Man fired for looking at gun websites

Joined
May 8, 2005
Messages
4,728
Likes
348
Location
In the Great Smoky Mountains
Feedback: 31 / 0 / 0
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.
Declan McCullagh is a correspondent for CBSNews.com. He can be reached at [email protected]. You can bookmark the Taking Liberties site here, or subscribe to the RSS feed.

Tags:
 
sucks to loose your job. Unfortunatly if they have rules regarding non business computer use???? My friend lost his job for a simular thing. during lunch and breaks he would go online for all reasons. His employee handbook from his account states that No computer owned by the company shall be used for personal use.
 
Yeah, I feel for this guy and all, but I don't see much of a case for him. They wanted to fire the guy, they had a paper trail, and they finally found an excuse. Suing them was just a waste of everybody's time.
 
If he was working,ya know doing what he gets paid to do,this never would have happened.

True, but imagine if things were different. If it was a case of "we did not like him because he was black, but we fired him for going to BET's website" people would be raising hell. Yes, he should not have been messing around on the computers at work. However, it sounds very unlikely that he was the only one doing it; instead he was singled out for being a gun owner. That is no different than if he was fired for being a republican and going to a GOP website. They admitted being anti-gun bigots here, I hope he takes them to the cleaners.
 
Yes but things aren't different. We all do it, look at the times of our posts. I shouldn't be here right this moment. If I get fired because I'm wasting the company's time, then so be it.
 
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

This seems like it would be grounds for Vazquez to be repremanded at the very least. The two things you're never supposed to ask about at work are politics and religion. The fact that a supervisor was doing so, and the employee was subsequently fired for that exact reason tells us all we need to know.

They may have been looking for a reason to fire him, but unless there was an explicit policy that forbid him from using the internet for personal use, that wasn't a reason for termination. The fact that they opened up an investigation like that including "undercover police officers" in the office for someone who was known to be a sportsman makes it clear that it was politically motivated. Involving the police in this means they weren't just looking to fire him, but were looking to destroy his life.
 
Last edited:
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."

Abesnt any evidence that he was violent or had violent tendencies, I would hope a good attorney could press this issue.
 
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."

If the company wins, we all need to beware because the courts have just set the precident that you can be fired from your job because of inanimate objects you own in your home. There is no mention of violent behavior here, in fact just the opposite, it says he wasn't/isn't a violent man. There is no rationally founded "fear for employee safety".

Furthermore, Jackson could easily cite statistics showing how the screening process and background checks for all gun pruchases show that he was far less likely to be a threat to anyone's safety than any other employee in the company. Good luck to him in his lawsuit. The outcome affects all of us.
 
A real question is "was he fired because of the gun issue", or was that used as a convenient pretext. It sounds more like he was someone they wanted to fire and were looking for a reason, rather than a response to the incident.

Termination for increasing employer's insurance premiums is a very real problem and one with no easy solution. The popular "free market" solution is "employer's right", but that may not seem like such a great idea if you or a family member get a million dollar disease you are insured for and are told "Because of your illness, you are being terminated from your job and will only have access to insurance through the end of the COBRA period, after which you are free to buy private insurance if you can find someone who will take you pre-existing condition". On the other hand, if you are running a small business one employee with a pricey diagnosis in a state where the insurance company rates your group based on specific medical history can run you right out of business.

Furthermore, Jackson could easily cite statistics showing how the screening process and background checks for all gun pruchases show that he was far less likely to be a threat to anyone's safety than any other employee in the company.
The state thinks it's safe for him to carry at the supermarket and local mall, but the company thinks it's dangerous to have him at work unarmed.
 
If they really wanted this guy fired because of bad work habits, they should have not made this "gun internet browsing" the main issue. I think now, because of the gun issue he might actually have a chance to sue this company. If they just fired him for not being a good worker this story wouldn't be one.

I wonder if inappropriate internet searching on company time calls for immediate termination?
 
That's pretty bogus. I agree thought that they wanted this guy gone and this is just an excuse to make it happen. I would bet a lot of companies frown on employees who take medical leave. They tend to get paid and you have to leave their position open for when they come back. Tends to piss of senior managers.

As I posted some time ago, my company installed Websense because of me. Well me and others who spent time looking at gun related sites while at work. Scared the crap out of them.

I never understand the mentality though of people saying "Well if he'd been doing his job instead of surfing the web he'd still have his job". People get lunch and breaks where that time is thiers. If it's not specifically stated in the employee handbook, there's nothing wrong with him looking at these sites. I manage 30 plus people. As long as they get thier work done I could care less if they surf the web. People put in long hours and managing them that way is not the way to create a healthy and positive work environment. Hell, my best employee is a tree hugging, hippie liberal who followed the dead around as a teenager living out of his car for a year. We agree on nothing, but it doesn't mean he's a bad person.
 
If they really wanted this guy fired because of bad work habits, they should have not made this "gun internet browsing" the main issue. I think now, because of the gun issue he might actually have a chance to sue this company. If they just fired him for not being a good worker this story wouldn't be one.

I wonder if inappropriate internet searching on company time calls for immediate termination?

Usually it does. If the policy is written that way, inappropriate use of the internet is grounds for immediate term.

BTW, I've worked for The Hartford and it's a POS company to work for.
 
I do it all day long. once my press is up and running I am making $$$$ for this place. When the press is not running and I got my head stuck in it fixing something thats when they need to worry. All that story is a conflict of interest and him looking at guns was not the interest of his boss. He hot the shaft.
 
I hope the guy wins his case against the company.

Having said that, I would also note the following:

1) The company screwed up by including personal/political stuff in any way, shape, or form. Having undercover police come in indicates that the firing wasn't entirely related to his job performance. Unless the company routinely brings in undercover police every time an employee is terminated (which I doubt) it indicates that there was something else going on here.

2) The employee was wrong for using company equipment for his personal use. It doesn't matter if he was on a break or his lunch time. If I'm a plumber, machinist, etc. and I use company owned tools to do personal work on my free time, I am in the wrong. Particularly if the company has a stated policy against doing so.

3) The woman who reported him is a hypocrite. When his firearms and knowledge were to her advantage she used it. When she got pissed at him for something she complained about the very things that she previously had used to her advantage. She is a POS. She disgusts me more than anything the company may have done.

4) The company has every right to terminate an employee who isn't performing as expected. I find the timing of his termination, following the medical leave, to be a little suspect. Were his previous performance evaluations good or did they indicate problems? By the supervisor's own admission, the guy was a hard worker. That doesn't mean he was an effective worker. If he wasn't, I would expect that fact to have shown up in previous evaluations. If the firing was based entirely on his misuse of company resources, then I'm sure the company will have no problem showing that all employees who did the same thing were terminated. Somehow, I doubt if that's the case, but I don't really know.

Maybe Obama can invite everyone concerned to the White House for a beer? [wink]
 
Unless the company routinely brings in undercover police every time an employee is terminated (which I doubt) it indicates that there was something else going on here
It could have been real fear, or it could have been a desire to "document fear" to serve as a smokescreen for a medically related termination - it's impossible to tell from the postings.
 
It could have been real fear, or it could have been a desire to "document fear" to serve as a smokescreen for a medically related termination - it's impossible to tell from the postings.

Very possible. If it was from real fear, then they better make sure that they call in security to guard the place when they terminate someone for looking at porn. After all, the guy could be planning a rape.

I think the "document fear" idea is closer to the truth. Only the company really knows for sure.
 
Know what's funny? ALL gun related websites are blocked at my work. All except NES! THR, and other forums are blocked. Don't know how NES slipped through. Shhhhhh!

I hate BS crap like this. Yes, the company can fire anyone for any reason, they can fire you for sending email or looking at ebay, I just think it's short sighted. People can f**k off in 100 different ways at work, and they do. It's just the internet is the only one with a paper trail. I know a few people that must spend 3+ hours/day just yapping about nothing to 20 different people all day long. No paper trail though.
 
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.

[snip]

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.

Um... guys? Did any of you notice the above two sentences (in bold)? He already FILED suit. He lost. Summary judgement basically means that when he (or his lawyer) presented his side, there wasn't enough evidence for the judge to think that he proved his point - the defense didn't even have to say anything (well, other than "Move for summary judgement, Your Honor", that is)!

Abesnt any evidence that he was violent or had violent tendencies, I would hope a good attorney could press this issue.

If the company wins, we all need to beware because the courts have just set the precident that you can be fired from your job because of inanimate objects you own in your home.

I think now, because of the gun issue he might actually have a chance to sue this company.

I hope the guy wins his case against the company.
 
Back
Top Bottom