# Firefighter loses job over nude photos



## Foxbat (Nov 1, 2010)

> *Firefighter loses job over nude photos*
> Discipline memo says he was seeking sex online
> 
> Haley Cihock
> ...




Read more

Not to condone what he did, but... seriously?
There should be a line somewhere limiting the extent to which an employer can control employee's off duty behavior.


----------



## Akulahawk (Nov 1, 2010)

If the person can't be easily linked to the employer via those photos, I don't really care much about what the person does, as long as the activity itself is legal. What I *DO* care about would be an employee lying to me about it...


----------



## MonkeySquasher (Nov 2, 2010)

Funny story, my employer just came out with a veerryyy similar policy that basically says anything we do in our offduty time online can be punished by termination, even if it has nothing to do with the company...


----------



## Aidey (Nov 2, 2010)

It does seem over the top that someone can be fired for off duty online activity that isn't a crime. I get that lying was bad, and he should be punished for that. However, aside from the information that he works for the FD I fail to see how this affects his job. There needs to be a balance between what an employee can do online in their off time and what their job can punish them for. Had he posed nude in the fire station or something like that it would make more sense.


----------



## akflightmedic (Nov 2, 2010)

He did sign a Moral Clause, which I detest for situations such as this...but he agreed to it and then broke it.

Those clauses are too vague and too subjective for my comfort.


----------



## Aerin-Sol (Nov 2, 2010)

> It also said Garza "brought further discredit to the department by including information which identified him as a firefighter in the City of Austin" in the postings.



He deserved it for doing that - I wonder if the morality clause would have been brought into play if he hadn't included this information in his profile.


----------



## DrParasite (Nov 3, 2010)

of course, both complaints happened to come from a concerned citizen whose wife happened to be having an affair with the firefighter in question......


----------



## medicRob (Nov 3, 2010)

That is B.S. This is yet another situation where an agency oversteps their bounds. What happens outside the station and off shift is your business, no one elses.


----------



## 5thGenFF (Nov 3, 2010)

I dont feel they went too far.  Had he not identified himself as an Austin FF, i would think him loosing his job was rediculous, but that was just completely careless on his part.

 Like it or not, anything you post online can be found as easily as googling your name, or the companies name. He shouuld've been more careful and thought about putting his employeers name with naked pictures of himself.


----------



## Aidey (Nov 3, 2010)

He may not have listed his employer, he may have said something like "I am a firefighter in Austin". Which does indicate Austin fire, but could also mean he lives in Austin and works in an outlying area. 

I agree he screwed up by mentioning his employer, but I don't see that as a firing offense.


----------



## Phlipper (Nov 3, 2010)

I understand he signed a 'morals claus', which is becoming more prevalent in public service jobs.  But I still don't like that employers nose so far into our private lives nowadays.  

I have an acquaintance who was fired from his FF job due to his affiliation with a large motorcycle club.  No criminal behavior, clean record, good worker ... gone.  And he _wasn't even a member_, only a friend of the club.  Another person (also a FF) in the same municipal department WAS a patch holder and left the club shortly after, and though I don't know for certain I must assume it was because he now understood it endangered his job. Another one ... a close friend was "laid off" from his corporate position shortly after his new manager learned he was affiliated with this same motorcycle club.  Again, no criminal behavior, no felonies in his past, reviews from previous manager were stellar, etc.  Gone.

It's stories like these that really torque me.  I feel that within reason, and within the law, what I do and who I associate with on my own time should not be a consideration where my continued employment is concerned.  I feel for the Austin FF.  It sucks, even if he did sign a morals clause.


----------



## lightsandsirens5 (Nov 3, 2010)

Aidey said:


> I agree he screwed up by mentioning his employer, but I don't see that as a firing offense.



It is if you Google Austin Firefighters or Austin Fire Department and you get a picture if him in his birthday suit.


----------



## emtchick171 (Nov 3, 2010)

When you are fire/rescue/ems/law enforcement you are looked at on and off the job as a "public safety professional". I know that on my department what you do away from work can be brought up at work for your dismissal. As public role models, it comes with the job. We have a responsibility role to play and we must respect ourselves and others enough not to do things to get in trouble over. 

It would be all to easy to see some girl at the strip club/bar/etc. and someone say "hey that's the girl from the fire dept./rescue squad..." then you are automatically linked back to your department whether or not you are on the clock.


----------



## Veneficus (Nov 3, 2010)

Discretion. It is all about discretion.

clearly not somebody hired for brains.


----------



## alphatrauma (Nov 3, 2010)

*catch all (morality) clauses*



akflightmedic said:


> ...Those clauses are too vague and too subjective for my comfort.



Reason #682 why I will most likely never apply to a fire service... or wreck some poor saps wife.


----------



## medicRob (Nov 4, 2010)

Believe it or not, the flight service and trauma center that I work for forbids us using their name online as some bright individual using their logo as a signature on Flightweb dropped the "N" word a couple of times. The lawyers were not too happy.


----------



## alphatrauma (Nov 4, 2010)

medicRob said:


> ... *the flight service and trauma center that I work for* forbids us using their name online as some bright individual using their logo as a signature on Flightweb dropped the "N" word a couple of times. The lawyers were not too happy.



Hmmmmm, let me guess... VUMC? No need to confirm or deny


My employer(s) expressly prohibits listing work email addresses, business practices, site photos, and/or unauthorized photos of co-workers (on or off work... yada yada yada) on social sites... 

The only place I have any (basic) work info is on FB, and I am seriously considering removing it. Leave it to a few knuckleheads to ruin it for everyone.


----------



## Lone Star (Nov 4, 2010)

This is one of the prime reasons I don't have a 'social networking' account!

I figure that as long as I don't mention a specific employer, what I do on MY time is MY business.

Just because my 'moral compass' isn't in line with everyone else, who's to say that its MY morals that are wrong?

There should be limits placed on the employer as to what they are allowed to pull from the employees 'private life' and hold against them in their 'public life'!


----------



## BLSBoy (Nov 4, 2010)

emtchick171 said:


> When you are fire/rescue/ems/law enforcement you are looked at on and off the job as a "public safety professional". I know that on my department what you do away from work can be brought up at work for your dismissal. As public role models, it comes with the job. We have a responsibility role to play and we must respect ourselves and others enough not to do things to get in trouble over.
> 
> It would be all to easy to see some girl at the strip club/bar/etc. and someone say "hey that's the girl from the fire dept./rescue squad..." then you are automatically linked back to your department whether or not you are on the clock.



If I am not in uniform or IDing myself as such, who cares what I wanna do in my off time, provided it is not illegal. 



> Who are you to judge the life I live?I know I'm not perfect -and I don't live to be- but before you start pointing fingers...make sure your hands are clean!
> — Bob Marley


----------



## Aidey (Nov 4, 2010)

BLSBoy said:


> If I am not in uniform or IDing myself as such, who cares what I wanna do in my off time, provided it is not illegal.



I think there is a line that can be crossed that makes something incompatible with your job while not being illegal. An example of this would be this guy, or a judge who belongs to the KKK. However, for the most part I do agree that off work behavior that does not affect ones job should be off limits for an employer to regulate.


----------



## emtchick171 (Nov 4, 2010)

BLSBoy said:


> If I am not in uniform or IDing myself as such, who cares what I wanna do in my off time, provided it is not illegal.



Personally I agree with you...however, that's not how it works with our fire/law enforcement/ems where I'm from. Everyone knows everyone & everyone tells everyone elses business...

guess you can call it "smalltown usa"


----------



## medicRob (Nov 5, 2010)

alphatrauma said:


> Hmmmmm, let me guess... VUMC? No need to confirm or deny
> 
> 
> My employer(s) expressly prohibits listing work email addresses, business practices, site photos, and/or unauthorized photos of co-workers (on or off work... yada yada yada) on social sites...
> ...



Yeah, the place in question (WHICH I WILL NOT MENTION HERE), has a team of lawyers that have people who scower websites daily and search engines looking for potential lawsuits in waiting.


----------



## subliminal1284 (Nov 5, 2010)

Lone Star said:


> This is one of the prime reasons I don't have a 'social networking' account!
> 
> I figure that as long as I don't mention a specific employer, what I do on MY time is MY business.
> 
> ...



Its not an issue if you have your privacy settings set so only friends are able to see the information on your profile, Your employer can search all they want but when they go to your social network page all they will be able to see is a page telling them only your friends can view the information on your page, as long as you dont accept friend requests from anyone you work with youre good


----------



## medic417 (Nov 5, 2010)

subliminal1284 said:


> Its not an issue if you have your privacy settings set so only friends are able to see the information on your profile, Your employer can search all they want but when they go to your social network page all they will be able to see is a page telling them only your friends can view the information on your page, as long as you dont accept friend requests from anyone you work with youre good



Yes and we all know there have been no breeches of the privacy settings at the big social network sites.


----------



## emt seeking first job (Nov 5, 2010)

*what about the woman ?*

The woman who was with him, ratted him out....

Not a very lady-like thing to do.

For him, anyone in public service, there can be no nude photos of him or her floating around....


----------



## CAOX3 (Nov 5, 2010)

Why put the name of your employer?

Now he is representing them, sort of.

You have to be smart about these things, if my employer wants me to act a certain way while off the clock I should be compensated.  Idon't have a moral compass because I work for a certain establishment my parents instilled that ino me.  That being said if your walking around naked with a billboard of who you work for assume there is going to be ramifications


----------



## emt seeking first job (Nov 5, 2010)

subliminal1284 said:


> Its not an issue if you have your privacy settings set so only friends are able to see the information on your profile, Your employer can search all they want but when they go to your social network page all they will be able to see is a page telling them only your friends can view the information on your page, as long as you dont accept friend requests from anyone you work with youre good




but his sexual partner ratted him out...


----------



## FireMedic3409 (Nov 5, 2010)

I agree with the majority of you in the ideology that what happens in your personal life should not be able to be regulated by your employer, provided you are:
     1) not openly doing anything which would display your employer in a negative light (i.e. going to a bar in uniform, being a raving drunk and verbally justifying it by stating you are a public servant of xxx department, etc.), or

     2) doing anything illegal.

  In this particular instance it would appear as if the accused screwed himself by identifying himself in the profile which contained said pictures as a FF for the city of Austin.  Aside from that, what you do in your personal life barring the two stipulations I outlined above, should have no bearing on your professional life.  All the same, hypothetically speaking of course, if a patient I treated previously happened to see me while I was off-duty wearing plain-clothes minding my own business in a casino, bar, strip club, etc. and reported it to my employer for a lack of morality based on their opinion (not that I really think they have room to speak since they were there themselves) I really don't see how it is any of my employer's business.  The same holds true if I were out enjoying a few drinks at a bar, and brought a woman home who I happened to meet out.  Someone else who happened to know I were a public servant could view that as a rather unsavory choice, but so long as I were not violating the two stipulations above, it shouldn't be held against me.  

A similar yet different scenario occurred here in NJ with the state police.  Read  this article.  I don't know all of the exact details or privvied information but in this case, if the young woman was truly raped then they all deserve to lose their tin, go to jail, and burn in hell.  But, if the truth is that the 7 officers just happened to be partaking in a consensual intimate encounter which happened to include 7 men and 1 female then that's their business.  The one detail which puts them under fire (aside from the rape / not rape controversy) is that the officers allegedly flashed their tin upon entry to the Trenton nightclub to circumvent the cover charge, and then engaged in such activities.

I may not condone any of the aforementioned scenarios, but there has to be a separation somewhere.  If it has nothing to do with your employer or job function, then it is nobodies business but your own. :wacko:


----------



## DrParasite (Nov 6, 2010)

emt seeking first job said:


> The woman who was with him, ratted him out....
> 
> Not a very lady-like thing to do.


His lady did?  from what I read, it was her husband that ratted him out


----------



## alphatrauma (Nov 8, 2010)

DrParasite said:


> His lady did?  from what I read, it was her husband that ratted him out



I would guess that he (husband), based on suspicion,  probably coerced her to spill the beans... but with the proliferation of surveilance software and keyloggers, it's very likely that he may have had all the info he needed - sans confession.


----------



## goodgrief (Nov 11, 2010)

Its no different then a teacher who got fired here in Georgia, because at 24 years old she went on vacation over the summer and posted photos of her holding two drinks in her hands. 

She got fired for not being "professional"


----------

