Do You Think This Is Grounds For Termination?

[The Enforcer]

I just wanted to add my opinion to this matter. I am from the NE but what I personally find acceptable is closer to you. However your behavior was completely unprofessional and the comment that you made would get you fired at many companies. We all encounter many different people in our line of work. Some of these people we may find offensive for whatever reason, but we have to be professional and treat everyone the same as we go about our duties.
As for your stores policies, does it explicitly say only women may bring in a purse or are you reading "woman" into a policy that says purses and is this policy in writing?

I am happy to know that somebody on this board was finally bold enough to admit to having similar views to my own. As far as the policy, I am not sure how it is worded but it is generally accepted that only women can carry any type of purse into the shopping area.

As for the rest of the posters, would you, to whom it may concern, want your young children exposed to what I have described in my first post? Or for you site supervisors out there - how would you feel if one of your male officers came to work in a dress and had lipstick on? With this in mind, I am not at all apologetic for what I said but I still shouldn't have said it. A big reason for saying it was that at the time I was having some angry, personal thoughts, when all of a sudden the subject came up and I was in a bad enough mood to say precisely what I thought. I sometimes find it difficult not to let my work life and my personal life overlap but it is an issue that I personally need to address.

[Badge714]

I am happy to know that somebody on this board was finally bold enough to admit to having similar views to my own. As far as the policy, I am not sure how it is worded but it is generally accepted that only women can carry any type of purse into the shopping area.

As for the rest of the posters, would you, to whom it may concern, want your young children exposed to what I have described in my first post? Or for you site supervisors out there - how would you feel if one of your male officers came to work in a dress and had lipstick on? With this in mind, I am not at all apologetic for what I said but I still shouldn't have said it. A big reason for saying it was that at the time I was having some angry, personal thoughts, when all of a sudden the subject came up and I was in a bad enough mood to say precisely what I thought. I sometimes find it difficult not to let my work life and my personal life overlap but it is an issue that I personally need to address.

The security guard showing up in a dress isn't the same thing. Any officer wearing a dress and/or lipstick is out of uniform and in violation of policy.
And, as far as exposing my kids to things, my opinion isn't too far from yours. But, that is my opinion. As a security officer, I have to keep those opinions to myself while in uniform. It's sometimes hard to separate our personal lives from work, but it something we all have to do. The consequences of what we say and do can be severe and sometimes very costly.

[Son-Of-A-Pilot]

I am happy to know that somebody on this board was finally bold enough to admit to having similar views to my own. As far as the policy, I am not sure how it is worded but it is generally accepted that only women can carry any type of purse into the shopping area.

As for the rest of the posters, would you, to whom it may concern, want your young children exposed to what I have described in my first post? Or for you site supervisors out there - how would you feel if one of your male officers came to work in a dress and had lipstick on? With this in mind, I am not at all apologetic for what I said but I still shouldn't have said it. A big reason for saying it was that at the time I was having some angry, personal thoughts, when all of a sudden the subject came up and I was in a bad enough mood to say precisely what I thought. I sometimes find it difficult not to let my work life and my personal life overlap but it is an issue that I personally need to address.

You seem to be missing the point of this entire thread... which is odd since you are the one who started it in the first place. You asked if we thought your slur about the man's sexual persuasion was grounds for termination. You didn't ask us if we liked off-color humor. If you want o know about that then I suggest you post another thread. If you are looking for us to justify or excuse your bad behavior then you should probably look elsewhere.

I am perfectly comfortable enough with my own sexual persuasion to not have a cow or worry about a gay guy who wanders into view. And as far as a male security officer coming to work with a dress on, I am not sure that is even an appropriate analogy since we wear uniforms, so what some dude wears on his off time is really none of my concern.

I am glad to see that you admit the comment was wrong, however you seem to fail to understand WHY it was wrong. Based on that and your own admission that you have anger management issues, I would suggest you stay away from a security career. If you can't handle a guy who happens to be gay, then what are you going to do when something really serious happens?

Peace out!

[The Enforcer]

You seem to be missing the point of this entire thread... which is odd since you are the one who started it in the first place. You asked if we thought your slur about the man's sexual persuasion was grounds for termination. You didn't ask us if we liked off-color humor. If you want o know about that then I suggest you post another thread. If you are looking for us to justify or excuse your bad behavior then you should probably look elsewhere.

I am perfectly comfortable enough with my own sexual persuasion to not have a cow or worry about a gay guy who wanders into view. And as far as a male security officer coming to work with a dress on, I am not sure that is even an appropriate analogy since we wear uniforms, so what some dude wears on his off time is really none of my concern.

I am glad to see that you admit the comment was wrong, however you seem to fail to understand WHY it was wrong. Based on that and your own admission that you have anger management issues, I would suggest you stay away from a security career. If you can't handle a guy who happens to be gay, then what are you going to do when something really serious happens?

Peace out!

First of all I am not missing the point of the thread, which I started. I was simply having discussions about the event in question with the other posters, answering whatever question they had about it in detail. It's not like I'm trying to take a poll of everybody's opinion. I am just interested in hearing everybody's feedback and responding to it. Sorry if I'm getting too elaborate.

And the places I work, "something really serious" happens all the time and I always handle it in a timely and professional manner.

[CameraMan]

As for the rest of the posters, would you, to whom it may concern, want your young children exposed to what I have described in my first post? Or for you site supervisors out there - how would you feel if one of your male officers came to work in a dress and had lipstick on? With this in mind, I am not at all apologetic for what I said but I still shouldn't have said it. A big reason for saying it was that at the time I was having some angry, personal thoughts, when all of a sudden the subject came up and I was in a bad enough mood to say precisely what I thought. I sometimes find it difficult not to let my work life and my personal life overlap but it is an issue that I personally need to address.

I don't think you got what most people here were trying to say.

It doesn't matter what our personal feelings on the matter are. All that matters is what the law is. I could be for, against, or indifferent to gay people, just like I can be for, against, or indifferent to blacks, Hispanics, Jews, Koreans, Catholics, Cleveland Indian fans, or diabetics. Law says I have to treat them the same. Law also says that if you create a hostile workplace for your fellow employees by expressing your opinions on any of the above (except for fans of the Cleveland Indians, who are not a legally protected group) and I as the employer do not do anything about it, your coworker can sue me. Did you read the link I posted?

Do I have problems with indiviuals? Certainly I do. Are there groups of people whom I don't like? Maybe I do and maybe I don't, the point is, if you work for or with me, you'll never ever find out, because at work I treat everybody the same and never express my opinions in a manner that may be interpreted as hostile.

We aren't arguing about wether or not your opinion was correct or incorrect- I have some thoughts on the matter but I don't see how it would be prodcutive to air those thoughts- but only trying to tell you how the law works and how not to get your stupid self fired.

[SecTrainer]

Whether we might think this comment was sufficiently egregious to justify termination or not, there are other considerations. Employees cannot be terminated quite so easily without incurring liabilities.

Unless this organization has a written policy specifically covering such matters AND providing for instant termination, I have little doubt that corporate counsel would advise the organization to step through its normal disciplinary process in dealing with this incident rather than to indulge in a knee-jerk reaction.

[craig333]

Considering he's LP its not likely he can afford to sue over the termination.

You need to keep in mind just how easily you can be replaced. Security Officers/LP are a dime a dozen no matter how good/valued you are. Plus, you're (most likely) an "at will" employee, they don't even need to say you fired over this incident.

It can be tough keeping your opinions to yourself. I'm not a gambler and when I was working at the casino there wasn't a day went by I wanted to ask someone why they were such an idiot, but I never did, never would. Its not my place.

[Yardstick]

i'm pretty positive discriminatory behavior is grounds for termination. It doesn't seem like he would have much of a case.


He'd also have to hope his future employers don't call them and find out he he discriminates at work.

[sgtnewby]

As for the rest of the posters, would you, to whom it may concern, want your young children exposed to what I have described in my first post? Or for you site supervisors out there - how would you feel if one of your male officers came to work in a dress and had lipstick on?

Regardless of wether or not I want my kids to see something like that, trying to hide it isn't going to make it go away. My wife and I don't believe in "sheltering" our kids from the differances in the world.

For example, we don't go to church, and I won't make my kids go to church either. But I would like for them, when they feel like it, to learn about several religions so that they can form their own opinion.

Another example would be teaching my kids about safe sex. Not talking about it, and only promoting abstinance, doesn't mean that they will wait until they're married, and never get pregnant or contract an STD.

As for a male employee showing up for work in a dress, we wear a uniform. So, as long as he wears his uniform while he is on the clock, and conducts himself in a proffesional manner, I could give 2 $h!+s about what he does off the clock. It's none of my business.

[auxitrooper]

The reason for at least one negative contact with a person on your site is because at some point they've had a run in with a security person with this mind set.

Thank you for working to promote professionalism in our field.

I would not fire you, I would put you at the lowest paying account I had and sit you outside a backdoor in the blistering sun on a crappy little stool checking employee badges.

[The Enforcer]

Recently came back from work and two company (store) bosses stopped by. One of them (District Manager) is in charge of the store where I was banned from for my transgression. The other one (Regional Manager), upon observing me work, praised my ability as a guard and suggested to the Store Manager that I should be at his store permanently. After they had left, the Store Manager told me that the District manager had heard about my comment and the three of them had quite a laugh about it.

The only jam this situation is putting me in so far is that the Account Manager (agency) is struggling to find a place for me to go on Mondays and Tuesdays. I'm just happy the situation didn't take a turn for the worse.

Man, I sure am glad I'm not working for anybody that posted on this thread.

[Yardstick]

I think I speak for everyone when I say that I'm happy I don't have a liability like you working for me :-P

[msofin]

My reaction to the complaint would have been:
1)Preliminary investigation to confirm if the original complaint had any merit
2)If the original complaint has merit a thorough investigation would take place. Ex. statements from all present parties would be taken. The officer would be suspended during this process.
3)If there is not enough evidence to support the validity of the complaint the officer will resume work.
4)If there is enough evidence to support the validity of the complaint (in the scenario presented) the officer must complete mandatory diversity and sensitivity training before returning to work on probation.

I personally feel 'knee jerk' reactions on the part of security management should be avoided. Get the facts first before making a decision. Personally, I am not pleased with what was said, however I do not feel this offense justifies immediate termination.

For those who said they would have terminated the officer on the spot, does your company have any established diversity or sensitivity training in place? If so, have you completed it?

[CorpSec]

You would be disciplined in a heartbeat at my company, possibly fired. Hey, we all have opinions, but if you want to remain professional...and employed, you do not voice them at work.

What you did was wrong, very wrong. What you did paints you, your employer and the store in a very bad light. You have to be impartial. I doubt very seriously that the store had a policy stating that only women born as women are allowed to carry a purse in the store.

However, you are lucky in that you work for a warm body company that would sooner shuttle a loose cannon to another account than fire you outright. However, I will say that I personally know of much worse behavior than yours that also did not result in anything more than an account banning for a warm body company.

[SecTrainer]

i'm pretty positive discriminatory behavior is grounds for termination. It doesn't seem like he would have much of a case.

Not necessarily. This is a little complicated, but as a Certified Employment Law Specialist I think I can speak to this.

Prejudices, including prejudicial expressions, do not per se constitute discriminatory behavior in any case, at least in terms of federal labor law. Essentially, discrimination can arise in one of three ways:

1. An act that is discriminatory (i.e., differentiates unfairly on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, ethnicity or age).

2. A decision that is discriminatory.

3. Frequent and/or severe harassment that is discriminatory, creating a hostile work environment.

All three of the situations above, incidentally, can be discriminatory toward an individual or toward a class of individuals.

In most cases, the relationship of the parties has great significance, and the situation will usually involve an employee and their superior, especially in the case of items #1 and #2 above. Fellow employees will most often fall afoul of item #3, but not by virtue of a single comment. A common example is a male employee who continually sexually harasses a female employee, making repeated suggestive comments, asking her out, rubbing up against her, displaying ****ography where she has to look at it, etc.

In this case, discriminatory means #1 and #2 obviously do not apply. The closest thing that would apply would be #3 (hostile environment), and that would be only if there could be shown a pattern or frequency of such comments that other employees found to be harassing or offensive. A single comment cannot create a "hostile work environment". For instance, a male employee simply asking a female employee for a date cannot constitute sexual harassment, thereby creating a "hostile work environment", assuming that he does not persist if she refuses. I don't think we have any evidence in this case that the offensive remark was anything other than an isolated comment.

Companies are required by federal law to prevent discrimination in the workplace, including prevention of a hostile work environment. This means that they must have policies and procedures for dealing with discrimination at the earliest possible opportunity after an incident comes to the attention of management. THIS DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN FIRING PEOPLE. The EEOC expressly permits companies to use a variety of corrective measures, including "progressive discipline" and training. The company's policies - and not the federal law - will dictate exactly what latitude the company has in dealing with such situations. Of course, if a situation is permitted to persist and employees who are involved are not ultimately terminated, the EEOC will want to know why.

Now, as for the poster who opined that an LP employee wouldn't have the money to file a wrongful termination lawsuit, I can only say that I hope security companies aren't taking refuge behind that kind of thinking. The federal district court dockets all over the country are filled with such lawsuits, most of them filed by people who don't have two nickels to rub together. Why? Well, because it doesn't take much to file these cases, because there are plenty of attorneys who will work for a piece of the back wages and penalties, and because there are plenty of "pro bono" or "nonprofit" law firms where new law school grads are cutting their teeth on such cases. The funny thing is, as cheaply as these cases can be filed, they are enormously expensive to defend - even if the company wins.

I repeat my advice. Ditch the knee-jerk reaction and follow company policies regarding disciplinary procedures - to the letter. The fact that you terminated an employee out of righteous indignation because that he used the word "faggot" one time, if you do so in violation of your own established disciplinary procedures, WILL NOT BE A DEFENSE TO WRONGFUL TERMINATION, no matter how admirable the judge might think your motives were.

I am quite sympathetic to those on the forum who find what the OP said to be highly offensive. However, there is a great difference between words being offensive, and those same words constituting the grounds for taking a particular course of action. It is quite possible to ride your high horse of indignation right into some very deep legal waters.