" First, Zellner disengaged the “safe search” filter. He then typed “blonde” into the Google search box. The search produced 20 “thumbnail” images, all of them pornographic, with links to more images within and outside the Google website. He then clicked to display the next 20 images. Zellner then clicked a link entitled “more of these” adjacent to images from www.ardentes.free.frblonde.com. When Zellner did so, another 20 pornographic “thumbnail” images were displayed on his monitor for a total of 17 seconds. Zellner did not click on any of the photographs displayed in his search. The entire incident took 67 seconds.
The appeals court said that 67 seconds was all that was necessary to be fired. It was unrelated to him being a vocal opponent of the district and making comments in the local press, the court said."
"was in retaliation for his constitutionally protected criticism of his employer."
Is there any question why this guy was really fired? I will never understand why people seem to think they can criticize their employers and then sue after they're fired for doing so.
People, you can get fired from a job for almost any reason at all. You are not entitled to a job. Sure, badmouthing your employer is "free speech", but they are also free to fire you for doing the badmouthing.
In this case they used his browsing history as justification for the firing, but if not that, it would have been for something else sooner or later. He simply had it coming.
So... it turns out that if you are not a valued employee (by your employer) and if you browse porn thumbnails at work, you can get fired. Huh - who knew?
The title is misleading, he clearly did a lot more than google "blonde". Turn safe search off, go to second page of results, click "more of these". There was nothing innocent about his actions, he was looking at porn at work. What did he expect?
The appeals court said that 67 seconds was all that was necessary to be fired. It was unrelated to him being a vocal opponent of the district and making comments in the local press, the court said."