Comments on: Employee fired for looking at guns — on the Web

By: Deborah Lewis

Deborah Lewis — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 09:08:53 +0000

I really enjoy the articles in this forum and find them useful to become informed of new HR and workplace practices and issues across the world however I must say I am absolutely gobsmacked by this article and subsequent comments related to guns. Speaking around a “water cooler” about guns is mindboggling to say the least and serves to highlight a chasm in the cultural and societal norms of our countries. Only in America as they say. About the most difficult incident I have had to deal with recently is a Grad putting his head in a chocolate fountain at our Christmas function

By: Tami

Tami — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 18:17:25 +0000

I am somwhat surprised by the outcome of the court case. Apparently, he could not make a good case that the discrimination was based on his medical issue. I would have expected the court to find in favor of the employee based on how the case is described briefly here.

If the employer had a clear Internet and/or weapons policy, or other policies that applied to the case and they consistently applied them, then they were probably within their rights to fire him. But, it is still likely a poor choice under these circumstances.

This is not a constitutional 2nd amendment issue, if it was a private employer. The 2nd amendment only applies to the government restricting your rights. A private employer can say, “The Bill of Rights does not apply here.” A private employer can have a wide variety of rules that limit individual rights in the workplace (and sometimes even outside of the workplace) based on a ligitimate business need.

By: Mary D.

Mary D. — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 17:15:39 +0000

I particularly agree with D.S. about monitoring how many work hours employees surf the web. But, was that the case in the article at hand? It never really said. That is why I could better understand abuse (too much company time spent on personal matters) rather than looking at gun information. I still believe there is much information missing on this case. People kill people…did I say that!

By: D.S.

D.S. — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 16:55:17 +0000

This could have been avoided by setting a tighter internet policy and blocking these types of sites. Every firm should be monitoring how many work hours employees surf the web, and calculating how much money the company is losing.

By: CJ

CJ — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 20:42:19 +0000

I’m with Mary D — I’m shocked they ruled in favor of the company. We have an understanding with our employees — periodic use is ok, just don’t abuse it! We have two partners in the business — one of them an avid hunter and one who doesn’t own a firearm. no one need fear browsing a web site selling fire arms. The whole thing sounds more like the supervisor did not like the man, I call it a personality conflict, and was going to use any excuss to get rid of him. Unless there is an immense amount of underlying information missing from this story, the man had a poor attorney and HR erred big time in their decision to fire him.

By: MAC

MAC — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 18:44:30 +0000

Well perhaps it was an “at-will” termination, doubt it was for the medical issues, which could have detracted the judge from the real crux of the problem. … The manager……….. She didn’t show prudence. If he had sued the company for a poor performance review, then perhaps he would have won. The company leaves itself open for multiple legal issues by not defining “inappropriate”. Walmart has guns. He had a clear social ocassion that he was preparing to attend that was not illegal and not at all anti-social. While I feel that the manager should not have been allowed to fire him for surfing the internet…. I have to ask another question, how long was he surfing the net? What is the companies policy and enforcement for all employees for surfing the net? If they had fired him for misuse of company resources, which meant that he was spending an excessive time surfing the internet then they had cause. If they fired him, and kept another employee who was doing the same thing, not so good. If neither is a minority governed under TITLE VII, they are both out of luck. This being said, having managers terminate employees like this for emotionally charged reasons, Like differences of opinion, not protected differences of opinion, but they could be…. so having this manager fire anyone who does not think/act the way she feels appropriate could cost the company money, as it did, in the future.

By: lisa

lisa — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 17:41:45 +0000

Part of the issue that should be addressed is what is considered inappropriate material according to the company’s IT policy. I have worked with firms that have specifically stated that websites relating to weapons are inappropriate and in those firms, this would be reason for disciplinary actions. Please keep in mind also the incidents of violence in the workplace. Unfortunately, every year I hear of companies that are attacked by disgruntled individuals who bring in a gun to a worksite and many innocent people are injured or killed.

By: Flee

Flee — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 17:19:08 +0000

If it was a woman employee shopping for a handgun for her own protection do you think this supervisor would have had the same response? There is no mention of the employee ever making a threat to the supervisor. Why did she fear for her safety? Was she going to the skeet range for her second job as a target? It is hard to believe a judge actually ruled in favor of the company in this case.

By: Stephen

Stephen — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 16:24:27 +0000

Sad commentary with today’s Poltical Correctness! One wonders when the madness of Liberalism will cease?They have ruined the USA and turned it upside down!

By: amy r.

amy r. — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 15:50:48 +0000

I think it’s a violation of his 2nd ammendment rights, his rights as someone with a known health issue, and they should be firing the supervisor for engaging him in this conversation. If the supervisor has tried to divert conversation then she may have been able to squelch her fears because there was nothing to fear. This is highly prejudicial on the part of the government. They judge was probably an Obama supporter!!!!