Search:

Custom Search

Readers' Comments

Total Comments: 68
Page 1 of 6

« Previous | Next »

"John Doe" Fired After Taping Sexual Encounters With Co-Workers; Court Sends Case Back to MSPB

FBI =

Examiner
Treasury Department
Thu May 14, 2009 7:08 PM

Post Reply

F.emale
B.ody
I.nspector

Guess he had his acronyms confused.

Court got it right

Claims Rep Mesa AZ
SSA
Thu May 14, 2009 10:40 PM

Post Reply

The FBI acted appropriately according to what they knew. But only because it was not against the law is it not appropriate to fire him on this issue alone.

The fundamental problem is that videotaping anyone without consent SHOULD BE minimally criminal, and if one publicizes such material (which he did not), then it should be a crime.

He cannot be held responsible for what other people do with information that he did not authorize or intend to be made public, especially rumor mongers. General employees have a right to be upset to the extent that his behavior reflects on all employees, which is minimal, but certainly not to the point of disruption.

The non-consenting woman should have a civil case against him, and be able to file an employer complaint against him.

He deserves punishment and a serious reprimand. His actions were dishonest and should be criminal.

However, as a pilot and because it was not against the law, he should not be fired.

Re: Court got it right

Nobody
USDA
Fri May 15, 2009 2:13 PM
Based on this arguement, it then is a criminal act to use survalance cameras at stop lights to photograph lisence plates, use cameras in police cars to record traffic stops and for store owners and home owners to use survalance cameras for the purpose of recording theft and robbery. The arguement sound good and makes us feel good to not allow this to happen however, we can not legislate morality. We must examine this type of thing before we allow it to be used for the good of the public. I believe that this type of behavior is a personal choice and that Doe will have to answer to a higher authority in the future.

Re: Court got it right

worker
Fed
Fri May 15, 2009 2:31 PM
Good point. I agree.
Is it possile that management did not like him and decided this was a vehicle to punish him?

Re: Court got it right

Claims Rep Mesa AZ
SSA
Sun May 17, 2009 8:00 PM
RE: NOBODY USDA:

There is a HUGE difference between cameras in PUBLIC places where your expectation of privacy does not exist since you are in generally in open view,
and for the express purpose of catching those who break the law,
and which are not used to catch you in embarrassing moments;
and which even if they do accidentally catch in embarrassing moments are not sold or publicized;

I only 1000 characters to make several points. Please take the comment in the context in which it was made. Videotaping others in private without their consent.

Re: Court got it right

el tech
noaa
Wed May 20, 2009 2:09 PM
get real; he did nothing wrong i.e. having sex is legal and a lot of fun.

Nexus vs. Right to Privacy

Criminal Investigator
Department of Defense
Thu May 14, 2009 10:42 PM

Post Reply

If this agent did not commit a crime, what gives his employer (the FBI) the right or authority to investigate and question him about what he does in the privacy of his own bedroom? Does the FBI now stand for "Federal Bedroom Investigators"? I would hate to see federal employers be given the OK to be the morality police.

I'm glad to see that the Federal Circuit understands the potential perils when the government attempts to deliver a stern sermon on sexual ethics. This case could have lasting implications as to how far the government can peek under our bedsheets to insure federal employees are worthy of the property interests that they have in their careers. This case sounds very "Hoover-esque" to me.

Re: Nexus vs. Right to Privacy

Manager
Defense
Fri May 15, 2009 2:14 PM
Criminal Investigator you are spot on! I couldn't say it better!

Re: Nexus vs. Right to Privacy

worker
Fed
Fri May 15, 2009 2:35 PM
The issue is not the sexual activity. The issue is recording the sexual activity without consent of the partner. I thought that was illegal. It is definitely immoral. I do not know if it is materially criminal enough to have the person fired.
I think the agent should be disciplined for recording the activity. He should also be sued. Fired might be too harsh.

Good Decision (Almost)

Mr. McFeebee
Treetops
Fri May 15, 2009 6:43 AM

Post Reply

When I first read this case clinging high in the treetops I had doubts. Perhaps the dissent was more correct than the majority. I don't see how it's fair to allow the agency a second chance at articulating nexus. Maybe they won't be allowed to. Maybe the Board alone will get a chance to be creative. Thinking out loud here, MSPB will need to conclude how an FBI agent, as opposed to a truck driver, or payroll clerk etc. cannot be trusted to hold his position given his camera proclivity. This will take some work and will involve exploring the agent's specific duties and what contacts he makes with people in the course of doing his job. If the MSPB can conclude that the agent has a pattern of surreptitious behavior and that pattern can jeopardize his ability to work cases by undermining confidence in his work, they might have a go of it. But if that is not in the record now, MSPB can't just speculate on that I don't think.

EAP Messed Up

Benefits Specialist
CBP
Fri May 15, 2009 8:25 AM

Post Reply

Everyone is missing the point here. Yes he was wrong in video tapping without consent, no question. However, the major point for me in this article is the leak in the EAP office. How are employees at this agency suppose feel confident in seeking assistance when they run the very real risk of having their private issues spread throughout the agency. I thought EAP offices were a source of confidential assistance with personal issues.

If charges are to be brought, it definitely should be with the staff of that EAP office.

Re: EAP Messed Up

Director
USDA
Fri May 15, 2009 8:42 AM
It's possible the EAP didn't mess up and the person that WENT TO the EAP for counseling decided to discuss it over the proverbial coffee talk. Shame Shame!

Oh wait, gossip doesn't happen in the Federal system. People that work side-by-side to not talk personal situations or assist each other in creating problems in the workplace.

I am not saying guilty or non-guilty on this. Honestly, bad judgement on his part but did it interfere with his ability to do his job? He's a dummy and his actions prove it.

Re: EAP Messed Up

Analyst
HUD
Fri May 15, 2009 8:51 AM
My thoughts exactly! An investigation should begin with the individual who facilitated their counseling session and go from there. He probably could end up suing the EAP for breaking their own confidentiality clause.

Re: EAP Messed Up

Administrative Professional
DOJ
Fri May 15, 2009 10:41 AM
This is exactly why I will never confide in any of the EAP counselors. The ones in my office are the people with the biggest mouths! Nothing told to them stays confidential.

Re: EAP Messed Up

Mr. McFeebee
Treetops
Fri May 15, 2009 11:33 AM
Stick to benefits. The point is: did the violation he was charged with have nexus to the efficiency of the service. Period. Court told MSPB to go have a look see to determine if agency proved nexus. Period. No nexus = no chargeable offense.

Re: EAP Messed Up

Scientist
EPA
Mon May 18, 2009 6:06 AM
I've heard that what is said in EAP is never really confidential, but how do you know victim #1 didn't blab to one of her friends in the agency?

Employee Assistance Program

Officer
DOJ
Fri May 15, 2009 8:41 AM

Post Reply

Good for John Doe. What action is being taken against the EAP Counselor, who undoubtedly began the leak of info. about Doe's personal life and issues with Female #1? We are told every year in training that this EAP is confidential and no info. about you and the help you are receiving will ever become public knowledge. Yeah, Right! I think Mr. Doe would disagree with that statement. As do I. However, as far as the video taping without the knowledge or consent of the woman involved, that should come with some type of disciplinary action. "Not to the point of firing"!

Re: Employee Assistance Program

Mr. McFeebee
Treetops
Fri May 15, 2009 11:29 AM
If there is no nexus there should be no discipline. Please don't confuse whether actionable misconduct took place with the penalty determination. They are 2 different concepts. Without the first (misconduct that is detrimental to the efficiency of the service--that requires nexus) there can be no penalty determination.

trust and confidentiality

n/a
n/a
Fri May 15, 2009 9:08 AM

Post Reply

Where is the trust and confidentiality of the EAP. This is yet another example of why you can't trust anyone. They all stab you in the back!!! Spread unneccessary rumors to make themselves look better. EAP is at FAULT here. Regardless, if you agree or disagree with his actions outside of work to videotape is not a basis to be fired. EAP is wrong. Those individuals that spread the rumors should mind their own business. The women that were wrongly taped and offended should be taking their issues (civil matter) with the one that leaked the information.

Re: trust and confidentiality

IRS Agent
IRS
Mon May 18, 2009 10:42 AM
Did anyone catch the fact that female # 1 who verbally agreed to be taped, enter John Doe's house when he wasn't there, looked through his personal belongings, found the tapes and confronted him. Anything wrong with that picture if they were not living together? She may have committed the crime, breaking and entering etc if they were not living together. She may have leaked the info that contributed to the agency's actions. Alot of maybes but.... Alot of people take pictures, some of which may be nude and embarassing if made public. How many readers have taken photos of a riske nature? Some may be award winning art. It is all in the eye of the beholder and what happened to the pics. If he released them without the consent of those involved, there is a serious issue, maybe criminal, probably civil for sure. If they were of an underage person and forwarded, bang, jail time. But remember from the facts, he didn't release the pics nor did he start the rumors.
Total Comments: 68
Page 1 of 6

« Previous | Next »

Add a Comment about this Article

** All fields are required.
Note: Your comments will not show up right away. FedSmith.com selects the most insightful comments from our readers for posting. If selected, your comments will show up in the comments section after they have been reviewed and approved. See our terms of use for more information.