Examiner Treasury Department Thu May 14, 2009 7:08 PM
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
Ruling is Fitting
Counselor DOJ Fri May 15, 2009 9:09 AM
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
Mr. McFeebee Treetops Fri May 15, 2009 11:38 AM
Wrong. What about child molesting? Murder? The employees' morals certainly do enter into the picture. It's the agency triers of fact job to determine if the "immoral act" (on duty or off duty) is detrimental to the efficiency of the service and the MSPB's job to determine if that finding was reasonable.
Re: Ruling is Fitting
worker Fed Fri May 15, 2009 2:46 PM
I partially agree with the dissent and you. It depends on the morality issue. Having sex with a woman or a man is not relevant. Recording the sex without consent of the partner is the problem. He should be disciplined in some way, but not fired.
Re: Ruling is Fitting
Retired FBI Fri May 15, 2009 10:53 PM
Regarding Mr. McFeebee's comment, I don't think he understands a key point. He brings up conduct that is universally a criminal felony under state law. It is very simple to establish nexus when an employee engages in criminal conduct.
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
HR Specialist DOD Fri May 15, 2009 9:14 AM
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
Mr. McFeebee Treetops Fri May 15, 2009 11:40 AM
I must comment HR. I am ashamed at that analysis from an HR person. Case law is what matters. Not your feelings, beliefs, or experiences.
re: He deserves punishment
Deputy Warden DOJ Fri May 15, 2009 9:21 AM
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
Claims Rep Mesa AZ SSA Sun May 17, 2009 8:19 PM
RE: Deputy Warden - DOJ
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
worker Fed Tue May 19, 2009 11:11 AM
Hi claims rep.
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
Fed Worker USDA Fri May 15, 2009 9:21 AM
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
Mr. McFeebee Treetops Fri May 15, 2009 11:47 AM
The point is being missed by too many readers and commenters. EAP is not on trial here. MSPB has no direction from court to rule on that and has no authority to discipline EAP.
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
Clerk DOI Fri May 15, 2009 2:41 PM
Given that our "POSH" training allows for some off-duty behaviors to be counted as sexual harassment, what happens in one's home may actually have a bearing on one's employment, particularly if it involves secretly taping sexual activity with a colleague. That's arguably harassing behavior.
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
worker Fed Fri May 15, 2009 2:55 PM
To Mr. Mc Freebee
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
Mr. McFeebee Treetops Mon May 18, 2009 7:39 AM
Worker----The court did not question the penalty. It questioned the nexus.
Re: Employee's Business
Fed Worker USDA Mon May 18, 2009 1:09 PM
No doubt there's a "connection." Wonder how Clinton & Lewinsky got away with it?
EAP Blabbermouths
Supervisor FSA Fri May 15, 2009 9:39 AM
The most stunning part of this case is the blabbermouths in EAP counseling. I'm never going to use them after reading this.
sexual
Management Assistant Internal Revenue Service Fri May 15, 2009 9:44 AM
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
worker Fed Fri May 15, 2009 2:58 PM
Where do you go from having sex with consenting adults to dealing with children sexually? His immoral action was taping, not having sex. Get off the sexual morality nonsense.
discrepancy in reasoning by officials in power
retired woman formerly with NOAA Fri May 15, 2009 10:43 AM
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
worker Fed Fri May 15, 2009 3:00 PM
You are right about the armed forces not tolerating gay people. Hope that changes.
Re: discrepancy in reasoning by officials in power
TSgt USAF Fri May 15, 2009 3:40 PM
You have to understand the law. It is illegal to be gay and in the military, so he broke a law, under the UCMJ. The FBI agent didn't break a law, what he did is ethically questionable but not iilegal.
Re: discrepancy in reasoning by officials in power
Claims Rep Mesa AZ SSA Sun May 17, 2009 8:28 PM
TSGT USAF said it right, being gay in the military is illegal and when you break the law you should be punished.
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
worker Fed Tue May 19, 2009 11:24 AM
For claims rep and the sgt.
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.
Hey - off duty and by concent not boss business
Asset Manager HUD Fri May 15, 2009 11:14 AM
I think that the EPA counselor should bear the brunt of the problem caused by rumors. Although the girlfriend may have also had loose lips. I have found it to be nearly always true that you cannot trust too many people and the less said is better. Never-the-less - this is a waste of tax payers money and he should be re-assigned to another office if the boss can't be professional enough to get over this.
Girlfriend in boyfriend's home unauthorized
Asset Manager HUD Fri May 15, 2009 11:22 AM
Hey the whole thing started by girlfriend #1 who shouldn't have been in boyfriend's home snooping around.
Maybe she or the EAP counselor made the leak, this should be a source of an investigation, not what an employee did in his own home. The other two women would have never known about the taping if girlfriend hadn't been snoping.
Boss is definitely in the wrong especially since this recording was not breaking a law. The rest of you with your own personal code need to remember that it is your code not anyone else's.
I have used EPA and must say I felt a bit uncomfortable with the chance of a leak - found my own counselor through my insurance and feel much better discussing issues.
Re: Girlfriend in boyfriend's home unauthorized
worker Fed Tue May 19, 2009 11:26 AM
How do we know it was unauthorized? Unless she broke in, she probably had a key which she was allowed to use.
John Doe Fired
IT Specialist Internal Revenue Fri May 15, 2009 11:36 AM
The amount of time and money spent on this is probably more criminal than the actions themselves. At what point does the agency say "We lost our case" and get back to more pressing matters?
Takes 2 to Tango
Forester USDA, Forest Service Fri May 15, 2009 11:43 AM
The taping with Female #1 it states "the taping was by mutual consent". The original taping wasn't the original concern of Female #1 but the affairs he was having with other women. It became a concern when it got around the office but no indication that Doe was involved in this spread.
No one including the agency seems to take offense at his partner, whose actions may also be criminal. It states "Female # 1 went to Doe's home when he was away, found the tapes (conveniently labeled by name), and confronted him". This raises a number of questions such as: 1.) How did she get in his home, 2.) Did she have permission to go into his home when he was not there, 3.) Did she take the tapes out of his home?
story
n/a n/a Fri May 15, 2009 12:00 PM
i agree w/ all comments here. --he has done no harm, there might be just a little jealousy here between female #1 because of the other (2)
myob---->FBI
The times they are a changing.
Retired Retired Fri May 15, 2009 12:07 PM
It wasn't that many years ago that the FBI was taping Martin Luther King's sexual escapades as he traveled the country. They also collected similar material on politicians that LBJ would order up so he could read the latest dirt on other politicians. It was a major factor in J. Edgar Hoover's ability to keep his job because he had blackmail material on a great many political figures.
Now, the FBI is firing their own people for what J. Edgar himself used to do to ensure his continued position.
Nexus
HR Spec DOI Fri May 15, 2009 12:20 PM
Is there a nexus between his duties and his actions?
Of course there is! As an FBI agent, he needs to meet very high standards of integrity and honesty. He showed his lack of either when he secretly recorded his sexual encounters with those women. If he's prone to lying (by omission) to his girlfriends about videotaping them, what else is he prone to lying about? Who, in their right minds, would trust him to be honest? Not I.
Re: Nexus
Pgm Mgr DoD Wed May 27, 2009 11:43 AM
His duties were not as an agent, but as a pilot for the FBI. His job was to fly the agents around. He also managed to get three adult women into his own home for consensual sex. Just as many adults have nanny cams and store owners have surveillance footage, he kept a log of what happened in his bed. Not for public release, but as a memory of pleasure. No money changed hands. If he had taped them in THEIR homes, that would be voyeurism, but since they voluntarily entered his home and voluntarily disrobed, keeping the images in the same room where the consent was granted should not be illegal.
FBI Pilot
Fed Employee Federal Govt Fri May 15, 2009 2:23 PM
I feel that this situation is just another misguided matter that his agency took to far because, as stated:
Female #1 went to Doe's home when he was away, found the tapes (conveniently labeled by name), and confronted Doe. The two of them went to a counselor to work out problems in their relationship. Female #1 ended up talking about the tapes to counselors in the agency's Employee Assistance Program. Now, even though use of this program is supposed to be confidential, rumors quickly spread about Doe and his female co-workers, upsetting the women and causing disruption at work. (p. 3).
Why did they go to EAP for their "Personal" problems??? and why were both Females upset over the leaked info if they leaked it??? I agree the EAP is probably to blame, and the agency and, he should be restored to his job. His personal relationships are not the agency's business unless it causes job threats, or criminal actions against another. These were consenting Adults (Personal Matter).
He is sick
Reg. Spec. USACE Fri May 15, 2009 3:40 PM
This guy is sick
Nexus
Military Civilian Air Force Fri May 15, 2009 10:03 PM
The FBI investigated, scandalized and publicized this employee's private, off-duty legal bedroom activity. How much access do we want our federal employers to have into our sexual activity? How far does it go? The MSPB apparently thought the FBI had authority over "bedroom dishonesty". Cheating, infidelity, lying about birth control, faking an orgasm...slippery slope and absurd standard.
Doe should hire Dr. Steven Hatfill's legal team and sue the pants off of the FBI under the Privacy Act. The EAP counselor should feel the heat as well. To many of these "counselors" are toxic office agitators who live to stoke the rumor mill and spread gossip.
Private, Legal Sexual Conduct
Retired FBI Fri May 15, 2009 10:31 PM
Back in the 1960s Director Hoover utilized the full powers of the FBI to surruptitiously spy on citizens' sexual conduct in order to destroy them politically and personally (remember Dr. Martin Luther King?). Now the FBI wants to destroy employees' personal and professional lives because they are offended about what may be going on behind closed doors.
It should be nearly impossible to establish a legal nexus and discipline a federal employee for private, LEGAL, off-duty sexual conduct in a private home. I hope the MSPB gets this and finally puts an end to this travesty of justice.
Wow
Scientist EPA Mon May 18, 2009 6:04 AM
So this scumbag has the potential of keeping his job at the Federal Bureau of Investigation! I could see if he was working at an agency not responsible for law enforcement, but the FBI? Unreal.
Wrong person being punished
HR Assistant Bureau of the Public Debt Mon May 18, 2009 9:32 AM
What reprimand did the counselor in EAP program receive for violating confidentiality laws. Is that not a HIPPA violation? Seems to me the wrong person is being punished.
What were his intentions
Employee DOD Mon May 18, 2009 10:33 AM
What was this guy going to do with the tapes?
Why was he making tapes and labeling them.
Suppose a burglar broke in his house and stole the tapes.
As has been stated word got out, no telling how that situation could have ended up.
Nexus
Worker Fed Govt Mon May 18, 2009 10:45 AM
Most commentors are definitely missing the point. It's the nexus, stupid. If the Agency can articulate that, they'll prevail. Contrary to what some have stated, off-duty misconduct is actionable, as long as there is a nexus and the action taken is for the efficiency of the service.
Individual opinions of morals and who-spilled-the-beans is irrelevant.
Penalizing employee for result of EAP leak
Support Services Supervisor, Moab BLM Mon May 18, 2009 11:53 AM
The apparent leak of confidential information from the EAP service provider is seriously disturbing. This is why such a service must maintain confidentiality -- to avoid hurting the very people seeking help!
It is not clear if the EAP service site is on the premises of the FBI office. If so, that should be changed to avoid a repetition. That is never the case for our agency.
Disregarding the inappropriateness of Doe's actions, it appears that he is being penalized for the results of someone else's mistakes. It is hard not to wonder how details of who was involved in such an incident could be leaked inadvertently.
Accordingly, no matter how distasteful or heinous one considers his actions, the leak is the greater long-term concern. A new EAP provider should be sought before Doe (and others) decides to seek damages from the agency and the EAP.
The nexus does not exist without a leak. The leak does not exist without unethical or criminal behavior.
Personal Dishonesty
Analyst EPA Mon May 18, 2009 8:13 PM
A federal employee that lies, cheats or steals in their private lives is not worthy of their employment. Infidelity should be cause to fire an employee, especially if it gets out into the office and the rumor mill/gossip is widespread. How can someone who cannot honor their marriage vows be entrusted to uphold their oath of office?
I have seen so many office affairs and filandering in the federal workforce it makes me sick. Let's finally clean up the mess and take out the trash!
Nexus
IRS Revenue Agent IRS Wed May 20, 2009 9:40 AM
IRS employees can be fired for not timely paying the correct amount of taxes due to the nexus between all taxes and the IRS. It would appear to be a simple matter to see a nexus between honesty and the FBI.
Conduct
Maintenance Supervisor DOD Thu May 21, 2009 5:22 AM
Do FBI agents take an oath? I did in the military and I'm sure that this situation (although interesting) would fall under "Conduct unbecoming an officer"
What I want to know is who leaked the info to the coworkers to start the rumors? The people they should be looking at are the Employee Assistance Program folks. Yes, he screwed up and should pay the price, but their ethics are in question, which, if I worked there would question wether I could trust them and it may cause someone who needs real help (I.E. suicidal people) from getting the help they need for fear of being found out.
what about interns?
analyst dod Fri May 29, 2009 9:53 AM
if the govt. is willing to go this far, then why not sue president's who have oral sex with interns?
for what it is worth...
employee FED GOVT Fri May 29, 2009 11:00 AM
..firing was a tad harsh...FBI should have just moved him to Alaska...out of sight, out of mind, and end of story.
sicko
n/a private ciziten Tue Jun 30, 2009 8:39 PM
This man is sick. I love how he has been able to convince himself that what he did was okay. I know one of the girls involved in this, and trust me, he was mentally abusive to her throughout the course of their relationship. He chose his behavior, he must suffer the consequences!
The real pervs
HR DOI Tue Jul 14, 2009 7:32 PM
According to the court's synopsis, these two sex monkies got engaged after she requested to have the tapes made and then spilled the dirt (with EAP's help) in the office. Sounds like she has a few screws loose. Why torpedo the guy in the office behind his back and then get engaged? I wonder if they got married.
While I can't condone this guy's private actions, who wants the federal government (esp. FBI) snooping around in our bedrooms passing judgement on our sexual matters? His actions were less serious than cheating. Do we fire federal employees for sleeping around on their spouses? Of course not!
The real sickos here are the FBI pervs who investigated this guy against their own policies. Perhaps their own sex lives were a little dull and they were getting off on violating the privacy of employees engaging in private and legal sexual activity. For the sake of all federal employees I hope this guy gets his job back.
FBI =
Treasury Department
Thu May 14, 2009 7:08 PM
F.emale
B.ody
I.nspector
Guess he had his acronyms confused.
Court got it right
SSA
Thu May 14, 2009 10:40 PM
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
USDA
Fri May 15, 2009 2:13 PM
Re: Court got it right
Fed
Fri May 15, 2009 2:31 PM
Is it possile that management did not like him and decided this was a vehicle to punish him?
Re: Court got it right
SSA
Sun May 17, 2009 8:00 PM
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
noaa
Wed May 20, 2009 2:09 PM
Nexus vs. Right to Privacy
Department of Defense
Thu May 14, 2009 10:42 PM
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
Defense
Fri May 15, 2009 2:14 PM
Re: Nexus vs. Right to Privacy
Fed
Fri May 15, 2009 2:35 PM
I think the agent should be disciplined for recording the activity. He should also be sued. Fired might be too harsh.
Good Decision (Almost)
Treetops
Fri May 15, 2009 6:43 AM
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
CBP
Fri May 15, 2009 8:25 AM
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
USDA
Fri May 15, 2009 8:42 AM
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
HUD
Fri May 15, 2009 8:51 AM
Re: EAP Messed Up
DOJ
Fri May 15, 2009 10:41 AM
Re: EAP Messed Up
Treetops
Fri May 15, 2009 11:33 AM
Re: EAP Messed Up
EPA
Mon May 18, 2009 6:06 AM
Employee Assistance Program
DOJ
Fri May 15, 2009 8:41 AM
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
Treetops
Fri May 15, 2009 11:29 AM
trust and confidentiality
n/a
Fri May 15, 2009 9:08 AM
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
Mon May 18, 2009 10:42 AM
Ruling is Fitting
DOJ
Fri May 15, 2009 9:09 AM
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
Hey - off duty and by concent not boss business
HUD
Fri May 15, 2009 11:14 AM
I think that the EPA counselor should bear the brunt of the problem caused by rumors. Although the girlfriend may have also had loose lips. I have found it to be nearly always true that you cannot trust too many people and the less said is better. Never-the-less - this is a waste of tax payers money and he should be re-assigned to another office if the boss can't be professional enough to get over this.
Girlfriend in boyfriend's home unauthorized
HUD
Fri May 15, 2009 11:22 AM
Hey the whole thing started by girlfriend #1 who shouldn't have been in boyfriend's home snooping around.
Maybe she or the EAP counselor made the leak, this should be a source of an investigation, not what an employee did in his own home. The other two women would have never known about the taping if girlfriend hadn't been snoping.
Boss is definitely in the wrong especially since this recording was not breaking a law. The rest of you with your own personal code need to remember that it is your code not anyone else's.
I have used EPA and must say I felt a bit uncomfortable with the chance of a leak - found my own counselor through my insurance and feel much better discussing issues.
Re: Girlfriend in boyfriend's home unauthorized
Fed
Tue May 19, 2009 11:26 AM
John Doe Fired
Internal Revenue
Fri May 15, 2009 11:36 AM
The amount of time and money spent on this is probably more criminal than the actions themselves. At what point does the agency say "We lost our case" and get back to more pressing matters?
Takes 2 to Tango
USDA, Forest Service
Fri May 15, 2009 11:43 AM
The taping with Female #1 it states "the taping was by mutual consent". The original taping wasn't the original concern of Female #1 but the affairs he was having with other women. It became a concern when it got around the office but no indication that Doe was involved in this spread.
No one including the agency seems to take offense at his partner, whose actions may also be criminal. It states "Female # 1 went to Doe's home when he was away, found the tapes (conveniently labeled by name), and confronted him". This raises a number of questions such as: 1.) How did she get in his home, 2.) Did she have permission to go into his home when he was not there, 3.) Did she take the tapes out of his home?
story
n/a
Fri May 15, 2009 12:00 PM
i agree w/ all comments here. --he has done no harm, there might be just a little jealousy here between female #1 because of the other (2)
myob---->FBI
The times they are a changing.
Retired
Fri May 15, 2009 12:07 PM
It wasn't that many years ago that the FBI was taping Martin Luther King's sexual escapades as he traveled the country. They also collected similar material on politicians that LBJ would order up so he could read the latest dirt on other politicians. It was a major factor in J. Edgar Hoover's ability to keep his job because he had blackmail material on a great many political figures.
Now, the FBI is firing their own people for what J. Edgar himself used to do to ensure his continued position.
Nexus
DOI
Fri May 15, 2009 12:20 PM
Is there a nexus between his duties and his actions?
Of course there is! As an FBI agent, he needs to meet very high standards of integrity and honesty. He showed his lack of either when he secretly recorded his sexual encounters with those women. If he's prone to lying (by omission) to his girlfriends about videotaping them, what else is he prone to lying about? Who, in their right minds, would trust him to be honest? Not I.
Re: Nexus
DoD
Wed May 27, 2009 11:43 AM
FBI Pilot
Federal Govt
Fri May 15, 2009 2:23 PM
I feel that this situation is just another misguided matter that his agency took to far because, as stated:
Female #1 went to Doe's home when he was away, found the tapes (conveniently labeled by name), and confronted Doe. The two of them went to a counselor to work out problems in their relationship. Female #1 ended up talking about the tapes to counselors in the agency's Employee Assistance Program. Now, even though use of this program is supposed to be confidential, rumors quickly spread about Doe and his female co-workers, upsetting the women and causing disruption at work. (p. 3).
Why did they go to EAP for their "Personal" problems??? and why were both Females upset over the leaked info if they leaked it??? I agree the EAP is probably to blame, and the agency and, he should be restored to his job. His personal relationships are not the agency's business unless it causes job threats, or criminal actions against another. These were consenting Adults (Personal Matter).
He is sick
USACE
Fri May 15, 2009 3:40 PM
This guy is sick
Nexus
Air Force
Fri May 15, 2009 10:03 PM
The FBI investigated, scandalized and publicized this employee's private, off-duty legal bedroom activity. How much access do we want our federal employers to have into our sexual activity? How far does it go? The MSPB apparently thought the FBI had authority over "bedroom dishonesty". Cheating, infidelity, lying about birth control, faking an orgasm...slippery slope and absurd standard.
Doe should hire Dr. Steven Hatfill's legal team and sue the pants off of the FBI under the Privacy Act. The EAP counselor should feel the heat as well. To many of these "counselors" are toxic office agitators who live to stoke the rumor mill and spread gossip.
Private, Legal Sexual Conduct
FBI
Fri May 15, 2009 10:31 PM
Back in the 1960s Director Hoover utilized the full powers of the FBI to surruptitiously spy on citizens' sexual conduct in order to destroy them politically and personally (remember Dr. Martin Luther King?). Now the FBI wants to destroy employees' personal and professional lives because they are offended about what may be going on behind closed doors.
It should be nearly impossible to establish a legal nexus and discipline a federal employee for private, LEGAL, off-duty sexual conduct in a private home. I hope the MSPB gets this and finally puts an end to this travesty of justice.
Wow
EPA
Mon May 18, 2009 6:04 AM
So this scumbag has the potential of keeping his job at the Federal Bureau of Investigation! I could see if he was working at an agency not responsible for law enforcement, but the FBI? Unreal.
Wrong person being punished
Bureau of the Public Debt
Mon May 18, 2009 9:32 AM
What reprimand did the counselor in EAP program receive for violating confidentiality laws. Is that not a HIPPA violation? Seems to me the wrong person is being punished.
What were his intentions
DOD
Mon May 18, 2009 10:33 AM
What was this guy going to do with the tapes?
Why was he making tapes and labeling them.
Suppose a burglar broke in his house and stole the tapes.
As has been stated word got out, no telling how that situation could have ended up.
Nexus
Fed Govt
Mon May 18, 2009 10:45 AM
Most commentors are definitely missing the point. It's the nexus, stupid. If the Agency can articulate that, they'll prevail. Contrary to what some have stated, off-duty misconduct is actionable, as long as there is a nexus and the action taken is for the efficiency of the service.
Individual opinions of morals and who-spilled-the-beans is irrelevant.
Penalizing employee for result of EAP leak
BLM
Mon May 18, 2009 11:53 AM
The apparent leak of confidential information from the EAP service provider is seriously disturbing. This is why such a service must maintain confidentiality -- to avoid hurting the very people seeking help!
It is not clear if the EAP service site is on the premises of the FBI office. If so, that should be changed to avoid a repetition. That is never the case for our agency.
Disregarding the inappropriateness of Doe's actions, it appears that he is being penalized for the results of someone else's mistakes. It is hard not to wonder how details of who was involved in such an incident could be leaked inadvertently.
Accordingly, no matter how distasteful or heinous one considers his actions, the leak is the greater long-term concern. A new EAP provider should be sought before Doe (and others) decides to seek damages from the agency and the EAP.
The nexus does not exist without a leak. The leak does not exist without unethical or criminal behavior.
Personal Dishonesty
EPA
Mon May 18, 2009 8:13 PM
A federal employee that lies, cheats or steals in their private lives is not worthy of their employment. Infidelity should be cause to fire an employee, especially if it gets out into the office and the rumor mill/gossip is widespread. How can someone who cannot honor their marriage vows be entrusted to uphold their oath of office?
I have seen so many office affairs and filandering in the federal workforce it makes me sick. Let's finally clean up the mess and take out the trash!
Nexus
IRS
Wed May 20, 2009 9:40 AM
IRS employees can be fired for not timely paying the correct amount of taxes due to the nexus between all taxes and the IRS. It would appear to be a simple matter to see a nexus between honesty and the FBI.
Conduct
DOD
Thu May 21, 2009 5:22 AM
Do FBI agents take an oath? I did in the military and I'm sure that this situation (although interesting) would fall under "Conduct unbecoming an officer"
What I want to know is who leaked the info to the coworkers to start the rumors? The people they should be looking at are the Employee Assistance Program folks. Yes, he screwed up and should pay the price, but their ethics are in question, which, if I worked there would question wether I could trust them and it may cause someone who needs real help (I.E. suicidal people) from getting the help they need for fear of being found out.
what about interns?
dod
Fri May 29, 2009 9:53 AM
if the govt. is willing to go this far, then why not sue president's who have oral sex with interns?
for what it is worth...
FED GOVT
Fri May 29, 2009 11:00 AM
..firing was a tad harsh...FBI should have just moved him to Alaska...out of sight, out of mind, and end of story.
sicko
private ciziten
Tue Jun 30, 2009 8:39 PM
This man is sick. I love how he has been able to convince himself that what he did was okay. I know one of the girls involved in this, and trust me, he was mentally abusive to her throughout the course of their relationship. He chose his behavior, he must suffer the consequences!
The real pervs
DOI
Tue Jul 14, 2009 7:32 PM
According to the court's synopsis, these two sex monkies got engaged after she requested to have the tapes made and then spilled the dirt (with EAP's help) in the office. Sounds like she has a few screws loose. Why torpedo the guy in the office behind his back and then get engaged? I wonder if they got married.
While I can't condone this guy's private actions, who wants the federal government (esp. FBI) snooping around in our bedrooms passing judgement on our sexual matters? His actions were less serious than cheating. Do we fire federal employees for sleeping around on their spouses? Of course not!
The real sickos here are the FBI pervs who investigated this guy against their own policies. Perhaps their own sex lives were a little dull and they were getting off on violating the privacy of employees engaging in private and legal sexual activity. For the sake of all federal employees I hope this guy gets his job back.