Man Fired For Looking At Gun Web Sites

paramedic70002 · October 10th, 2009, 04:04 PM

Man Fired For Looking At Gun Web Sites - Taking Liberties - CBS News

Man Fired For Looking At Gun Web Sites

(AP / CBS)
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.

justherenow · October 10th, 2009, 05:25 PM

Crazy stuff.

Our company has computers for the employees to use while on lunch and break plus before and after work. They have a filter that does now allow us to visit firearms related sites, but the odd thing, you can go online and order your medical weed that is not legal in our state, or at least visit sites linked to gangs, drugs and other things.

Edit to add: I do not visit those types of sites, but its easy to view the browsing history, which as a nosy person, I do.

Patti · October 10th, 2009, 05:58 PM

Mr. Jackson needs to lawyer-up.

HotGuns · October 10th, 2009, 06:01 PM

To me it sounds like he'll never have to work again...after the company gets hammered by the lawyers that he hires.

Anybody that claims to be alarmed because someone else is looking at gun sites on the web is a risk that needs to have a psychological evaluation for suitability.

ErikGr7 · October 10th, 2009, 06:03 PM

I look at gun sites all the time.

Ar15 will get you fired if any of them will..lol

highvoltage · October 10th, 2009, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patti

Mr. Jackson needs to lawyer-up.

He did:

Quote:

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...........

But apparently it didn't work:

Quote:

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.

Paco · October 10th, 2009, 06:12 PM

Let's suppose he is one of those actualy crazy gun owners, I mean he IS a Lotus Notes Admin

. They think it is safer to fire him and make him mad, than to keep him employed and keep an eye on him?

I just don't get that logic at all. He likes guns therefore he MUST be dangerous. Although following that logic, sicne I like Martial Arts and read Websites with MA equipment I must be a Ninja.

Sweet!

HotGuns · October 10th, 2009, 06:13 PM

Your're not a Ninja?

RoadRunner71 · October 10th, 2009, 06:29 PM

What I don't understand is why did the HR people even let the politics get involved? Hear me out. I think that what happened here is a bunch of ....well you know. But, if I were in the position of getting rid of an employee that I thought was sub-par, I would pounce on the fact that he was using company computer systems in an inappropriate manner and build on that. Most companies have internet use policies for just this reason. They could have done the same thing if he had been shopping on Amazon or checking flights on Travelocity. Why even muddy the waters with gun-politics? Dumb, dumb, dumb HR. Now they'll have to pay big $$!

Patti · October 10th, 2009, 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by highvoltage

He did:

But apparently it didn't work:

Then apparently, he didn't have a very good one.

October 10th, 2009, 04:04 PM	#1
paramedic70002 VIP Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Franklin, VA Posts: 2,682	Man Fired For Looking At Gun Web Sites Man Fired For Looking At Gun Web Sites - Taking Liberties - CBS News Man Fired For Looking At Gun Web Sites (AP / CBS) 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. __________________ Guns Save Lives. Paramedics Save Lives. But... Paramedics With Guns Scare People!

October 10th, 2009, 05:25 PM	#2
justherenow Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Ohio Posts: 459	Crazy stuff. Our company has computers for the employees to use while on lunch and break plus before and after work. They have a filter that does now allow us to visit firearms related sites, but the odd thing, you can go online and order your medical weed that is not legal in our state, or at least visit sites linked to gangs, drugs and other things. Edit to add: I do not visit those types of sites, but its easy to view the browsing history, which as a nosy person, I do. __________________ -------------------------- Ohio CHL since 1/29/2009 Those who trade liberty for security have neither. ~John Adams 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.

October 10th, 2009, 05:58 PM	#3
Patti Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Missouri, The Show Me State Posts: 1,168	Mr. Jackson needs to lawyer-up. __________________ Marxism game plan = Make 51% of Americas population dependent upon the fed govt for its subsistence, bribe their vote, keep themselves in power & keep the remaining portion of Americas productive population enslaved to pay the bills.

October 10th, 2009, 06:01 PM	#4
HotGuns Moderator Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Arkansas Posts: 7,609	To me it sounds like he'll never have to work again...after the company gets hammered by the lawyers that he hires. Anybody that claims to be alarmed because someone else is looking at gun sites on the web is a risk that needs to have a psychological evaluation for suitability. __________________ AR. CHL Instr. To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical. Thomas Jefferson

October 10th, 2009, 06:03 PM	#5
ErikGr7 Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Atlanta Posts: 1,028	I look at gun sites all the time. Ar15 will get you fired if any of them will..lol __________________ 110% Gun nut here

October 10th, 2009, 06:12 PM	#7
Paco VIP Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: McKinney, TX Posts: 2,763	Let's suppose he is one of those actualy crazy gun owners, I mean he IS a Lotus Notes Admin . They think it is safer to fire him and make him mad, than to keep him employed and keep an eye on him? I just don't get that logic at all. He likes guns therefore he MUST be dangerous. Although following that logic, sicne I like Martial Arts and read Websites with MA equipment I must be a Ninja. Sweet! __________________ "Don't hit at all if you can help it; don't hit a man if you can possibly avoid it; but if you do hit him, put him to sleep." - Theodore Roosevelt If you are not willing to stand behind our Troops, feel free to stand in front of them! -Paco

October 10th, 2009, 06:13 PM	#8
HotGuns Moderator Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Arkansas Posts: 7,609	Your're not a Ninja? __________________ AR. CHL Instr. To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical. Thomas Jefferson

October 10th, 2009, 06:29 PM	#9
RoadRunner71 Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Michigan Posts: 1,102	What I don't understand is why did the HR people even let the politics get involved? Hear me out. I think that what happened here is a bunch of ....well you know. But, if I were in the position of getting rid of an employee that I thought was sub-par, I would pounce on the fact that he was using company computer systems in an inappropriate manner and build on that. Most companies have internet use policies for just this reason. They could have done the same thing if he had been shopping on Amazon or checking flights on Travelocity. Why even muddy the waters with gun-politics? Dumb, dumb, dumb HR. Now they'll have to pay big $$! __________________ "Mind own business" "Always cut cards"

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode