Man Fired For Looking At Gun Web Sites

[MrUgly]

Well, I'm not an employer, but I am a network administrator. I see all kinds of traffic pass my router, maybe 1/3 is genuine work traffic. If they canned him for surfing "Non-work related" sites" great. I want to see every swinging dick that was following the Phillies standing beside him in the unemployment lines. I want to see every women who goes to advice sites, shopping sites and CNN/MSNBC/FOXNews/et al, fired for misappropriation of company property.

They woman who reported him *WENT SHOOTING WITH HIM* That is not an action a rabid anti-gunner would take. They discussed her buy a firearm, he counseled her on what to purchase. The guy was screwed by a reactionary employer who wanted to fire him.

Easier to fire someone for liking guns than for having a weak heart.

[reverserboy]

dm & stuff....I have not yet figured out how to cut & paste with windows 7 yet. I had XP & it was easy to use.

How can you compare racist or porno sites to mossberg.com?? It's apples & kiwi fruits. ????????

As far as doing only work related stuff at work.......OK...I could understand that. But selective enforcement (other employees were not diciplined for this) is wrong. I believe policy should apply equally.

I believe they wanted to get rid of this guy because of his health issues & this was their anwser.

If I want to surf the web at work.....I'll use my laptop & my air card. AND I'm glad my enployment is not at will.

[dm_n_stuff]

Originally Posted by reverserboy

dm & stuff....I have not yet figured out how to cut & paste with windows 7 yet. I had XP & it was easy to use.

just need a little work with html (which I have none) Quote the entire post, then insert " [ /quote ]" (remove the spaces) where you want to end the quote and insert your comments. When you're done insert "[ quote ]" and re-start the process.

How can you compare racist or porno sites to mossberg.com?? It's apples & kiwi fruits. ????????

it's not really. Prohibited surfing, no matter what the content in prohibited, right? If the rules say you can't surf, it doesn't matter where you go. and, my point was that the fury here is because it was a gun site, if it had been anything else, there would be no noise here at all. gun bias works both ways.

As far as doing only work related stuff at work.......OK...I could understand that. But selective enforcement (other employees were not diciplined for this) is wrong. I believe policy should apply equally.

And if it is enforced arbitrarily, he'll collect unemployment. Probably not enough in PA for him to win a monetary award or get his ob back.

I believe they wanted to get rid of this guy because of his health issues & this was their anwser.

could well be true, but it's going to be VERY difficult to prove.

If I want to surf the web at work.....I'll use my laptop & my air card. AND I'm glad my enployment is not at will.

unless you're self employed, or work outside PA, then you are "at will"

Most states are, to some extent, at will, just varies as to how loose the rules are. But essentially, in PA unless you have an employment contract or collective bargaining agreement, you are at will.

[dm_n_stuff]

Originally Posted by MrUgly

Well, I'm not an employer, but I am a network administrator. I see all kinds of traffic pass my router, maybe 1/3 is genuine work traffic. If they canned him for surfing "Non-work related" sites" great. I want to see every swinging dick that was following the Phillies standing beside him in the unemployment lines. I want to see every women who goes to advice sites, shopping sites and CNN/MSNBC/FOXNews/et al, fired for misappropriation of company property.

selective enforcement of a rule is grounds for collecting UC, nothing more. Believe me, I know. Our company was on the losing end of this argument 20+ years ago and is still sited as case law in PA for making that argument for a fired employee.

They woman who reported him *WENT SHOOTING WITH HIM* That is not an action a rabid anti-gunner would take. They discussed her buy a firearm, he counseled her on what to purchase.

Weird for her to report him then, don't you think? Must be some other dynamic at play here.

The guy was screwed by a reactionary employer who wanted to fire him.

Easier to fire someone for liking guns than for having a weak heart.

Actually can fire him for either one. Ain't PA grand? If he can't do his job due to a medical condition. You can fire him if the company has less than 50 employees, I believe, as the family medical and leave act doesn't apply to companies with less than 50 employees. (Again, I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty certain of this.)

[MrUgly]

Originally Posted by dm_n_stuff

Weird for her to report him then, don't you think? Must be some other dynamic at play here.

Not really. They wanted an excuse to fire him. You can't sit there and tell me that having a heart attack would prevent an Admin staffer from doing their job.

Originally Posted by dm_n_stuff

Actually can fire him for either one. Ain't PA grand? If he can't do his job due to a medical condition. You can fire him if the company has less than 50 employees, I believe, as the family medical and leave act doesn't apply to companies with less than 50 employees. (Again, I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty certain of this.)

They have significantly more than 50 employees.
http://www.manta.com/coms2/dnbcompany_g51906
Employees (Estimated) 900

So basically, they wanted him gone for medical reasons (Heart) and fired him for doing something that was tacitly approved prior.

[exceltoexcel]

My GF is in an HR law class... I can tell you specifically there was at least one ruling (probably many more) where selective use of Internet policy has resulted in a win for the employee. When she gets up I'll ask her to prove the case for us.. I figure what better way to retain the information than to apply it .. The way to fight this is to subpoena all website browsing activities to prove that the policy was in fact selectively executed. If it was, they are screwed.. If the EEOC approved his claim so that it can go forward in court the likely hood he'll win on appeal is quite high. The EEOC doesn't screw around. Essentially its the law enforcement force for discrimination!! It like criminal charges were filed against the company. Since all discrimination lawsuits, i believe, go through the EEOC prior to getting to a judge, well, I say everyone here is about to get schooled in law. The one case I remember found that the employee did in fact violate the Internet usage policy however since the employer didn't actively monitor and report and discipline employees for violating the terms of use they had NO leg to stand on... The only thing this employee has to prove is that they truly fired him for his medical condition. Since he reported this concern prior to being fired, they are screwed!!!

Also note that in PA unemployment insurance is nearly guaranteed at all turns except for gross misconduct. That pretty much means punching someone in the face or doing something that would make the company lose money, yelliong at a customer..

[RickD]

I'm confused about where he worked. I know the company is in Conn.

Sounds to me like this is the tip of the iceberg. The rest of the story may come out later ... or not.

A company goes through a long expensive process to find and hire someone with the skills they need. They invest in training and so forth. Then they find him violating a policy that probably every employee has also violated at some time. (It's so easy and tempting to violate that many companies block certain web sites. For instance I can access PAFOA from work but not ableammo or ruger or kel tec. And I expect that if my employer didn't like my web surfing activity they first would tell me to stop doing it.)

But this employee is fired, when no one else is, for essentially the same violation. Was it his first offense? Was he counseled/disciplined in the past? Told to stop?

Sorry, it just doesn't add up. This is the excuse they're using to get rid of someone they had already decided had to go.

"At will" or not, they still want to give a reasonable sounding explanation to protect their image.

"You're fired because we don't like you" wouldn't sit well with the public.

[exceltoexcel]

The case I cited earlier was a case where the employer was attempting to prevent an employee from collecting his pension (EEOC COMPLAINT) and made the argument that he violated Internet use policy. In the end the employee won basically because it is not enough to actually have a policy you have to routinely enforce and monitor it. It requires that you actually have a system in place to do so and you must take corrective actions regularly. If you have a policy and a system but you do not actually implement it you're out. It is as though the policy doesn't exist! This may only apply to private companies.

She's looking for the case now so that you guys can see it.

[exceltoexcel]

The only reason they should have done just that (tell him to stop and file a formal infraction in his employee file) is because he had a complaint already filed with HR against the company.. The claim was that they were discriminating against him because he was out on medical leave and as such discriminating on the basis of medical condition!!! That's a huge red flag. Had he never made a claim earlier they'd be in trouble but not nearly as much. Their lawyer (if he is good at all) is telling them to settle after the first couple of minor wins in order to scare the defendant. There ass should be puckered up but good..


Judges often find against the employee first only to reverse later. I think they do this to try to discourage these lawsuits..

Originally Posted by RickD

I'm confused about where he worked. I know the company is in Conn.

Sounds to me like this is the tip of the iceberg. The rest of the story may come out later ... or not.

A company goes through a long expensive process to find and hire someone with the skills they need. They invest in training and so forth. Then they find him violating a policy that probably every employee has also violated at some time. (It's so easy and tempting to violate that many companies block certain web sites. For instance I can access PAFOA from work but not ableammo or ruger or kel tec. And I expect that if my employer didn't like my web surfing activity they first would tell me to stop doing it.)

But this employee is fired, when no one else is, for essentially the same violation. Was it his first offense? Was he counseled/disciplined in the past? Told to stop?

Sorry, it just doesn't add up. This is the excuse they're using to get rid of someone they had already decided had to go.

"At will" or not, they still want to give a reasonable sounding explanation to protect their image.

"You're fired because we don't like you" wouldn't sit well with the public.

[reverserboy]

collective bargaining agreement,

Yep....that's it. AND..my job is in NJ. NJ is,I believe an at will state.