lumpy was referring to the bigger picture at the workplace.

But you probably know this. :)

yeah, i was touching on one side of the subject - just the 'not working while at work' part.
as far as the what lumpy said, i agree, and it sucks. to not be able to speak freely about any subject for fear of being labeled (or worse) and losing ones job. i only talk certain subjects with like-minded individuals.
a few years back, the local SWAT team conducted some exercises in one of my company buildings, and our head of security (which was my friend, and had arranged it with the SWAT team/company) had asked me to participate as one of the bad guys. anyways, this involved fake guns, gear etc. i posted a couple of photos of us taken during the exercise on my office wall. a week later my boss told me that someone had been offended by them and had reported them to HR as threatening. i had to take them down, even though i explained that it was a company-santioned exercise with local LE on company property, overseen by company security. brave new world indeed.

edited to add: this incident is along the same lines as kids who get suspended or expelled from school for 'violating' zero-tolerance' policies. like the one kid who made a diorama with green plastic soldiers and was made to cut off all the guns from the figures. nowadays, common sense and good judgement take second fiddle to these policies.

[Ed L.]

It sounds liker there were a lot of issues there:

The guy had some health issues and might not have been performing to the company's satisfaction so they were looking for an excuse to fire him

An antigun supervisor

His internet use.

A lot of companies loosly define or don't define things like "excessive internet use" or "inappropriate websites" in order to allow them the flexibility to enforce it how they want against who they want.

[Spade]

I agree with this, but the question was whether he should have, and I don't think so. Having said that, I do think that a employer should have the right to do so. Also, we are at work to work not play online. Yes we all skate at some point, but we try to minimize it, but if even that is too much for our employer , well then......


I guess I'm confused by your response. On one hand you say you agree on the other you he should not have been fired, & then you say the employer should have the right. I assume you are saying that he should not be fired simply because of the style of site that he was viewing if others are also using the internet for other things & were not fired. Not sure if that was your point but if it was I have to disagree. Either we let employers have free motion in their companies with fear of lawsuit or we let the government run the business & we just manage them. My fear is that if we allow the government to increase control of how we a person runs a business then where will the line be drawn? My thought is we must allow things we do not really agree with the same (for lack of a better word) respect. For we may say hey guns are ok but you can't fire a guy for looking at kiddy porn. It's crappy I know but sometimes that's just the way it is.

[DragonDoc]

It sounds liker there were a lot of issues there:

The guy had some health issues and might not have been performing to the company's satisfaction so they were looking for an excuse to fire him

An antigun supervisor

His internet use.

A lot of companies loosly define or don't define things like "excessive internet use" or "inappropriate websites" in order to allow them the flexibility to enforce it how they want against who they want.

Good thing the military doesn't sack you for web surfing. There would be no more service menbers and DOD civilians.