Free Email Newsletter
| Close | Change | YTD | |
| G | $13.2068 | +0.0035 | +0.67% |
| F | $13.6034 | +0.0087 | +2.02% |
| C | $13.6990 | +0.0063 | +3.64% |
| S | $17.9053 | -0.0670 | +8.77% |
| I | $18.3571 | -0.1731 | -0.97% |
| Close | Change | YTD | |
| L 2040 | $16.1066 | -0.0408 | +3.02% |
| L 2030 | $15.8797 | -0.0339 | +2.71% |
| L 2020 | $15.6688 | -0.0268 | +2.28% |
| L 2010 | $15.4289 | -0.0062 | +1.37% |
| L Income | $14.0606 | -0.0041 | +1.30% |
"John Doe" Fired After Taping Sexual Encounters With Co-Workers; Court Sends Case Back to MSPB
Home | About Us | FAQ's |
Site Map | Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
RSS 
|
Twitter 
| Mobile
© 2010 FedSmith Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Ruling is Fitting
DOJ
Fri May 15, 2009 9:09 AM
Post Reply
The courts finding is proper and appropriate. An Agency should not be allowe to impose its moral standards to the off-duty acts of its employees. If allowed to do so then where is the bar set. Same sex relationships, drinking, smoking and gambling are all considered moral vices by ceratin segments of society. Should employees forfeit their career in the interest of moral turpitude ???
Re: Ruling is Fitting
Treetops
Fri May 15, 2009 11:38 AM
Re: Ruling is Fitting
Fed
Fri May 15, 2009 2:46 PM
Re: Ruling is Fitting
FBI
Fri May 15, 2009 10:53 PM
Here Doe was fired for private, off-duty legal sexual conduct occurring in a private home. Current case law makes it virtually impossible to establish a legal nexus in these circumstances. Furthermore, the Court noted in this case that the FBI had a policy that prohibited OPR from investigating private, off-duty legal sexual activity.
EAP's UNCLEAN HANDS
DOD
Fri May 15, 2009 9:14 AM
Post Reply
I guess this case is a good example of why co-workers shouldn't date. For some people it's difficult enough to separate work life from home life, if someone you're romantically involved with works with you and issues such as infidelity arise, it can be even more difficult. Although his conduct may have been reprehensible, his off-duty conduct did not create the disruption. The disruption was a result of the violation of privacy. If someone in EAP discussed the matter with anyone other that the two people involved, then they are responsible for the disruption. Being a woman and knowing how some of us think in situations such as those, I'd be willing to bet that Female#1 confided in someone who she thought was her friend and they told someone who told someone else and so on. His behavior is not anything to be proud of, but don't think that the agency should punish someone because they did something that they personally don't agree with. Don't see any violation of policy.
Re: EAP's UNCLEAN HANDS
Treetops
Fri May 15, 2009 11:40 AM
re: He deserves punishment
DOJ
Fri May 15, 2009 9:21 AM
Post Reply
re: He deserves punishment and a serious reprimand. His actions were dishonest and should be criminal.
Hey Claims Rep. The actions were unethical, not dishonest. And a belief that anyone should be punished for actions which "should be criminal" implicates about 1/3 of the federal work force (Congress and Senate included). We see daily government acts that should be criminal in nature.
Re: re: He deserves punishment
SSA
Sun May 17, 2009 8:19 PM
Video taping a partner in the most intimate of circumstances without their consent is not DISHONEST???? Only unethical?
I am not sure where you get your definition of dishonest from, but please let me know if any dictionaries that you own differ significantly from this:
Webster's Third International Unabridged dictionary:
"1a. Dishonorable, shameful".
Would you argue his behavior was not dishonorable or shameful?
2. characterized by lack of truth, honesty, probity, or trustworthiness or by an inclination to mislead, lie, cheat or defraud.
When you fail to advise your partner of videotaping, most people would describe that as a lack of truth and honesty, and most certainly trustworthiness. It would also be misleading as most of the rest of us without question expect absolute privacy UNLESS stated otherwise.
I can only imagine what goes on in your facility.
Re: re: He deserves punishment
Fed
Tue May 19, 2009 11:11 AM
We do not agree on much, but we definitely agree on this one. Taping without consent is unethical, immoral, and I hope illegal. There are exceptions, but this is definitely not close to being one of them.
Employee's Business
USDA
Fri May 15, 2009 9:21 AM
Post Reply
Although he wronged these women by video-tapping them without their knowledge or consent, it should not have any bearing on his employment one way or the other. What goes on in the privacy of one's home is no one's business. His agency has taken it to the extreme and meddled where they don't belong. The EPA should be held accountable for violating confidentiality and creating the mayhem that they have. Hope he wins his case.
Re: Employee's Business
Treetops
Fri May 15, 2009 11:47 AM
Note to Fedsmith: The comments here point out the huge lack of knowledge about nexus among the community. Suggest one of your authors consider taking up this matter.
Also, some people here seem to think that if a person is "a little bit guilty" they should be reprimanded but if they are "really, really guilty" they should be fired.
Re: Employee's Business
DOI
Fri May 15, 2009 2:41 PM
As to whether this person should have been fired, I'm not certain. Perhaps an extended unpaid suspension, or a demotion would have been viable alternatives for the agency to pursue. Whatever else, intensive, extensive "POSH" training should be mandated for this man.
The DOD HR Specialist has the best advice: keep your colleagues out of your romantic life.
Re: Employee's Business
Fed
Fri May 15, 2009 2:55 PM
I think you are way out of line. Yes, the FBI Agent did something wrong. I assume that he violated the law. Not every violation deserves the same discipline. Some violations deserve a reprimand, some a suspension, and some a firing. I agree that case law should govern. Is there any case law on this issue?Most do not have access to it. This is why we express our opinions which are that disciplinary action is appropriate, but not a firing.
As far as EAP being on trial, you better believe that EAP person should be severely disciplined. She (he) violated confidentiality rules. That is an administrative nightmare. Additionally, who can trust them any more. They blab. EAP is supposed to be used for peronal problems that the worker does not want anyone to hear about. This issue blocks that.
Re: Employee's Business
Treetops
Mon May 18, 2009 7:39 AM
Re: Employee's Business
USDA
Mon May 18, 2009 1:09 PM
EAP Blabbermouths
FSA
Fri May 15, 2009 9:39 AM
Post Reply
The most stunning part of this case is the blabbermouths in EAP counseling. I'm never going to use them after reading this.
sexual
Internal Revenue Service
Fri May 15, 2009 9:44 AM
Post Reply
This should not be tolarated, whether it be in the workplace of at home.
I don't think he should have been reistated with that much evidence against him.
Now they transfered him and he will just do it again.
Next time it may be children and it could have already been young children and they just did not find evidence.
If he taped this and it was not known by the partner that to be is a intent to be criminal.
They need to put him out with no pay and no reistatement rights. Not give him backpay and move him.
Now I guess they will even pay his moving expenses, what else is he going to cost the government for his unlawful acts.
Don't use my name just location.
Re: sexual
Fed
Fri May 15, 2009 2:58 PM
discrepancy in reasoning by officials in power
formerly with NOAA
Fri May 15, 2009 10:43 AM
Post Reply
hmmm...an FBI agent can secretly tape the sexual encounters he has w/women he dates....and it is determined that this does not affect his duties as an
agent....so he shouldn't be fired; but, a man who is in the armed services who does his job well, has moved up in
rank, is a West Point scholar, can be discharged simply for
being gay...yet, being gay does not affect his duties either.
Both examples are of sexual preference/orientation. Both
examples depict ones social/personal life...not their jobs.
Its okay to secretly tape a woman while having sex w/her,
but its not okay to be gay. ??????
Re: discrepancy in reasoning by officials in power
Fed
Fri May 15, 2009 3:00 PM
Re: discrepancy in reasoning by officials in power
USAF
Fri May 15, 2009 3:40 PM
Re: discrepancy in reasoning by officials in power
SSA
Sun May 17, 2009 8:28 PM
Don't ask, Don't tell works perfect. I never had any problems with gays in my 20 years in the military with the exception of one flamboyant individual who often good naturedly harrassed me in front of customers while stationed in Germany.
If gays are allowed to serve openly, then there is no barrier to acting on their gayness. Then you have to answer certain questions. If it is appropriate for gays who are attracted to men to live and shower with men, then why not woman and men? Or if that would be utterly inappropriate IN GENERAL CIRCUMSTANCES as I maintain, then we must have separation by male and female, and also gay and lesbian. Instead of 2 groups, now 4 groups. 4 latrines, 4 living quarters.
To say nothing of the immorality of it. If homosexuality is okay, then why not adultery and fornication? What is wrong with sleeping with the commander's spouse?
Re: discrepancy in reasoning by officials in power
Fed
Tue May 19, 2009 11:24 AM
If it is against the law for the military to accept gays, then the law needs to be changed. Is the law unconstitutional? lawyers need to handle that one.
I have never been, nor do I care to be approached by a gay individual. I am sure I have worked with gay people, but do not know for sure, because I have never asked nor am I interested in doing so.
Obviously, the gay person will have to restrain himself in the showers. You cannot have 4 different showers for gays. However, since most people, I assume, are heterosexual, there must be different showers for men and women.
Note that being gay haqs nothing to do with morality. That is a religious issue and should remain there. If you will hold being gay against a gay person, that is up to you. Do not compare it to adultery etc. That is like comparing all military people to those who torture others and have fun doing so. Most military people are not like that.