Workers insult minorities online — employer on the hook?
July 20, 2009 by Tim GouldPosted in: Employment law, Race discrimination, Special Report - Tech
If an employee makes racist posts to a private Web site and the company takes no action, is it guilty of allowing discrimination and harassment?
A group of African-American officers has filed a lawsuit against the Philadelphia Police Department, claiming a Web site founded by a fellow officer and used by many other cops has led to a hostile work environment.
The site was created by a Philadelphia police officer in 2000 as a place where officers could talk about crime, police news and gossip, as well as promote local events, the Philadelphia Inquirer reports. But certain news stories often elicit racist comments from some of the users.
For example, the phrase “ghetto monkey faces” was used to describe a group of minority children involved in a discrimination suit against a local swim club. (Incidentally, the law firm representing the African-American police officers is also involved in that case.) Another post was made with the headline “Guns don’t kill people, dangerous minorities do.”
The site is not formally affiliated with the department, and the creator said he does not maintain the site on city time. But the complainants claim the department is aware of the site and has allowed posting to continue, which has created a hostile environment in the workplace. Also, the officers claim the site’s users frequently post comments while at work.
The site’s creator is also named in the suit. He said he disagrees with the racist comments, but did not want to limit discussion and was never asked to take anything off the site.
Past complaints about the site have not been acted on by the department, the plaintiffs say. The department says it can’t discipline employees for posts they make on a private Web site.
Lawyers warn that companies do have a responsibility to prevent harassment even when it takes place outside of work on a site not affiliated with the employer. We’ll keep you posted as the case develops.
What do you think? Is the police department for allowing a hostile work environment to develop? Or did they make the right choice in not disciplining employees for conduct that wasn’t work-related?
Give us your opinion in the comments section below.
Tags: hostile work environment, Philadelphia, police, Web site
July 21st, 2009 at 12:34 pm
Hmmm …. Personal conduct, employees own time, I would hope that the employer couldn’t be held responsible. Maybe the employer should pay attention to the character of those they employ.
July 21st, 2009 at 12:44 pm
If someone is doing something totally legal, if not appropriate, in their off-work time and an off-work site, you can’t hold the company liable. What if a group of male workers like to hang out at a local strip bar after work? Is this creating a hostile work environment for female workers?
July 21st, 2009 at 1:05 pm
Hostility within a law-enforcement department is dangerous. For officers to be able to depend on each other, there must be respect. Once the department was made aware of the site, it should have implemented a means of disciplinary action for further slander against people of color.
This type of thing also negates the efforts that’ve been made over the years to improve relations between the community and law enforcement.
The department should be held accountable; the officers posting the insults should be disciplined.
July 21st, 2009 at 1:07 pm
If there is nothing illegal about the site or the comments made, how can the dept be held responsible? I would guess there are some things the minority officers do and think in their off hours that could be construed as negative towards other officers. If we start to go down the path of punishing people or employers for their exercise of free speech, then we are getting closer to a totalitarian society. If any officers violated the dept’s computer use policy, they should be dealt with on an individual basis. To try to make a class action looks like a blatant money grab by an overzealous law firm playing on racial tension. I don’t see how this can have anything but a negative impact on their dept.
July 21st, 2009 at 1:07 pm
This is not an activity done at work so it shouldn’t even be dealt with as an employment issue. I believe there is an old quote, “I may not agree with what you say but I will defend your right to say it”. While I would be appalled at something written of this nature, I have the choice to not read it and would have the ability not to participate in the discussion. What happened to freedom of speech? Half of what I hear on the radio these days is far more offensive. But there are people I work with that enjoy that type of music even if I were to prohibit my children from tuning in. Are we going to sue all of the song writers and artists next?
July 21st, 2009 at 1:14 pm
Employers must be careful not to interfere with the right of employee’s personal and confidential communication. If the policemen do not use the electronic communication on working time or in the work area, the employer must not invade or monitor that communication. Employers are responsible for the environment at work. If there is evidence that discrimination is occurring in the workplace, action should be taken by the employer after a fair and complete investigation.
July 21st, 2009 at 1:26 pm
Agreed, employers are responsible for the environment at work. Respect is an important part of the work environment, especially in an industry such as policeforce where co-workers need to depend on one another in extreme/dangerous circumstances. The lack of respect this website is elevating between co-workers is dangerous, to the policeforce and the community both.
July 21st, 2009 at 1:37 pm
Looks like another frivolous lawsuit. Last I checked off the clock is off the clock. If this suit goes against the dept then it will put employers in a no win situation. Sued if they intervene for interferring with off clock free speach and sued for not intervening for a ‘Hostile work environment” Lets hope some sanity pokes it’s head into this courtroom.
July 21st, 2009 at 1:40 pm
Once the hostile work environment was created and the employees complained it became an employment issue and the department should have made an attempt to investigate.
July 21st, 2009 at 1:42 pm
I think any company has a requirement to address an issue that creates a hostile work environment. At a minimum, and to protect themselves, they need to investigate the complaints and document what they did to address them. At least, when or if complaints go to court they can prove that they took the complaints seriously and tried to improve the situation. That can go a long way to defend against discrimination and harassment claims.
July 21st, 2009 at 1:51 pm
A few weeks ago, the entire country and national media, was disgusted by the City of Bozeman’s asking for personal websites and usernames and password information on job applications. Now however an employer is being sued for what is on a personal website. If employers are going to be held responsible for off-work website activities of employees, then I guess Bozeman was just forward thinking.
July 21st, 2009 at 2:02 pm
Employers should be very careful how they handle this issue if at all. They cannot interfere with the employee’s rights. The employees are doing this on their personal time and should stay personal and confidential. If the policemen do not use the electronic communication at work or while on the clock, the employer has no right to invade the privacy of any communication they post or read. Employers are only responsible for the actions taken at the work environment. If it comes to someones attention that there is discrimination taking place in the workplace- than an investiagtion should be conducted and if that proves it exists than action should and must be taken by the employer. The investigation should be fair and the parties should nor just be presumed guilty.
July 21st, 2009 at 2:04 pm
What happen to the first amendment?
The website is private and the employee has no business dictating what should or should not be on it as long as the law is not broken.
There are hundreds, it not thousands of web sites where people leave opinions, should these also be sued for someone does not agree with their contents?
How about suing the minority web sites that talk about and demean those that are not of the minority?
July 21st, 2009 at 2:06 pm
This is a first amendment issue. Speech that does not run afoul of the oft-cited example of yelling “Fire” in a crowded theatre, cannot be regulated by the state. The polce department is an arm of state government.
A private employer probably can fire someone for his/her public utterances if the rule is in place, known and enforced.
Employees in a private firm do not have the same rights as public (government) employees. Whether it makes sense to do this is questionable, other than in certain instances, say the public off the job utterances of a spokesman.
July 21st, 2009 at 2:25 pm
If the website owners are identifying themselves as employees of the Philadelphia Police Dept on the web site, then the department absolutely needs to respond, if only because their comments can be construed as the department’s viewpoint. We would not allow our employees to use our company name when posting offensive material, whether on or off work time. If they do not use the company name or identifying info, and it is on their own private time, that is another story.
July 21st, 2009 at 2:25 pm
I think people making racist remarks on a website are extremely immature and have little compassion for others. However, I agree with others that state, “if this web-site is not under the juistiction of the company, then the company should not be held responsible for what is written on the web-site”.
However, I do believe the company is responsible to discipline their employees, wheather they are on company time or off company time.
What should take place, is a character review of the officers who placed their comments on the web. I do believe that certain fields of employment should require employees to have higher standards of ethics. Police Officers should fall into this group and they should have an outstanding character to be a Police Officer.
There are laws that protect all of us against dafamation of character, and so I beleive the police officers actions should be scrutinized by their departments, as to wheather they have the character necessary to serve the public. I beleive racist remarks directed towards a group of individuals to be concidered dafamation of character.
I believe their superviors should discuss this incident with them and make them aware that they could face disciplinary action for doing something off duty that is offensive to the communities they serve. And furthermore, I would concider posting defamatory remarks against minorities a good reason to be disciplined.
July 21st, 2009 at 2:30 pm
Once you take an oath to uphold the law, you are bound by that responsibility whether on or off duty. Once the hostile work environment was created, the department must investigate. As the creater of the Web site, the Police officer is responsible for making sure all who use the site upholds the law.
July 21st, 2009 at 2:30 pm
I think Angela may be onto something,
“it (the police department) should have implemented a means of disciplinary action for further slander against people of color.”
There is certain conduct we expect of civil servants on and off the job. If I see a fellow officer making racial slurs online, I am not going to think they are impartial in their judgements on the job. If citizens in the community see these posts and are able to match them to officers in their community, they are not going to feel as safe or fairly treated when those officers come to their aide or come to arrest them.
Sensitivity training, at the very least, should have been implemented. It may have also been appropriate to see if conduct on personal time could influence performance reviews. Some jobs do not allow employees to stay employed if they cause public disturbances. Maybe in this case it would be using inappropriate language in sharing experiences. I am saying here that officers should have a site where they can share stories but should be aware of the language they use in expressing themselves. There are many ways of conveying the faces of children of color than “ghetto monkey faces”.
July 21st, 2009 at 2:34 pm
This is a website established by a police officer for police officers. The topics of discussion include work situations/experiences. It is a shame that some of the officers brought their racist comments to the site and some if not all other officers should have immediately denounced the comments. I agree entirely with Angela Roberts.
July 21st, 2009 at 2:42 pm
A group of African-American officers has filed a lawsuit against the Philadelphia Police Department, claiming a Web site founded by a fellow officer and used by many other cops has led to a hostile work environment.
The article does not state that it is limited to use by fellow police officers. It is a public forum.
I do agree that civil servants should be held to higher standards but also believe we cross a fine line of squelching certain unalienable rights.
Has anyone actually been on this website to see what is posted there or are we all falling into the trap of headline reading?
Again, this type of thing is offensive to me. But a great deal of what is considered “okay” to play on the air, on TV, etc. has become questionable. I also have a choice to turn off the station, close the paper, click off a site, etc. And (I know I’ll get slammed by someone) it is also unfortunate that members of particular minority groups refer to each other in a deragaotry way when they do not accept the same terms outside of their circle. The “respect” needs to go both ways.
July 21st, 2009 at 2:43 pm
The question is…is the behavior that’s happening off site affecting the business?? Sounds like it is and the employer has every right to address the behavior that’s impacting the organization. Whether the behavior is on line, down at the local bar or in the parking lot. This doesn’t have to be a legal matter, but the police department chose to ignore it long enough that now it is. When employers choose not to openly confront an issue that’s often where things land. You treat it like the personnel matter it is…here at ABC we expect good judgment, and professionalim, by doing XYZ you are reflecting poorly on you and this organization. It’s impacting our success and your reputation. I need you to…if you can’t abide by that, than perhaps you should seek employment with a company that will better suit you. You can NOT “control” people’s hearts and minds, they can think and believe what they choose, but they don’t get to go “unchecked” and impede business relationships and results.
July 21st, 2009 at 2:48 pm
Normally the department should not get involved in employee’s actions off duty as long as those actions are legal. However, if the employees are identifying themselves as police officers or employees of the department, then the department does have a valid interest in the conduct of their employees. In law enforcement there is a difference between what an employee does as a private citizen, and what the employee does if identified as an employee of the department.
Our standards of conduct says your private lawful behavior is your own business, unless your behavior could embarrass the department or undermine public confidence in the department and you are identified as a member of the department. Public employees are held to a higher standard than private employees, and sometimes that includes limits on the employees right to free speech.
July 21st, 2009 at 2:51 pm
Although I think it’s absolutely deplorable that police officers made these comments, it just proves what many have known for a long time. Many – not all but many police officers ARE racist. I think generally speaking, police departments should implement some type of sensitiviy training, however, in NO WAY is the employer responsible or liable for what these ignorant people said on a private website. If the posts were made while on duty and/or using company equipment, I sure hope disciplinary action was/is taken.
I agree with previous posts – this appears to me to be another frivolous lawsuit and the easiest target (with the most $$$) is the actual police department.
July 21st, 2009 at 2:52 pm
While I would not go as far to say that the police department should be the defendent in this lawsuit, I would have to say that as a department head I would be very concerned about the attitudes of these officers. These officers are public servants who are responsible for responding to the residents within their community. If this website accurately reflects the attitudes of these “public servants”, what are their true behaviors when responding to this group in the community? If they view this group as being “monkey faces”, is this the way they respond to them in the execution of their jobs? I agree that we should protect our free speech, but as with anything else in our lives, we also have to be aware that there may be consequences for the things we do and say. Believe what we may, if the things these officers are saying is indicative of their true feelings, it will at some point show up in their behavior. Hence, the deadly force of officers toward minority groups that occasionally shows up in the media. We are what we believe.
July 21st, 2009 at 2:53 pm
I believe the employer should be held responsible in this instance because a police officer is a police officer 24/7. Even when he/she is off the clock, if something jumps off, they are still supposed to protect the people. Since this website was created basically for other police officers to talk about police stuff (crimes, events, and gossip), then they should be held accountable for what they say because they are supposed to put racist feelings aside and be on the side of the law. And the law states that it is illegal to discriminate against a person based on their national origin, coloe, race, sex, religion, age and disability. Those are discrimatory comments. How can these officers uphold the law when they have the nerve to put comments like this in WRITING for anyone who gets on the website to see? It shows disrespect for their job they have signed on to do. And if an employer finds out that their employee cannot be trusted to do their job correctly, they should be removed from that position. Can African Americans trust these cops to protect them? That directly affects the Police Dept. and it’s relationship to the people they are supposed to serve and protect. Do not African Americans deserve to be protected? Do they not deserve the same respect that all human beings deserve? And I haven’t even touched on how African American officers must feel after reading these comments from fellow officers. Had this been an African American website where Black cops disrespected White cops… it would not even be an issue. Those Black cops would be thrown off the force for actions not becoming of an officer. In other words, the Philadelphia Police Office employs racist police officers. They know it. They should be disciplined and made to remove this website or resign from the force.
July 21st, 2009 at 2:57 pm
I think that the department has a right to step in and ask that the posts be removed as well as discuss with the employees posting the discriminatory comments. I work in a state that allows companies to discipline employees for off-duty conduct if that conduct harms the reputation of the company in any way.
July 21st, 2009 at 3:07 pm
The Philadelphia Police Department must take this serious, because what I see happening is a clear violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. An Employer is reponsible for Harassing behavior of any type by their employees whether on or off duty. Also in regards to Title VII, discrimination and harassment of all types is prohibited under this law. The department must step in simply because the minority employees subjected to this harassment has put the department on notice regarding the website. The African American employees (a protected group by race) have stated to the department the site is racially discriminatory and the departments blatant ignorance to this issue is basically saying they condone such behavior from those who particpate in contributing to the website which is a direct violation to the Civil Rights of the African Americans who have brought forth this claim.
Since the Philadelphia Police Department did not take this matter serious enough and administer discplinary action or some type of action to correct the behaviors of their employees, the lawsuit will prevail and I am sure before it goes to a court trial, there will be some type of settlement in the works to resolve this! The Police Department will pay dearly in monetary compensation and pay dearly in regards to their reputation of the Police Department. Whether the department settles out of court or through a judgement, either way the Philadelphia Police Department will not win in my opinion!
July 21st, 2009 at 3:09 pm
Right, wrong, or indifferent, how you feel about the comments should not be a factor when placing blame. The website is private, period. At what point are people responsible for their actions instead of their employer? Many great points were made here today, but the bottom line is the website should be gone after for litigious action, not the police department.
July 21st, 2009 at 3:10 pm
I think the lawsuit is rediculous. As long as the employees did not do it on company time there is nothing to discipline for. Further more if the employees have not exibited behavior while on the clock they is no grounds for singling them out for review. As much as the comments are ignorant, it has nothing to do with the police department. Your employer can not dictate your opinions when you are not in the office. I agree with the comment regarding the strip club above. This just doesn’t make sense to me….
July 21st, 2009 at 3:11 pm
This is very touchy considering it is on their own personal time. The officers that are posting during business hours racial comments should be held accountable by the department. The biggest conflict I see here is the fact that this is a service that deals directly with these groups of people which makes you consider the ethical value and honesty from the poslice department as a whole. It also leaves open for consideration are these police officers doing the right thing or for racial reasons such as setting people up etc…
If this were a manufacturing plant would this sway our opinion differenlt as to what should be done?
Jennifer Smith
July 21st, 2009 at 3:22 pm
There seems to be a great misunderstanding by many commenters – the police isn’t the military. I retired from the military. This kind of action could have, and would have been dealt with by the military because members of the military do not have ‘civilian’ rights and the military has zero tolerance for this kind of behavior (whether you want to believe that or not).
Police officers are civilians and have the same rights as all civilians. That means when they’re ‘off duty’, they’re ‘off duty’. Members of the military are never ‘off duty’. Someone suggested that the employer could pursue this as slander. Hellooooo…. Slander is a civil issue and could be used to sue these officers ASSUMING they did, in fact, slander someone. You don’t slander races – you slander people. I didn’t see anything written that sounded like some ONE was slandered. While it is disgusting that some people are still tied to prehistoric ways, the fact that these comments were made on a private website that is maintained by a private server and the people are making such comments on their civilian time, then how in the world can this be an employer’s responsibility? Are we under Marshall Law?
July 21st, 2009 at 3:32 pm
Some of the earlier comment missed part of the story, and even the summary did not report the whole story.
Some officers are postin to the web site during working hours.
What is not reported here is that some of the offensive postings are referenced (inapproipriately) in open conversation during working hours.
Those two activities make the whole situation work-related in my book.
July 21st, 2009 at 3:37 pm
Even though I agree that anybody in a public position should be allowed to make racist comments, here are a few things to consider. The first is that if this website is operated off of company/employer grounds by private parties, then they have no right to prohibit the free speech of individuals. Is the Police Department going to go to an outside third party and demand posts be taken off a website? How exactly are they going to do that?
If the police department sees in a public forum that racist remarks are made, can attribute these comments to a specific officer, and has a policy (most do) against making racist comments in public, then they should take some sort of disciplanary action. The action wouldn’t be for posting things on the website, it would be for violation of departmental policy.
However, most of these websites are run by a private third-party, not on company/government time and thus the Police have no jurisdiction or control over what is posted. Also, a lot of these websites allow people to post anonymous comments or to post under pseudonym names. Is the Police department going to get a subpoena and if so, on what grounds that will offset first amendment rights to free speech?
Also, the NLRB and numerous court rulings on the NLRA have shown that employees must be allowed to discuss work-related issues without interferance of the employer.
July 21st, 2009 at 3:38 pm
We expect certain things of civil servants and public officials and people whose paychecks come from our taxes. We expect them to have certain morals. There was a teacher in Charlotte NC who was required to resign after making negative comments online (not at work) – on what she thought to be a private web site – about the ‘inner-city’ area where she taught elementary school. Would this not be the same thing?
If someone who is supposed to be protecting me or my community (or teaching my child) is judging on skin color, or eye shape or religious affiliation for that matter, it does not make me feel safe or secure at all. I think that if it was brought to the attention of the department that there were some issues creating a hostile work environment, THEN the dept had the obligation to investigate. If they didn’t – then they are responsible. Were these comments being brought in to the precinct? Were these posts being read and/or replied to while these officers were working. Then YES, there should have been discipline. I’m having a hard time believing that someone who can describe CHILDREN in those words above can keep their ignorant mouth shut in other situations. So, I can see why this would be hostile. Then, the department should have required diversity and/or sensitivy training.
If there was nothing done on the job – no remarks, no posting/replying – then I don’t see how the department can be held liable. I am looking forward to hearing the outcome.
July 21st, 2009 at 3:39 pm
Oops.. My first sentence should be that nobody in a public position should be allowed to make racist comments… or anybody in a public position should NOT be allowed to make racist comments. I was re-working the wording on my sentence structure and just re-read it after posting! Sorry!
July 21st, 2009 at 3:52 pm
I definately believe that action can be taken as KP says “to discipline employees for off-duty conduct if that conduct harms the reputation of the company in any way”. I can’t think of much that would harm a police department more. We have all also heard of many cases where teachers we reprimanded, if not fired, for inappropriate activities outside of work.
At the very least these statements open the police officers individually to suits of discimination/harassment by people that they have arrested or investigated that are part the group that was discriminated against on the website.
July 21st, 2009 at 4:46 pm
I believe the law firm may be tying to overstep its bounds in this matter as it did with the swimming pool case that dealt more with being overwhelmed and overcrowded than the issue of racial preference. Any action to limit free speech is incorrect and beyound the scope of the employer. Yet their is a problem of serious harsh and unjust feelings against those living in the ghetto areas of the city. I believe the city needs to counter the trend through a serious effort in sensativity training and out reach programs.
July 21st, 2009 at 4:50 pm
As we all know, the moment you get coworkers together and something bad happens, it becomes a company issue. Informal happy hour gatherings at the local bar are harrassment claims waiting to happen.
If the website is accessible to the public at large without special logins and passwords and it is clear where the people posting on the site work, it blurs the separation between personal and work life.
Our company has policies regarding how employees conduct themselves outside of work. Our employees are also residents so they work and live in the same place. If our employee is drunk and belligerent after work during their personal time and the other residents see this person is drunk and belligerent, they are no longer just a random neighbor. By not doing anything about it, our company is seen as condoning that type of behavior in their employees even if the employee was not on the job when it happened.
I don’t like it when personal situations carry over to the work environment but there are reprocussions to a person’s actions and very little is private nowdays. If you put something out for the public to see, you need to be prepared for the public’s approval or disapproval.
If the website was a member only forum that was not public to anyone without a password and required members to log in to get access, then I do believe it is their private business under most circumstances. The moment coworkers are on the forum together, it starts to impact the workplace. If it was accessible to the public and it identified these people working for a specific police department, it is fair game and the employer has to keep the workplace and safe and non-hostile as possible.
How does everyone feel if it was a private forum that several coworkers participate in and one employee on the forum states they intend to physically harm or kill someone at work? Does it become a company issue if said in front of other employees outside the workplace? Is it ok if other employees don’t report harmful intent because it was said outside of work? What if employees report it to the company and the company doesn’t do anything because it was said outside of work? What if through the company’s inaction, someone dies? Does the company have the right to wash their hands of the situation because it was something said to other employees outside the workday during their personal time?
This is an extreme scenario but my point is, we don’t live in a bubble. Actions and words have reprocussions and with free speech comes responsibility and accountability for your words. You can put your words out for the world to see but to do so and not expect any reaction under those circumstances is foolish.
Patricia
July 21st, 2009 at 4:51 pm
I don’t think it’s an employer’s responsibility to police (parden the pun) their employees after hours behavior however I agree with DDC when they said the employer should pay attention to the character of the employees they employ. I wonder with the all these social networking programs such as Twitter, Facebook and My Space to name a few, if we won’t see more and more of this and that raises the question that is it discrimination not to hire someone based on their Facebook or My Space page? I as a person responsible for hiring candidates in my company would not hire someone who had something negative, racist or degrading on their personal networking page. I honestly don’t know how I would handle something that I found out after the fact. We also have to consider that what is offensive to one is not offensive to another…These are tough issues that unfortunately I don’t think there are definitive answers for; we all should make the best decisions possible based on what we know to be truth and when faced with obstacles we must do the right things. Maybe the creator of the website needs some sensitivity training…
July 21st, 2009 at 5:06 pm
I’m not sure how you can start monitoring all employees when they are not at work. If you are going to monitor what is said on a private website, why not put a camera in their home to make sure they are not beating their wife or kids? Should you have a breathalizer on their car to make sure they never have a drink and drive? Where does it end? There is only so much “big brother” can do to monitor “us”. I do not think the department is responsible. Did the other site users ask those who said the racial comments to stop? Maybe it would have been that easy to bring it to their attention. Maybe not. Most people will say online what they won’t say to someone’s face – remember that – and most will shut up if enough of the other site users say “knock it off”. While I completely agree that the comments were way off base, they were not illegal, just insensitive.
July 21st, 2009 at 6:06 pm
ATTORNEYS PREFER TO GO AFTER COMPANIES WITH DEEP POCKETS VERSUS ANY INDIVIDUAL WHO IS PROBABLY A MIDDLE INCOME EARNER. ONCE AGAIN ATTORNEYS AGITATE AND CREATE WHAT AN EMPLOYER SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR REGARDLESS.
July 21st, 2009 at 7:18 pm
Maybe non-European police officers or any other non-European governmental employees should start their own website and allow anti-European comments, jokes or hate posts. After all, according to the majority commenting on this site, it’s their time and it’s free speech. Right? They could start with Rush the Stupid Euro and go from there………..
July 21st, 2009 at 7:36 pm
Insensitive comments like the ones listed are really sad! I hate to hear this happened. That being said, we still have SOME rights to freedom of expression. If I were this HR group, I’d try to see if I could speak to the website’s organizer and see how we might work to fix this issue. However, legally, HR cannot and should not try to stop any legal activity from taking place. If the officers are commenting during work hours, then that is a problem. Otherwise, you can ask the site organizer to fix the issue but you can’t make him/her do so. I don’t believe that you can or should strictly control off-hour activities in this way. If you do this, then what’s next??? Unless you’re paying people for 24 hours a day of work time, then you can’t really monitor or restrict activity off the clock unless it’s somehow illegal. Freedom of expression isn’t always pretty but that’s the foundation of our country..like it or NOT. Slowly we are giving up our fundamental rights and that could spell disaster in our society. Just like we broke from England for lack of respect, the people will take action at some point if the freedoms aren’t upheld. Sensitivity training might help some of the more reasonable offenders to see the light..so try that. However, the others are acting off-duty.
July 22nd, 2009 at 7:34 am
As long as no on duty issues arise the off duty postings are off limits. If these same people bring the attitudes and practices onto the clock then firing is the answer. Just becasue two people who did not make the offensive posts discuss how they disagree with them on the clock does not make it work related. All things must be taken in context. Only things that affect a persons on duty ability to carry out there jobs should be considered for discipline. Don’t forget that not all that long ago gays were discriminated against using this very same reasoning. As long as it doesn’t affect on the clock performane and they keep it at home it is none of the employers business no matter how offensive it may be.
July 22nd, 2009 at 7:41 am
I apologize because I did not read all your commnets before I wrote this.
I guess the questions are who in the PPD was aware of the previous complaints about this website? Were any of the people who had knowledge managers or supervisors? If the answer is yes to any of these questions then the PPD should be held accountable. The behavior of the officers who posted or participated in the discusion is incongruent with what the tax paying public expects from law enforcement officials. Are policemen ever REALLY off-duty? They are armed when they are off-duty. They can identify themselves as police officers and make arrests when they are off-duty.
Not in the workplace??? Outside of work and on a site not affiliated with the employer??? I disagree. If these officers police Philidelphia, then anywhere in Philidelphia should be considered the workplace…including cyberspcace accessed from within Phildephia city limits. Can a trace be conducted to determine the locations of the sources who post while at work? Is it acceptable if they are posting from PPD owned computers while being paid by taxpayers?
I don’t know if shutting down the website or a lawsuit that pays damages to the complainant is the solution, but those officers invovled should be reprimanded for their behavior and informed that their conduct whether on or off duty should always reflect positively on the PD.
July 22nd, 2009 at 7:57 am
Officers are indeed off duty. Depending on the state if they are off duty they can not make areests as officers nor stop a fellow citizen. I was pulled by a detective who was off duty because he thought I should have dimmed my ligts as i came up behind him. No ticket as even he realized he was out of line bu he got a three day unpaid suspension out of it. Are we next going to say that officers can’t have a drink as theu are always on duty?? How about taking perscription drugs???? Police officers are indeed sometimes off duty and have lives just like you and I. We have not yet slipped into a 1984 mentality.
The employer is not responsible for actions by employees off the clock and as such should not be part of the lawsuit. It would be interesting to see if the officers involved were named as defendents as well or just the police force. this would be a telltale indicator if they are after money or really feel offended.
July 22nd, 2009 at 8:15 am
Well at least the officers now know how others think about them – or maybe they rather not know.
What is is country coming to? Perhaps the governments goal is to get rid of all employers (at least the small employers who happen to employ the majority of people), unless you are employed by the government.
July 22nd, 2009 at 8:18 am
Sandra Says:
July 21st, 2009 at 2:25 pm
“What should take place, is a character review of the officers who placed their comments on the web.”
So now we are going to start a witch hunt for people that we don’t agree with and conduct a character review that will have some kind of consequences? Are we going to review what they read, write, and think? The result will be if you speak your mind you could be fired?
I’m not picking on Sandra I’m just saying it is a very slippery slope here.
July 22nd, 2009 at 8:23 am
This website had been in existence for 9 years. Why only now is it being labled as a problem? What made it ok all this time and now suddenly it’s “harrassment” or “racist”? I would never go along with a supervisor who has let this kind of thing “slide” for any length of time and then when they are upset with the individual move to terminate them.
I have to say that I understand a lot of the reasons individuals in these postings have provided for disciplinary action. But I still feel that this is not something that should face a lawsuit nor do I feel the police department should be taking action against the officers.
I ask again if anyone actually read any of the postings or if this is a matter of not reading beyond the headlines.
July 22nd, 2009 at 8:43 am
It still comes down to the fact that even if the items in question are done “off duty”, if it affects the workplace and the relationships between co-workers, it now becomes an “on duty” problem. This is no different than a group of co-workers going out, one starts sexually harassing another, and now the co-worker that was the target of the harassment “off duty” cannot comfortably work with the alleged harasser. It has been determined that this type of off duty conduct, since it affected the relationship in the workplace, can be disciplined or even terminated. The conduct of the police officers should be no different.
July 22nd, 2009 at 9:01 am
It appears that freedom of speech has been eliminated in this country therefore I have one thing to say, all you other people who have responded to this article shut up do not print another word or I will have you fired from your job and sent to jail.
July 22nd, 2009 at 9:33 am
If the comments were made on Facebook or Twitter and were racist against the employer, would there be a case? There was a very similar story a few weeks ago about a superviosr which an employee had blasted on Facebook. This also caused office tension. Could that employee be disciplined for their actions? Everyone defended the employees “freedom of speech” on a social site even though it caused issues in the office.
I for one do not want to monitor our employees free time and actions.
July 22nd, 2009 at 9:36 am
for me round 2….still sticking with the three key points.
1. Still say it didn’t have to be legal, had the employed addressed it at the beginning (as in my previous posting) but ignoring it for 9 years its amazing it took that long.
2. Let’s just take the medium (the internet) out of the discussion and say that the “blogger” is an editor for a book composed of essays from members of the Philadelphia police force–and that their comments thinly veiled or blatantly racist are included–no one would question that the Employer would address this issue. Absolutely doesn’t matter where the behavior takes place–if it its serious indiscretion or often enough that’s its impacting a company (results or relationships)–they should be able to deal with it.
3. If this was a group of engineers on this blog making these comments about Asian/Indian engineers and their company started losing business–think their employer should ignore since its on their own time?
Agreed that some employers expect a certain set of behaviors standards that might reflect on the organization. Not every little thing, but certainly major and/or consistent poor judgment calls. It’s called public service for a reason, and if you can’t abide by the professionalism, judgment and mindset required, you do have a choice–find another employer.
July 22nd, 2009 at 9:52 am
An employer cannot hold an employee responsible for comments, opinions made off the work site no matter how ignorant the comments are. HOWEVER, if comments are posted by employees on said work site during working hours. . . .I’ll see you in my office.
For the other officers reading the comments during working hours. . . I’ll see you in my office.
July 22nd, 2009 at 10:53 am
If the writers are identifying themselves as police officers, then it does become the business of the department. This is a public forum, not a private correspondence. Being a racist in private would be as abhorrent, it just would not as easily come to the depts. attention. Once the dept is made aware of this situation, it must be addressed as a work related issue. More frightening are all the comments above referring to activities that take place off the clock, on personal computers. If an officer is a racist on line on his or her own time, why would anyone trust that officer to be unbiased on duty?
July 22nd, 2009 at 10:59 am
People are entitled to their own opinion no matter how much others may disagree. Once that opinion is made public and reflects your company and possibly breaks a non-disclosure agreenment ex: talking about the children in the Swim Club Case. At this point, if the company or their boss was made aware of the situation and did not put a stop to it, if this is the case…..This could be nothing but trouble.
July 22nd, 2009 at 11:47 am
We lost our off hours freedom when the one employer got away with firing an employee who
smoked at home.
Also, they did access the site during work hours. The company will be held responsible.
July 22nd, 2009 at 12:21 pm
Why not ask the African-American, Asian-American and other minority police officers whether they feel discriminated against by this website. If they do not see it, then it is their own business and no one else should have a case against the police officers who want to use this site as an outlet for the type of abuse they get from all sorts of law breaking people (minorities included).
It is getting pretty pathetic out there. Criminals now can sue for how they are treated when they commit a felony. They can murder, assault and rob law abiding citizens, but the moment an officer (any ethnic group) does his job and takes the perpetrator off the streets by what ever force necessary, the felon gets an attorney and sues. What a twisted country we live in!
Look at all the comments above. Some are very thought provoking, but others are pure nonsense. Are we going to sue those people who write comments that we might find offensive? Where is the protection of freedom of speech?
July 22nd, 2009 at 1:18 pm
I would agree if the officers are going to the site on “work time” there is an issue to address. If they mention the specific police department and make comments there is an issue to address. If they are on their own time and there is no reference to a specific police department, precinct, etc they have a right to freedom of speech. There are all kinds of minorities and all kinds of people. While I don’t agree with everything everyone says, I’ve yet to meet a perfect person. There are also various societies among the population; some of them who keep their membership secretive…some of those who have minority members….Companies can not be liable for everything their employees do on their own time….nor do they want to! Let me think…..has anyone written anything in response to one of these articles that someone could be offended by? Would you think they should be able to sue one of our Companies?????? Food for thought.
July 22nd, 2009 at 1:29 pm
The smoking at home thing is a little bit different. That is a condition of employment that the employee is made aware of up front and will typically sign an affidavit indicating they do not use tobacco products. Free speech is a protected activity by the Constitution.
July 22nd, 2009 at 1:36 pm
What about the claim HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT? If an employee says that these statements are causing a hostile work environment, and they fear for their well being, then HR is legally required to investigate further, at which point it becomes an employer related issue.
Should the lawsuit take place? Absolutely not, but there should be actions taken against the police that were participating during business hours, and or, making racial comments that are affecting the well being of their co-workers.
July 22nd, 2009 at 1:55 pm
First of all, if you are hired as a public servant it is your duty to uphold the law – period, you don’t have the luxury of deciding which laws to uphold and which to break. Harassment against protected classes is illegal, not just ignorant. If these officers have those feelings, they should look for another line of work. If they publish statements and it comes back to their employer, it should negatively affect their careers. Now if the employer is presented with a complaint, it is their responsibility to investigate the complaint. If the officers are making those comments during on duty time – and the comments rise to the level of harassment – they should be disciplined; if the officers can be identified as making the comments even if on their own time – discipline or coaching depending on the situation; but if the officers are not identifiable – then maybe the employer just needs to conduct anti-harassment training for their employees and that’s all they can do. Document-document-document: all of this – though disagreeable is much less toxic and costly than litigation.
July 22nd, 2009 at 2:34 pm
This is certainly a good topic and the discussion thought provoking but, I’m sorry – I think this has become way too embellished. They now fear for their well-being (as in bodily harm?!)? I thought the premise was that they found it offensive which led to discomfort to being around each other. I certainly hope that those officers filing the suit never speak about others outside of their group in a deragatory way.
And as to the harassment comment regarding “protected classes” – shouldn’t ALL classes be respectful of each other? Are you saying white males are fair game for whatever comes along? Geez!
You cannot mandate feelings. You can ask for sensitivity. You can also question if the career choice is a good one given viewpoints and how they carry out the duties of their position. You can explain the consequences of actions.
July 22nd, 2009 at 2:48 pm
Linda – I’m surprised you don’t understand what I’m referring too. All “classes” should be respectful to each other as you say (wouldn’t that be a great world), but these are protected by law: race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, disability, and age. If you are in an employment situation and this type of harassment occurs and you as an employer do not address it, see ya in court. And it makes no difference if you are a white male harassed by a female supervisor, or a black police officer harassed by white police officers.
July 22nd, 2009 at 2:59 pm
In reading the article:
1) The site was created in 2000 by a Sergeant of the Philadelphia PD.
2) The department had been notified in the past of racially sensitive remarks made by officers.
3) The law suite alleges the officers had commented on the site while on duty.
My concerns are that these are individuals whose lives literally depend on each other. If they’re caught in the middle of a gun fight and there’s hatred between them, how can either be confident that the other has his/her back? As some have already stated, the department should have held sensitivity training or taken some similar action whenever it was first brought to their attention.
My other concern is the community. What is their confidence level now in their police department?
The officer who created the site is not to blame. His intent was to create a forum whereby police officers (and fire department personnel) could hold discussions and share ideas relevant to their line of work.
July 22nd, 2009 at 3:25 pm
I keep seeing “sensitivity training” as the end all be all answwer to the issue. The % of people who respond in a meaningful way to this training is small. It may modify their actions some but it will rarely cure the issue.
But this is not the real question. Should the police force be in the law suit? Could they realistically be expected to alter the off duty actions of their members? Can they legally require the off duty officers to modify thier actions? I see no question with on duty behavior. it is mentioned that some officers accessed the site while on duty. The question is did these same officers engage in harrasment while on the job by posting racilally charged comment WHILE ON DUTY. If yes, dicipline the hell out of them and be done AND the police force has a problem legally if they knowingly allowed this to continue. If no then the fact that the site was accessed on duty is a red herring. No one forced the officers in question to access the web site. If they found it offensive they can go elsewhere on the web. Plenty of web sites out there. You can’t file suit against a website because you find it objectionable. Why? because no one forces you to go there. This again sounds like a frivolious lawsuit.
July 22nd, 2009 at 4:06 pm
I agree – the “claim” is that the site was accessed during working hours/while on duty. If this is indeed the case, then there is probably a policy in place about Internet usage (in which case BOTH sides of the suit should be held accountable if they did not follow policy). Otherwise, I believe we still are under the assumption that an individual is innocent until proven guilty.
July 22nd, 2009 at 4:52 pm
Yes, I believe the employer is responsible for promoting a non hostile work environment. Police Officers should be role models and exemplar employees. This type of behavior is demeaning to the police force. Even though the site is maintained during non-work hours it is still damaging to their positions and reputations. It’s unfortunate that these types of discussions are still occuring in this day and age. All boils down to ignorace and insecurity.
July 22nd, 2009 at 8:20 pm
Given that these are police officers whose attitudes directly affect their ability to protect and serve the communities – minority and nonminority
July 24th, 2009 at 9:44 am
Whether it is a personal website or not – if updates are being done by police personnel during work hours then the department should be held liable for not doing anything about it. This behavior does promote a hostile work environment. How can anyone be a police officer and have racist tendencies????? Police officers are sworn to protect the public – all of the public! I think it is ridiculous that these officers are still working. This is the reason why kids are brought up to fear police rather than ask them for help. It is such a shame and such a waste of time. I guess this is one of those situations where we realize that police are not perfect or 100% trustable either.
July 30th, 2009 at 9:29 am
Let’s think about this for a min. If we make the employer responsible for off time conduct, then the employer should have authority over the employee 24/7. Now that we have given the employer this authority over you and your life, what action can they tell you to stop or you’re fired? Maybe, boy scouts, or how about going to a different church, playing base ball, or how about hunting, reading books you pick you hobby.
With this said now I am and employee and you have al this control over me, should I not get the same benefits off or as while I am at work. I get hurt while play base ball and the employee did not stop I should be able to get work comp for my off time injury. Yes?
Does this mean if I deliver new paper and the news paper write a column about let’s say gods is bad so now people that know me as being a Christian start call me a names can I file suit now. After all there my employer.
So where does my life start and my employer stop?
July 30th, 2009 at 11:14 am
Well, let’s think about what was written in the article:
1) It is alleged the some of the officers DID go to this site while on the job. If nothing else, that could be considered misuse of departmental resources.
2) It is alleged that these negative discussions HAVE come into the workplace, thus creating the hostile work environment.
Some have said that those being offended by the comments shouldn’t visit the site. The intent behind the site was to create a forum whereby officers could discuss matters of law enforcement, and they could share ideas even with members of other precincts who they may rarely get to interact with otherwise. The officers who made the idiotic remarks were obviously identifiable, but didn’t care who saw their comments and did not care that anyone else knew how they felt, including their superiors and fellow officers. -Lack of respect- Since the department did nothing when they were made aware of the matter, these officers were comfortable making any derogatory remarks that came from their hearts–”… as a man speaketh …”
August 24th, 2009 at 5:30 pm
The article indicated that the site was created by an police officer to talk about crime, news, etc. While I think the comments are reprehensible–the individual posting the comments did not direct them specifically at “law enforcement officers”. Perhaps there were other comments that referred to officers directly, however, the comments listed were directed at a specific minority group, i.e., the comment about the children. There should be a discussion with the officer(s) involved. But I would have to say that it might be hard to call this harassment or hostile work environment. I think this is really, really gray. Had the poster been referring to officers directly or even naming law enforcement individuals–then I would say yes, that could be considered harassment or hostile work environment. While my first response is to say–this is totally inappropriate–I would have to consider–someone expressing their personal opinions about a minority group on their own time–that is not exactly the same thing.
August 25th, 2009 at 4:53 pm
While free speech is our inalienable right, it can be taken way too far.
Civil servants are warned on a regular basis not to participate in conduct that will bring infamy to their departments or agencies. Of all people, police officers should know the importance of the warning and move to protect and obtain public trust.
Since the site was specifically for the law enforcement community, it is only natural that officers of all races and genders would read and comment. If derogatory posts are made in public places, they should expect nothing less than hostility, not only from their co-workers, but from the public they are supposed to be serving.
While I don’t believe the department should be held accountable, I certainly believe the owner of the site should be counseled. He should ask his colleagues to not post such horrific comments and warn that inappropriate content will be censored. I most certainly would, if for no other reason than to cover my own posterior and try to prevent more hostilities with my colleagues.
August 27th, 2009 at 12:30 pm
The employer is clearly involved now and have been involved in the past. This site has disrupted the work environment and the performance of employees. It has created hostility between the employees and their rights to attend work are compromised by those they know that are in fact discriminatory. The lawsuit will take it’s course and the offenders along with the employer will be judged. The employer will need to take steps that are non-discriminatory to resolve the matter and use meditation and training to prevent further misunderstandings on their part of “not” taking action to protect the law and their employees. Of course their attorney will give them legal advice to follow including how to get a handle of the site’s contents with the owner/employee.
August 27th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
One must think about what this will mean to you work site. How many of you monitor your employee’s off duty actives? I do not condone any discriminatory. But if this becomes the law of the land, one could say employees that are part of any group that another employee fined discriminatory could make it a hostile work environment. How many of you are part of boy scout, a church, or a swim club. Think about a team photo of you swim time on your team web site now become a sexual hostile work environment. You post you and yours kids hunting trip on line now you have brought guns in to the work place it a hostile work place. Just how many think you can track the active of every one of your employees to make sure they do not post something that’s wrong. Or how many of you think you have employee when you put out policy that you are taking control over off duty work time.
August 28th, 2009 at 12:16 am
The employer is not out to get neither you nor what you do on your own time. It is basically what negatively “affects” the operations of the business and the performance of the employees. There are blog policies out there that are related to the work environment. You can go to church or be part of a swim club without any worries or problems. However if you sexually harass someone at work or bring a photo of yourself in a bikini and show it off to employees, you could offend someone, that’s inappropriate; that’s clearly wrong. Similarly if you bring bigotry to work, it becomes a workplace issue. Respect others and your personal life is respected.
August 28th, 2009 at 12:17 am
The employer is not out to get neither you nor what you do on your own time. It is basically what negatively “affects” the operations of the business and the performance of the employees. There are blog policies out there that are related to the work environment. You can go to church or be part of a swim club without any worries or problems. However if you sexually harass someone at work or bring a photo of yourself in a bikini and show it off to employees, you could offend someone, that’s inappropriate; that’s clearly wrong. Similarly if you bring bigotry to work, it becomes a workplace issue. Respect others and your personal life is respected.