Man Fired For Looking At Gun Web Sites

[cerberus413]

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.

Link

[mixiboi]

lol, sounds like this is more about his health then a website, so they been waiting for him to slip up....Which he did.

They are going to lose this HARD.

[lauraska]

Yeah, I mean, the bottom line is that his company probably has an internet usage policy that states that he's only to use the internet for work-related purposes. So if he violated that, he will have a hard time proving that they got rid of him based solely on his health problems. He might have an argument if such a rule was not evenly enforced, but it's hard to prove that unless you can prove that all the other internet surfers in the office were seen by their supervisors and not reported. Alot of folks use the internet, and alot of them use it without anyone seeing it or looking closely enough to know that it's not work-related.

[MayfairMeat]

It's a bit easier for an employee to get fired if they're just on sick leave.

Much harder if they're on FMLA. If he was fired while on or just right after FMLA and his crappy reviews were written up while he was taking it or right after, it's not going to look good for the employer.

[cerberus413]

Yeah, I mean, the bottom line is that his company probably has an internet usage policy that states that he's only to use the internet for work-related purposes. So if he violated that, he will have a hard time proving that they got rid of him based solely on his health problems. He might have an argument if such a rule was not evenly enforced, but it's hard to prove that unless you can prove that all the other internet surfers in the office were seen by their supervisors and not reported. Alot of folks use the internet, and alot of them use it without anyone seeing it or looking closely enough to know that it's not work-related.

The fact that they didnt give him any warning is somewhat anal though.....Hey this is your 1st warning dont do that etc....

Their fear drove them to get rid of this guy....nothing more. Maybe he shouldnt have worked for liberals....

[xxxTHX1138xxx]

The fact that they didnt give him any warning is somewhat anal though.....Hey this is your 1st warning dont do that etc....

Their fear drove them to get rid of this guy....nothing more. Maybe he shouldnt have worked for liberals....

but if it was an obama, gay/lesbian, acorn website...well then that would have been ok...even if it was not work related.

[MayfairMeat]

The fact that they didnt give him any warning is somewhat anal though.....Hey this is your 1st warning dont do that etc....

Their fear drove them to get rid of this guy....nothing more. Maybe he shouldnt have worked for liberals....

I think that's pretty much what it will boil down to. Political discrimination in employment is never going to go away, so employers will always be able to fire employees who do not agree with their political beliefs.

However, expression of those beliefs OUTSIDE the workplaces butts up against constitutional protections.



I worked for a company (who shall remain nameless here) that had a hard time understanding this. They fired several employees who were caught helping a campaign of a TX state politician running for office that this company did not like [specifically, four people within the company did not like this candidate], because the candidate wanted insurance reforms.

The candidate was also a LULAC supporter and the employees who were fired were mostly Hispanic, and several were San Antonio Hispanic Chamber of Commerce members, of which the same COMPANY was also a sponsor... so the firing of the employees crossed multiple lines of allegiance.


This was all kept on the DL, but let's just say this company "PAID" for the firings... and that same candidate also won office.


He's still in the Texas legislature now and I found out years later the company is now sending him money---so I guess their beef with that guy is over.

[cerberus413]

but if it was an obama, gay/lesbian, acorn website...well then that would have been ok...even if it was not work related.

Not at my job....they are hardcore gun-loving republicans! ....My division lead has a nice big "debt star" poster hanging up along with a few other anti-obama photos.

[NE19149]

Not at my job....they are hardcore gun-loving republicans! ....My division lead has a nice big "debt star" poster hanging up along with a few other anti-obama photos.

I can imagine what's hanging up in the mens room....
Probably a saucy "pin-up girl calendar" with Miss November sporting nothing but a pair of six-shooters on.

[cerberus413]

I can imagine what's hanging up in the mens room....
Probably a saucy "pin-up girl calendar" with Miss November sporting nothing but a pair of six-shooters on.

Actually nothing is hanging in the mens room LOL.....

Its Boeing for petes sake