Employee browsed gun-related sites — should company fire him?
November 30, 2009 by Sam NarisiPosted in: Employment law, HR Tech, In this week's e-newsletter - Tech, policies
When curbing inappropriate Web activity, it isn’t just the obvious sites you need to look out for. You may see something that could alert to a potential safety concern.
This recent case involved a problem employee who was caught viewing Web sites that sell guns.
The employee suffered a heart attack and was placed on three months medical leave. When he came back, his boss gave him a negative performance review. Believing it was because of his leave, the employee complained to HR, who investigated and found no signs of bias.
Then the boss saw him on a Web site about guns. She asked IT to see his browsing history, which showed he visited several gun-related sites, including online stores that sell guns and gun parts.
The employee’s supervisor reported the issue to HR, saying she feared for her safety. The employee, a gun enthusiast, claimed he was licensed to carry firearms and never displayed any violent tendencies.
However, he was fired for violating the company’s policy against “inappropriate” Web browsing. The employee sued, claiming the gun issue was a pretext — the real reason was his medical problem, he said.
But the judge didn’t buy it and dismissed the case. The court ruled the supervisor’s concerns were legitimate — she had just given a negative performance review that was contested by the employee — and the company was within its rights to fire the employee.
Cite: Jackson v. PLANCO
Tags: guns, Internet history, Jackson v. PLANCO, Web sites
HRMorning.com delivers the latest HR news once a week to the inboxes of over 200,000 HR professionals.
Click here to sign up and start your FREE subscription to HRMorning!
follow us on Twitter
join our group on Facebook
December 1st, 2009 at 3:28 pm
What is wrong with the world we live in? A law abiding citizen looking at a legal product. Wow. The supervisor should be fired for lying about fearing for her safety.
December 1st, 2009 at 3:55 pm
Porn is also a legal product, however I would definitely fire someone for looking at it at work.
December 1st, 2009 at 4:15 pm
All we have here is a supervisor using firearms as a scapegoat. Nothing more, nothing less.
December 2nd, 2009 at 4:07 pm
I don’t think it is that simple. If the websites were a scapegoat the court would have picked up on that unless you are saying the court is in a conspiracy with the employer.
The employee’s time management is a legitimate issue. The supervisor has a responsibility to their safety rather another person is a gun enthusiast or not. And we do not know of any other controversy not reported in the article that could have raised a safety concern. The state could be an at will state.
It appears to me that you are defending the right to own a gun as opposed to the right of the employer to manage their company. Two very distinct issues.
December 5th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
I have to agree with John. If I had recently reprimanded an employee and then found them looking at weapons on a workplace computer, I would have reason to be concerned. Not only for my own safety, but the safety of every other person working in my offices. I fully support the right to bear arms, as long as it is done responsibly by a person without mental issues.
What is wrong with the world we live in is that it is too easy for anyone to obtain weapons, and then use them to right the “wrongs” they feel have been done to them by employers, family or society in general. There have been far too many instances of workplace violence recently for a responsible person to ignore what may be warning signs.
December 7th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
I guess what I mean is that I think the company used gun related sites as a reason to let him go. Are these sites listed on a do-not-visit list, or had this employee and others in the company been looking at gun related sites their whole carreers? What I am asking is that was this a normal behavior for this employee? We may never know, as it is not discussed in the article.
At the company I work for, most of the office employees look at firearm related sites at one time or another. It is no big deal here. It may have something to do with the attitude about firearms in my part of the USA. I live and work in Northern Minnesota.
December 8th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
“What is wrong with the world we live in is that it is too easy for anyone to obtain weapons”
That is exactly the kind prejudice I see frequently. Your personal dislike for something does not make it “what is wrong with the world”. Far too many people believe that because they don’t like it – it must be bad. You have the right to be offended. Use it. Now get over it.
The article completely leaves out far too many details. My assumption would be that the supervisor feels like Joyce. Guns are a problem and any thought or interest means you are a bad person.
December 8th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
You all make good points. Certainly, as Brett suggests, previous patterns of goofing off at work should be considered if that info is still available.
However, a disgruntled employee browsing a website that sells guns would be much more a cause of concern than a disgruntled employee browsing some other website. I suppose they might have sent the guy for a psych evaluation to determine if he had anger issues, but the company does have a responsibility to protect the safety of the other employees.
December 8th, 2009 at 4:53 pm
I would be more concerned about the person who is too quiet/low-key at work, who might be doing his/her research on firearms from home. Researching firearms at work, though not a productive activity for the employer, isn’t really illegal. I agree that we were not provided with enough information to discern if this activity was done on his “personal” break/lunch time and if accessing the internet from work for personal reasons was permissible under the company’s policy. And the company’s definition of “inappropriate is…?
December 10th, 2009 at 8:47 am
Trent, you didn’t read my entire post. I am not prejudiced against guns, I own one. I do, however, feel it is too easy for mentally unstable people or criminals with bad intent to obtain them. The guy may be perfectly normal, but we won’t know because there is not enough background in the article. I believe in the right to bear arms, as long as they aren’t used in the commision of a crime. As a supervisor it is our responsibility to provide a safe working environment for everyone.
December 10th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
I think it is reasonable for the supervisor to be concerned, and this is a case that should have been investigated. If the investigation showed that his visits to “Gun Sights” predated this whole episode, He should not have been fired. If, however, this was new behavior that started after his poor review then he should be fired and legal action taken against him for trying to intimidate the supervisor.
December 10th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
Has any one ever heard of the 2nd amendment?
Obviously if the sites were listed as inappropriate by the company (which they should be able to do if you are using their resources) and he had notice and understanding of the rules, he should be fired.
Why get into all the bull about wheather guns should be available and whether or not you would be scared.
December 11th, 2009 at 9:44 am
every one here has a legit response – but the article again does not say anything about this individual having any mental problems – it does say a problem employee, I have plenty of those and most of it
has to do with inapropriate sites not porn but very close, I have considered them problem employees because of the pc that is in our society, and let’s face it – just like religion and politics it seems that there are people that hate guns and those that love them, I know of cases because my husband is in law enforcement – of individuals doing more damage with a screw driver and a bat than a gun. So because he was viewing this freaked out some one that hates guns – would make me think well does the supervisor have some issues of their own that needs to be addressed also, I have employees that wear pink hair one day and then green the next and then I have some that like to wear an office suit (me and a couple of others) and we have to just go with the flow. So my point is there are some just going a little on the way side of what this article is all about.
December 11th, 2009 at 11:05 am
I think that everybody here has valid points. We all seem to agree that there is not enough information in the article.
Good conversation people
December 11th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
What we really need are some laws that protect employees from the overzealous enforcement by employers of the laws intended to protect employees.
December 11th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
oh..no……….for goodness sakes not another law……..please just common sense, what ever happened to common sense……………you know we might as well make a law about breathing………
but I think that’s in the books……………….right now ………..carbon monoxide………….I think……..
I may be wrong…………
December 11th, 2009 at 10:23 pm
Please, no more laws. It is virtually impossible not to break some state or federal law just by participating in society. What we actually need is a return to individual responsibility. I almost wish we could make a “No-Fault” society like some states have no fault auto insurance (you pay for yours, I pay for mine). Something to get the nanny-state out of our lives.
December 14th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
The problem with most of these articles is that there is never enough information. As a result, most of the comments are speculative and we get all riled up at each other. Have a nice holiday HR people!!
December 29th, 2009 at 3:11 pm
Having assumed HR duties in sites that had hired bad employees and been asked to “clean it up” has opened my eyes to this concern. Some of the harder employees will resist change and work against you. While I treat employees with respect and make them progressively aware of the necessary changes they need to make sometimes the employee has to be let go because their behaviors do not change. Once the employee is gone the problems at work will get better but often the termed employee will now look for their revenge. I have had them arrange 3rd parties to call my house with threatening messages that can’t be traced. They have called my wife’s cell reporting false affairs, I have had my vehichles damaged and home privacy violated. I have no evidence to provide the police other than the name of an upset ex-employee. I live in fear because the last guy I released was violent and an avid deer hunter. A lot of the responses here make light of the threat of a gun but not knowing how far this person will go until it is too late is my concern. If the company has a policy against web browsing certain sites and they have enforced it consistently then I would say they did the right thing. The harsh reality is the ex-employee is still out there and even if you are not listed in the phone book they can search you out with the internet and make your life hell. I have bought a guard dog, added security to the house and applied for a handgun carry permit. And we have all heard cases of how after a night of drinking or drugs an angered employee can get the courage to do unspeakable acts. Until you have had to be the one to release an angry or violent employee please do not judge those of us that have to deal with the unknown fear of what could happen to our property, family or our lives. The police can only help if the person leaves evidence or they are calling in the medical examiner.