Taking Liberties
October 9, 2009 2:48 AM

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.

Update 1:19 p.m. ET Fri: A reader who works at a Silicon Valley startup with pro-gun management just sent me this e-mail message, which jokes: "Actually, at [startup name deleted] we have a very firm policy that we audit our employees' browsing logs, and anyone found not to be browsing gun sites on a regular basis is disciplined."




Declan McCullagh is a correspondent for CBSNews.com. He can be reached at declan@cbsnews.com. You can bookmark the Taking Liberties site here, or subscribe to the RSS feed.
Tags:
internet
Topics:
Gun Rights
Share:
  • Share
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Mixx
Add a Comment See all 59 Comments
by Mongo5150 October 30, 2009 10:09 AM EDT
I pro second amendment, however when you are at your place of employment you should not be surfing the web for personal use. Do your job and surf at home.
Reply to this comment
by Hosheen October 30, 2009 9:02 AM EDT
I hope this man succeeds in suing the company and that amazingly stupid supervisor until they both are bankrupt forever.

This is a clear case of one person imposing her personal politics on another. I hope she rots in hell.
Reply to this comment
by OIF_to_USC October 13, 2009 12:44 PM EDT
Well said pws54. According to the U.S. Justice Department's own Bureau of Justice Statistics, where there are armed law abiding citizens and where law abiding citizens are allowed to carry concealed weapons in 45+ states, violent crimes have sharply plunged. Where violence is still high are in places like college campuses, shopping malls, and work places where concealed weapons are still not allowed. I guess there are still some dimwits out there who would rally around Sarah Brady, Charles Schumer and the other blithering anti-gun hand wringers who would outlaw self defense. Hey Planco and Hartford Insurance, wake up. The country sees your bias for what it is.
Reply to this comment
by bill0bob October 30, 2009 9:06 AM EDT
"blah, blah, blah", from the NRA, courtesy of OIF_to_USC

And PROPERTY CRIMES have dramatically INCREASED in that same time period! So it can't be all those guns that make the difference. Also, violent crime was going down EVERYWHERE over the same time period. But you're too blind and biased to even notice that!
by OIF_to_USC October 13, 2009 12:29 PM EDT
What a crock. It is obvious to any labor attorney that this company was just looking, and looking really hard, to unsaddle themselves from the medical claim that the victim employee had due to his hospitalization. Almost every employee with access to a computer clicks in and out of different sites, most not as innocent as the Mossberg site. In spite of the initial court ruling, this employee has an excellent case. I just hope that he is working now and has the time to pursue it. Perhaps NRA or some other entity will step in and follow suit.
Reply to this comment
by imalexdude October 12, 2009 3:25 AM EDT
This sounds like a clear case of discrimination unless this company intends to fire every single employee that browsed the web for personal reasons. It is just disgusting what these hideous anti-gun freaks will do when they think they can get away with it. If they are so scared of living in a country with freedom they can always move to Cuba or China. Why stay here?
Reply to this comment
by Crispus Attuks October 10, 2009 9:15 AM EDT
It is becomming obvious if you follow the logic;

Leftist=Progressive=Big central government+Loss of individuality=Communism

Conservative=Individual liberty+Freedom+RESPONSABILITY=American

you can't be an American and believe in a totally controlling Central Government, so it boils down to either you are an American or a Communist. To be an American you have to believe in American Ideals and principles. This is not open for changing the definitions to be an American while un-American in principle.

Which one are you?




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Universal Leftist Creed: DECEIVE TO ACHIEVE
Reply to this comment
by hoggenderby October 10, 2009 12:09 AM EDT
Love the stuart-johns posts. So well thought out, no ignorant name calling or moronic generalizations. The comic relief is great next to the serious posts.
Reply to this comment
by FuzzyBear007 October 9, 2009 9:27 PM EDT
One would think that a company like Planco would have an EAP, where Christie Vazquez could get help to overcome her hoplophobia and paranoia.

I'm not in favor of discriminating against the mentally ill, but her condition seems to be interfering with her ability to do her job properly.
Reply to this comment
by cowboy357 October 9, 2009 3:09 PM EDT
How dare he, and taking his wife shooting, what a rat.

Too bad he's not a great American like Dave Letterman or the famous B.J. ( I know it's William Jefferson but he is known as "BIll")Clinton. He could than be donkindonkin subordinates on company time.....
Reply to this comment
by InterestedReader October 9, 2009 1:11 PM EDT
Clearly, the author of this article is not attorney because it is evident that he does not understand the heavy burden a plaintiff must meet to prove discrimination. I doubt he even read the opinion, because he fails to mention the numerous other bases for Mr. Jackson's firing, and thus the basis for the Court's opinion. He neglected to mention the number of poor work performances and animosity towards his employer.

Secondly - here's a little unknown fact that may affect your reading of this article - MR. JACKSON WORKED AT THE INQUIRER FOR SEVERAL YEARS. Which means, yes, folks, the author of this article is probably Mr. Jackson's pesonal friend - which in turns explains the one sided nature of this article.

For the rational intelligent persons reading this article, and for the ones who happened to read the well-written opinion, I hope that you can see through this ruse.

Mr. McCullagh, this is poor reporting, shame on you.
Reply to this comment
by declanm-2009 October 28, 2009 5:42 PM EDT
Contrary to your inventive theory, I had never heard of Mr. Jackson until I wrote about this case.
by hrcohen October 9, 2009 12:23 PM EDT
Oh for the days when employees were encouraged to write computer games for the mainframe (as a means of increasing computer skills) and nudes were printed out in complex alphanumeric designs along with renderings of Mona Lisa.

A request to the employee probably would have sufficed.

It may have been a mistake to bring the health issues in to the picture when it would be difficult to prove proximate cause, if that is the correct term.

I would be interested in hearing how this affects The Hartford customer relationships. I doubt that Hartford refuses insurance to persons who own guns.

Surely sufficient sympathetic shooters shall show chagrin by threatening to cancel their policies.
Reply to this comment
by jackburtonsr October 9, 2009 11:23 AM EDT
Guns owners are disrespectful of authority. A failure to rely on authorities is an invariable sign of improper and overly independent attitudes. The mere fact that they gather together to talk about guns at gun shops, gun shows, and shooting ranges means that they have some plot going against us normal people. A gun owner has no right to associate with another gun owner.

Therefore, to help ensure our right to happiness and safety we must ban and seize all guns from private hands, and forbid NRA-based criticism towards people who are only trying to help. Searching the homes of all NRA members and seizing their guns will go a long way towards reducing crime.

If we need help doing this we can invite people like the Australians and Norweigans to help rummage through people's property.

People who don't like this prove they are on the side of the killers with the guns and should be put in jail along side all the gangbangers and other gun nuts. Letting them sit in jail for a few years before they are charged will give the government plenty of time to find something wrong in their lives. Anything they say, write, or express should be held against them to prove their guilt.

Common sense requires only uniformed soldiers, police, and other agents of the state have access to firearms and no person should be able to challenge this by writing to Congress or the President. If they do they should be forced in court to admit to it and then fined a hundred million dollars for each time. Subjecting them to torture will probably change their minds.

No woman needs to protect herself from rape, assault or murder and should just leave crime prevention to the Police who are properly equipped to investigate following the crime's completion. Women using a gun in self-defense interferes with and makes the attempted crime a "non-event," which unnecessarily complicates the Police investigation. Any woman who does this should be put in jail for interfering with an investigation.

If someone still really, really thinks they have a need for a gun in their home for protection then the Army should just force them to host and feed some armed soldiers.

Those who claim that the 2nd amendment was given to because we might someday need guns to use against an oppressive government forget that Constitution has strong internal safeguards to protect our freedoms. So there!

Long live our Constitution!
Reply to this comment
by ce3onrt66 October 10, 2009 12:22 PM EDT
And you probably have your wife's permission to say all of that. Now, go finish the dishes.
by IA1776USMC October 11, 2009 2:51 AM EDT
It is obvious from you hate filled, dilusional, disrespectful comments that you do not have the slightest understanding of the US Constitution. Law Abiding Gun Owners are very respectful of authority. However, I wouldn't expect you to understand that. From your worthless comments here I would say you are the one who has no respect for authority. How about this, lets take something that you are interested in, a hobby or whatever and lets do to you every single irrational, disrespectful thing that you think should be done to law abiding gun owners and see how you like it. Your irresponsible, disrespectful, ignorant comments are a waste of everyone's time. Instead of attacking gun owners you should spend some time reading the US Constituion. When you write "Long Live our Constitution", I don't what what constitution you are referring to but it is definitely not the U.S. Constiution. Everything you are advocating in your comments are the type of things that happen in a Tyranical, Communist or Socialist Nation. If that is the kind of rules you like so much than perhaps you should move to North Korea or Cuba or China. I curious how old you are. Your comments lead me to believe you are not an adult.
by IA1776USMC October 11, 2009 2:59 AM EDT
Another thing. It is blatantly obvious that you are on the side of the criminals out there b/c you clearly believe in protecting them. Just because you don't want to defend yourself doesn't mean you can impose your will on others and not allow them to protect themselves. I thank god that people like you are such a small minority in this country. Now go take your medications.
by One_Smart_Man October 11, 2009 8:12 PM EDT
Sorry Jack, It is apparent that the others who replied to you have the Sarcasm Filter turned on and it filtered out your intent.
Good on ya!
by msmith20061972 October 11, 2009 10:12 PM EDT
Jack,

Please accept my apologies if I missed the sarcasm in your comments. I read some of the other comments left on this article by those bleeding heart gun hating liberals and got a little worked up. Let my comments only apply to them and not to you. Again, I apologise to you .
by Void_Master October 9, 2009 11:04 AM EDT
by jackp32 October 9, 2009 9:53 AM EDT

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The employer's action to fire this guy for misuse of their computer system seems to be an appropriate action. His looking up parts on a company computer has nothing to do with the right to keep and bear arms, which I fully support.

***

I agree that this is not a second amendment issue. My point is and has been, if the guy in the next cubicle had been looking up auto parts, would they have fired him too? If not then what they did was discrimination.
Reply to this comment
by bubbadubba October 9, 2009 10:39 AM EDT
Every company I know of prohibits people from going on line and goofing off while on the payroll in fact many block people from going to sites not related to their job.
The guy was goofing off, I would have fired him too and I have a lot of guns. He didn't get paid to shop online.
Reply to this comment
by jackp32 October 9, 2009 9:56 AM EDT
The letter "J" is the first letter of the word "Jerk."
Reply to this comment
by jackp32 October 9, 2009 9:53 AM EDT
"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The employer's action to fire this guy for misuse of their computer system seems to be an appropriate action. His looking up parts on a company computer has nothing to do with the right to keep and bear arms, which I fully support.
Reply to this comment
by Zowwyy October 9, 2009 9:41 AM EDT
Again the COMPANY gets away with an illegal firing. That man wasn't a threat and the company knew it.
Reply to this comment
by Void_Master October 9, 2009 9:23 AM EDT
So what's up with the letter J?
Reply to this comment
by book_of_wally October 9, 2009 9:40 AM EDT
I dont know and dont want to ask. :)
by ce3onrt66 October 10, 2009 12:14 PM EDT
I suspect the letter J remark is a variation on a theme from an old George Carlin routine. In the days of college/Viet Nam/Draft riots Carlin had a routine about taking hostages:

"We want a million dollars. We want a car to take us to the airport. We want an airplane fueled and ready. And we want the letter M deleted from the alphabet.
"You've always got to have one unreasonable demand."

Do as you will with that information. (I'm a life member of the official national gun nut club and its equivalent national knife nut club (kniferights.org). And probably a lot more that you don't want to know about.)
by book_of_wally October 9, 2009 9:20 AM EDT
My company has blocked all websites that they dont want me to go to like porn, gambling, and anything beginning with the letter J.
Reply to this comment
by Void_Master October 9, 2009 9:16 AM EDT
by stuart-johns2 October 9, 2009 9:11 AM EDT

And he does'nt have a job to stand behind anymore now does he. Nevermind about anyone else. He's guilty period. Why is that so hard to accept? He violated company policy. Is he guilty? YES! End of story neo-con. LOL I love it!

***

Interesting -- and sad -- how you derive such joy in that man losing his livelihood simply because you disagree with something about his world view.
Reply to this comment
See all 59 Comments

About Taking Liberties

Declan McCullagh's iconoclastic take on politics, the economy, and individual rights. (Iconoclast: From Medieval Latin "iconoclastes," and from Middle Greek "eikonoklast's," meaning image destroyer.) Sample topics: economy, politics, interviews, free speech, property rights, gun rights, lessons in economics, individual rights, interviews, technology, features.

Add to your favorite news reader
google
yahoo
msn
  • MOST POPULAR