Man Fired For Looking At Gun Web Sites

[MrUgly]

Did not see this posted.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/10...tml?tag=latest

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.

Update 1:19 p.m. ET Fri: A reader who works at a Silicon Valley startup with pro-gun management just sent me this e-mail message, which jokes: "Actually, at [startup name deleted] we have a very firm policy that we audit our employees' browsing logs, and anyone found not to be browsing gun sites on a regular basis is disciplined."

[nlcrsn]

I just sent an letter asking them (Hartford) to confirm this, I'll be sure to mention that my company wont do business with them if this is confirmed by them. Imagine if half of our members at PAFOA did the same, that would send a strong message!

[ungawa]

This story confuses me. I'm not sure this is about somebody fired for being a firearms enthusiast, and if so, stupid people seem to be involved. Maybe I'll read the PDFs tomorrow.

[Ten*K]

hey, I was fired for reading a gun magazine on my break. and there's no protection for that in PA.

[Kodiak]

Christ we are always talking about guns at work....the guy behind me was showing me the photos of his M1 the other day. What a bunch of BS.....

[bogey1]

if your anti gun, you wont work for me. orrr, you will be converted. (which Ive done to my last employee)

[nfafan]

In PA they can let you go without any reason at all.

They should have just told him they no longer had a use for him, goodbye. Maybe they said too much and now his lawyers will - hopefully - make them pay DEARLY for the firing.

Just another reason they better never call me in for jury duty on a workplace violence case...

I've worked for so many shitty companies with their inept, teflon-coated mgmt, that even if you showed me video proof that the perp blew away the C-level that "runs his company in a christian manner" - I'd still high-five the guy and let him walk.

[normanvin]

But a Pennsylvania gun owner named Tony Jackson may have been the first person ever fired for looking at Web sites featuring gun parts.

Wonder if he is a member here?

[justsayno]

Your not supposed to be browsing any sites during work, any. Unless it pretains to WORK. Companys also have excessive email issues. WORK only.. Just like phone calls and personal phones...ALL ARE ANTI WORK.. As far as your lunch break, Dunno how this would apply.

[dm_n_stuff]

OK, I'M NOT A LAWYER, but I am an employer, have been for 33 years in PA.

This is an "at will" state. Means as long as I don't discriminate because of age, sexual orientation, religious affiliation or color, I can fire anyone I want. That doesn't mean there aren't consequences. I haven't read through the company's policy manual, but an important question would be did they fire him for cause (looks like they did) and try to deny him unemployment compensation (probably, if he was fired for cause.)

In PA, even when you fire someone for cause, chances are the folks at unemployment will make that ex-employee eligible for UC. Seen it happen at least a dozen times with employees we've fired for direct violations of our company policy.

Can I get sued for firing someone? Sure can, but it's hard to win a case as an employee in PA unless you can prove bias as outlined above from the employer. I can fire you because you smell (unless it's a medical condition that you can't help) I can fire you if you visit websites I don't approve of, not just porn, and I don't have to specify what sites you can or can't visit. It would make sense to give you a warning first, which I don't think these guys did, but it's still not a requirement.

Would you guys be pissing and moaning if he had been surfing porn sites at work, or white supremacist sites, or even ebay in violation of company policy and been fired? Nope, that wouldn't even hit the radar here. Sometimes there's not really a bad guy involved, even when it's an employer, and even when gun enthusiasm is involved. Look, one thing we all seem to steadfastly ignore here is that guns SCARE non gun folks. Knowing that, why the hell would you risk your employment by surfing gun sites at work? Oh, I know, because we should be ALLOWED to. But there's no constitutional guarantee for surfing the internet at work.

Their policy is a little vague, which is why he can win at an unemployment hearing, but he won't get his job back, and he won't win tons of money in a lawsuit either. The company that holds their employment practices insurance may settle out of court to avoid a big legal bill, but this is no slam-dunk for the fired employee.

He's gonna have a hell of a time proving they fired him for his medical condition unless some dumb ass in HR admits in during depositions. They let him take a leave. He came back to work, and then he broke a company policy that most judges are going to be sympathetic to. After all, even talking about guns in the workplace makes lots of folks twitchy.

We have a "no weapons in the workplace" rule. I don't prohibit having a gun in your can in my parking lot (which I could) but I do prohibit any sort of weapon on your person or in my building. Hell, I keep my sig in the car at work, and don't bring it into my office, after all, rules are rules.

My office staff knows I have a LTCF, and that I have a gun in the car. It doesn't bother them, we've talked about it, and they wouldn't mind if my gun was in the office, but it stays in the car.

This has turned into a longer post than I intended. This is a tricky topic, it's not black and white. Sometimes employers get painted as bad guys when they're not. Guns and workplace safety is always a complicated issue. Even when it's only a perception of danger, like a guy surfing gun websites.

When it comes to the internet at work, exercising a little caution in where you go is advisable. You just don't know what kind of site will raise a red flag in the IT or HR department, where I guarantee you they're monitoring who goes where, all day long.

An exception? If he ONLY surfed at lunch or on breaks, he might be able to argue he wasn't an employee while on the sites, if those breaks and lunch are unpaid. That's the only glimmer of hope I see.

DM