Liberty Activist Retroactively Fired by Verizon Communications

Liberty Round Table ^ | March 30, 2004 | Not listed

[marktwain]

Liberty Activist Retroactively Fired by Verizon Communications

On March 29, 2004, Jeffrey "the Hunter" Jordan, a resident of New Hampshire, received notice dated 3/26/04 that Verizon Communications had fired him, retroactive to January 7, 2004. In the letter, the stated reason for the firing was "failure to comply with the policies outlined within Verizon's Code of Business Conduct". No details on how Mr. Jordan failed to comply with the company's policies were provided. Jordan is planning to fight this action. Friends of his at the Liberty Round Table, a group that advocates individual liberty and personal responsibility, have begun calling for a boycott of Verizon over the company's questionable actions regarding his case.

There is reason to believe the firing is related to Mr. Jordan's arrest on 12/29/03 in Ohio for carrying a concealed weapon. At that time he was on his way home from a holiday visit to his family in Kansas. After being detained a few days in the Ashland County jail, and despite having arranged for extra time off from Verizon, Jordan returned home to a phone message from his employer stating that he was suspended from his position.

Why has Mr. Jordan been suspended and then retroactively fired, without any hearing on either action, as is required by the terms of his employment contract? These questions have gone unanswered, as requests to Verizon seeking information on its activities have not brought any response.

Sunni Maravillosa, a friend of Jordan's and a fellow Liberty Round Table activist, said, "It is curious that Verizon is apparently firing Hunter for actions taken hundreds of miles from his Verizon work sites, in his own vehicle, and while on personal time. Also, that they've taken this action in violation of his contract, and without any due process or presumption of innocence, should be very troubling to all Americans."

Carl Bussjaeger, a friend of Jordan's in New Hampshire, commented, "I look forward to Verizon explaining in court why they met with Hunter's union after January 7th to discuss his ongoing suspension. If he was already fired, wouldn't that have been a dandy time to mention the fact?"

Jordan has issued the following statement: "I have for years now been subject to the day-to-day thoughtless tyrannies inherent in any big corporation. I have consciously chosen to tolerate these very real oppressions as part of the cost of earning a living, but now the corporate bureaucrats have gone too far.

"Verizon has consciously chosen to ignore one of the fundamental assumptions of American jurisprudence -- that a man is innocent until proven guilty. They've also chosen to blatantly violate the contract that tens of thousands of union employees fought long and hard over the years to hammer out.

"I am confident that justice will prevail in the end, and am fully prepared to fight these petty tyrants hiding behind the corporate veil just as strongly as I have every other sort I've run across in my journey through life."

People interested in joining the fight against this injustice are encouraged to write to Verizon, for which address information and letter templates can be found here: http://www.gbronline.com/cwb/samizdat/huntersamples.html

For the latest news on Mr. Jordan's case, see the official "Free Hunter" web pages: http://www.libertyroundtable.org/projects/freehunter/

For further comments, please contact Sunni Maravillosa, co-founder of the Liberty Round Table http://libertyroundtable.org at sunni@free-market.net

[marktwain]

Jeffrey Jordan, AKA the Hunter, is a true liberty activist that has decided to fight against the unconstituional law in Ohio. Will he be one of the last victims of the law before Ohio's CCW was passed? The law that he is charged under was changed radically just days after his arrest.

[Support Free Republic]

Rank	Location	Receipts	Donors/Avg		Freepers/Avg		Monthlies
22	Indiana	445.00	10	44.50	290	1.53	65.00	6

Thanks for donating to Free Republic!

Move your locale up the leaderboard!

[Samurai_Jack]

I wonder if they would have fired him if he was a gay rights activist who was arrested for unlawful acts in the park?

They seem to not be hesitant to fire him for being a 2nd Amendment rights activist arrested for violating a law.

[prion]

There is reason to believe the firing is related to Mr. Jordan's arrest on 12/29/03 in Ohio for carrying a concealed weapon.

This would be a termination offense at the company I work for, as well. Any sort of arrest, even if you are acquitted later. The presumption of innocence is a legal concept. Corporations, as private entities, are entitled to hire and fire as they see fit (though not as freely now as they ought, IMO).

It's a shame, because his stand for the second amendment is just. But you sacrifice some things for your spot at the corporate teat.

[Pietro]

I suspect there's more here than a CCW violation. No one @ Verizon can "fire" a union employee w/o a mountain of documentation of past violations.

I'm also curious as to "oppressive" atmosphere of his work place. Did those mean managers force him to show up on time (the pricks), or perhaps require him to work, heaven forbid, eight hours a day?

The arrest was probably icing on the cake.

[jim_trent]

I also suspect there is more to the story than we have here. At my new job, they recently had a surprise drug test (as is required by law). About 2-1/2 dozen people were singled out because of positives or "dilute" (which were retested and for the most part were positive).

I was asked to check their work records. The number of lost-time accidents, tardiness, sick days, and disciplinary actions was FAR, FAR higher than the rest of the group. In other words, they were bad workers. However, it was very hard to get rid of them on the basis of what had gone on before what with all the different places they could contest it, but with the drug test on top of that, about a dozen were successfully fired.

[templar]

The presumption of innocence is a legal concept. Corporations, as private entities, are entitled to hire and fire as they see fit (though not as freely now as they ought, IMO).

This is true in cases of employment at will, although the States have unemployment laws that determine under what circumstances there may be unemployment compensation obligations attached to them (generally covering termination with no fault of the employee at all, as in a general layoff).

This case doesn't seem to be that situation since the article mentions an employment contract. A contract generally describes the duties and obligations of all parties involved and, in this case, Verizon may have failed to live up to its obligation concerning the contractual procedure under which a termination is carried out. Whether he can be fired for his actions (being arrested, concealed carry) would also be a matter of the contract, and the article doesn't mention any pertinent information regarding that.

[prion]

Verizon almost certainly has some sort of morals clause that defines as a termination offense any behavior that is inclined to bring the company into disrepute, used as a catch-all when they can't think of a specific way to forbid, say, an employee getting sloshed and staggering around downtown with a lampshade on his head.

[Cultural Jihad]

The law that he is charged under was changed radically just days after his arrest.

Perhaps so, but that is hardly a valid defense.

[marktwain]

Perhaps so, but that is hardly a valid defense.

If you have been following the CCW cases in Ohio, the law was changed after two different courts found it to be unconstitutional under the Ohio State Constitution.

However, the Ohio State Supreme Court then ignored all the arguments made at the two appellate courts and ruled directly against the Constitution, upholding the law as valid.

[Who dat?]

The story is full of holes...

He should know exactly why he was fired. It would be very difficult (impossible) for me to believe that he could be terminated without knowing why.

I’ve dealt with union-represented labor almost my entire life. The union steward or business agent will grieve darn nearly *any* and *every* thing. They’ll grieve it at the local level, they’ll grieve it at the state or regional level, then they’ll take it to an arbitrator.

That, in fact, could easily explain the ~3 month lag between Jan 7, and March 26 – it takes just about 3 months for a case to be presented to the various panels and arbitrator (everywhere I’ve ever been, anyway).

I’d suspect he was “fired” on Jan 7 and that he got the final decision on Mar 26 that an arbitrator had ruled against him. Their use of the word “suspension” is misleading, IMO. He’s essentially fired, but until the grievance and arbitration procedure runs its course, he’s considered “suspended.” That’s because, if for some reason he’d been reinstated at some point, he wouldn’t have been “fired” and subsequently “re-hired” – he’d be “made whole” with back pay, continuation of forward progression etc, just as if he’d never missed a day.

They mentioned something in passing that was interesting to me… After being detained a few days in the Ashland County jail, and despite having arranged for extra time off from Verizon,

It’s interesting because he was arrested on 12/29. It’s SOP just about everywhere I’ve ever worked for employees to burn through all their remaining personal/sick/vacation days before the year runs out.

It’s entirely possible that he “arranged for extra time off” that he was not entitled to. That is often considered theft (theft of time – whatever their terminology is). Theft (everywhere I’ve worked) is a Cardinal Sin for which you can be fired without going through the process of progressive discipline, and for which you have no (or very little) recourse. I don’t think I’ve ever seen anybody win a grievance or ruling regarding a documented theft case. (But that’s just a WAG on my part – that’s the sort of thing that would explain a lot of this though.)

I’d be willing to bet his complaints about being fired for carrying a firearm is a smokescreen.

We used to hear it all the time. Every day we’d tell employees to *NEVER* climb up on a moving conveyor belt - *NEVER*. Then, of course, someone would climb on a moving conveyor belt and injure themselves. Then they’d be disciplined (up to termination, depending) for failure to work as directed and they’d run all around claiming “I got injured and they fired me.” Which simply isn’t true, and would be illegal – they were fired for climbing on a moving belt (sometimes for the third+ time). That they also got injured climbing on that belt is a separate issue but they usually can’t (or won’t - intentionally) understand the distinction.

There’s some degree of that sort of thing going on here, IMO.

[Modernman]

They publish a manual detailing their code of ethics and distribute it to all employees who must sign a form proving that they have read it. There is no negotiation, employees must read it and sign

The simple response is: if you want to work for Verizon, you have to follow Verizon's rules. Verizon doesn't 'owe' anyone a job.

Verizon corporate management are elitists and come from a cultural history during a time when they were a monopoly.

So?

Their management tends to hide in their offices separate from the rest of the employees and rarely have conversational face to face meetings with them.

So?

Verizon should have more employees like him who are willing to stand up to these politically correct corporate dictators.

You're free to "stand up" to your boss, but don't cry when you get fired as a result.

[mabelkitty]

Interesting.
Yesterday was the first day for permits.
Hope he kicks butt and takes names.

[mabelkitty]

Nope.
It's discrimination.
If you are fired, but your drug abusing arrested cube mate isn't, you have a case.

[prion]

If you are fired, but your drug abusing arrested cube mate isn't, you have a case.

I'm sorry, but you simply don't. And certainly not if the company has a drug abuse policy that mandates treatment before termination (as most do now. In fact, it might even be mandated in law).

[beckett]

A) We're not getting the whole story from this tendentious report, and B) Carrying a concealed weapon is against the law. Change the law if you don't like it; don't break it.

The "Liberty Activist" should exercise his right to liberty and find another job. It looks like he wants it both ways. He wants to trot out union protections on the one hand, and liberty bromides on the other. Is he a union man or libertarian? Can't be both and be philosophically consistent.

[drjimmy]

It’s entirely possible that he “arranged for extra time off” that he was not entitled to. That is often considered theft (theft of time – whatever their terminology is).
That's a good point. He may have given a bogus reason for needing the extra time off ("My grandmother died," instead of "I'm calling from jail and I'm gonna be here a few more days.") and then got found out.

[Cultural Jihad]

... upholding the law as valid.

People are perfectly free to choose to adhere to or break valid laws all they want to. No one placed a carrot to his head and forced him to carry a concealed weapon.

[Cultural Jihad]

I also suspect there is more to the story than we have here.

Indeed, one of the many talents which the overwhelming vast majority of businessmen have is the assigning of value. They are not in business of social-engineering or playing the role of the Big Blue Meanie, but only in the making of capital.