Viewing Nudity In The Workplace

DO NOT VIEW THESE PICTURES WHILE IN THE WORKPLACE! You may be committing an offense of sexual harrasment and could JEOPORDIZE YOUR EMPLOYMENT by viewing nudity on your computer at any time (even if you have your own private office). Some companies even have sophisticated monitoring software. Please view the pictures in your home or other private location.

Here is an article from MSN News about the possible consequences of viewing nudity in the workplace:

That bawdy e-mail was good for a laugh — until the ax fell

By Ann Carrns THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

NORFOLK, Va., Feb. 4 — By the time the investigation ended, the staff had been, literally, decimated: Nearly two dozen employees, or 10% of the work force, were fired for sending e-mail that violated standards at the New York Times Co.’s business office here.

So how did it all begin? With a raunchy top-10 list left on a computer screen? An obscene e-mail mistakenly sent to a supervisor?

Actually, workers say, the investigation started with something far more mundane: old-fashioned snail mail. A month or so before the firings, according to former and current workers, an employee had sent a letter on company stationery in an apparent scheme to get unemployment benefits for a friend. Because the letter was improperly addressed, it bounced back to the Times Co.’s office here — and set off an investigation into the employee’s computer files. (The company won’t discuss details of the probe.)

FIRINGS, REPRIMANDS

In the course of their inquiry, workers say, managers found a number of potentially offensive e-mail, some of which had been sent by or forwarded to other employees in the office. That led to a wider investigation, and ended Nov. 30 when the Times fired 22 people in Norfolk, plus one in New York. Roughly 20 more workers, who the company determined had received offensive messages but didn’t forward them to others, got warning letters. Most of the fired employees were otherwise in good standing; one had just received a promotion, and another had recently been commended as “employee of the quarter.”

At an in-house meeting the next week in Norfolk, Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr., chairman of the New York Times Co., and Cynthia Augustine, senior vice president of human resources, discussed the firings with the wary employees who remained. Workers submitted questions scribbled on paper — a format aimed at fostering frankness. The executives explained that the offending e-mail included sexual images and jokes that wouldn’t be tolerated in the workplace. Mr. Sulzberger and Ms. Augustine, through a spokeswoman, declined to be interviewed.

The company says the firings were necessary to maintain a professional, harassment-free workplace, and in no way conflict with its commitment to freedom of speech. “This is not a First Amendment issue,” says Times spokeswoman Nancy Nielsen. “There is no First Amendment right to transmit pornography over the company’s e-mail system, or to view pornography in the workplace.”

WRITTEN RECORD

Yet the incident also shows how employers and workers are searching for boundaries when it comes to the personal use of office computers. As technology blurs the line between private and work time, workers often feel entitled to use company computers for personal matters. Lulled by e-mail’s informality and ease of use, they may forget that they are leaving a record of exchanges that in the old days were snickered over at the water cooler, then forgotten.

Many of the fired employees acknowledge that some of the e-mail was inappropriate for the office — although they recall much of the material being more sophomoric than pornographic. And they wonder why the company couldn’t have punished them in a way short of dismissal.

“There was a level of disciplinary action they could have taken before they fired us,” says Carla Belgrave, who was in charge of database security before losing her job. “They could have said, ‘You all are losing your minds with this e-mail. Chill out.’ ”

Ms. Nielsen says that given the material in question, mass firings were the only reasonable route. She would neither discuss the number of offensive images nor provide detailed descriptions. But she says there were far more items involving a “graphic display of sex” than the employees’ recollections would suggest. “And they were clearly offensive.”

‘REASONABLE’ USE

The Times allows employees “reasonable” personal use of company e-mail. But company policy also states that “computer communications must be consistent with conventional standards of ethical and proper conduct, behavior and manners and are not to be used to create, forward or display any offensive or disruptive messages, including photographs, graphics and audio materials.”

Workers were aware of the policy, Ms. Nielsen says, because they received copies of it at orientation. The company also sent out a refresher to all employees in July, four months before the dismissals. Why are the Times and other companies so concerned about e-mail? One reason is their liability in harassment suits. One or two explicit e-mail messages typically aren’t enough by themselves to prove that a workplace environment was hostile. But such e-mail can bolster other damaging evidence. At a subsidiary of Chevron Corp., e-mail containing such jokes as “25 reasons beer is better than women” were used along with other evidence in a sexual-harassment claim that was settled in 1995 for $2.2 million.

Some firms use sophisticated software to spy on employee e-mail. The Times insists it doesn’t “routinely” monitor e-mail, but that it may do so while investigating a complaint. And courts generally have found that companies have a legitimate interest in monitoring use of their computer equipment. The Shared Services Center was set up in 1996 to consolidate functions such as accounting, payroll, benefits processing and technical support for the Times Co.’s business units, including its flagship newspaper.

Until the firings, the center was seen as a comfortable, easygoing place to work. The close-knit, racially diverse work force often dressed casually. A committee arranged monthly social events, sometimes subsidized by the company. There were softball and volleyball games; outings to root for the Tides, Norfolk’s minor-league baseball team; and happy hours at waterfront bars like the Have a Nice Day Cafe. Many employees felt comfortable exchanging jokes and gripes with each other and with supervisors — maybe “too comfortable,” says Ms. Belgrave.

The camaraderie included exchanging e-mail, especially those with jokes and cartoons. Former employees say they rarely downloaded material from the Internet, but that e-mail often came from family and friends outside the company who forwarded messages to workers, who in turn passed them on to co-workers.

Kim Warr, who worked on the computer help desk, recalls receiving so much nonbusiness e-mail daily, ranging from jokes to spiritual messages, that she created a special folder in her computer to manage them. “I’d dump them into a ‘funnies’ folder,” she says, or she would “delete them, because I didn’t have time to read them.” When she did forward material, she says, it was to friends she trusted. She does recall seeing two items that were “inappropriate,” including a time-lapse image showing a woman before marriage and after, in which the woman became progressively uglier and fatter.

BLONDE JOKES

Employees recall that the e-mail included jokes about men and women, about blondes, and about Ebonics, the controversial theory regarding speech patterns used by some African-Americans. They maintain that no one complained or reported feeling uncomfortable. Ms. Belgrave, who is black, says she found the Ebonics jokes funny. “I don’t speak that way,” she shrugs. “Who’s to tell me what I should be offended by?”

Ms. Belgrave did remember receiving an e-mail message that contained a photograph of a woman performing oral sex on a man, which she deleted because it was “nasty.” Other images that employees remember seeing include a picture of an obese woman in a bikini; a cartoon depicting a man in a hospital bed with a cast on his genitals; and an adult version of a Peanuts cartoon. There was also a video depicting a clown being shot out of a cannon into a donkey’s behind. Several employees huddled around the monitor of a co-worker who had a more sophisticated computer to view that one.

It was in this environment that management acted. Times officials are reluctant to discuss details of their investigation, including the origins of the probe. Ms. Nielsen says it would be “inappropriate” to discuss details of a personnel matter. “Someone reported an e-mail violation, which triggered a responsibility by management to check it out,” she says. The inquiry included temporary monitoring of employee e-mail, she says.

She declined to say whether any employees had complained about the material before managers stumbled onto it. But, she says, “It doesn’t matter what your title is, or where you are in this company. If you see something that’s a serious violation of our e-mail policy or our sexual-harassment policy, you have a responsibility to speak to your manager about it.”

WHISPERS AT THE OFFICE

Employees got wind that an inquiry was afoot about two weeks before the firings, says Ms. Belgrave. One day, she noticed Donna Drake-Clark, the center’s human-resources director, and another supervisor enter the second-floor technical-operations area and begin printing out a ream of documents. Since the human-resources office was on the seventh floor, Ms. Belgrave wondered to herself, “What are they doing down here?” (Ms. Drake-Clark declined to comment.) Suspecting they were checking e-mail, Ms. Belgrave used a feature of the computer system that allows employees to see who has read messages in their accounts. She noted that a manager had logged in and accessed e-mail of certain employees, leaving behind a record of her visit.

People soon began whispering to each other that their messages were being scrutinized. “Everyone started thinking, what are they looking at?” Ms. Belgrave recalls. “What will they see? How will they interpret things?” Some workers began deleting e-mail they thought might raise questions, and they became more selective about what they sent. But no one feared anything more serious than a stern warning. Then they arrived at work Tuesday, Nov. 30. Certain workers were led individually into meetings with supervisors, where they were fired. It was an emotional day. Ms. Belgrave recalls her supervisor bursting into tears.

Some employees say they don’t know exactly which messages led the company to dismiss them because managers didn’t cite specific examples. “I’m still trying to figure out what was so bad that it caused me to lose my job,” says Tim Matchett, 26, who had helped administer the center’s LotusNotes system.

Mr. Matchett says the worst e-mail that he remembers receiving was a “swimsuit kind of thing,” and that he doesn’t recall forwarding such messages to anyone. When he said as much to the manager who fired him, he says, the manager replied that “corporate” had information showing that he had indeed sent offensive messages. “That implied to me that they have it, but it’s in New York,” Mr. Matchett recalls; he didn’t press the matter.

Ms. Nielsen says managers did show evidence to some employees — for example, to those who denied that they had transmitted offensive material. “If anyone had asked for it, they could have seen it,” she says. After the firings, the Times announced its actions to employees throughout the company, and reminded them that e-mail was “primarily a tool for business communications.”

Employees who still work at the center say they have been ordered not to speak to reporters. Ms. Nielsen says the center is “in the healing process.” Most of the positions have been filled, current employees say. A few of the fired employees have sought legal advice, but lawyers say they have little recourse. The workers had no union representation, so there is no formal appeal process. And Virginia law tends to favor employers in most termination disputes. Most of the former employees are now devoting their energies to finding new jobs. Some already have been successful. Ms. Warr, for example, says she has found a computer help job at a Norfolk-area government agency, and is trying to move on with her life. “I’m pretty comfortable where I am,” she says.

Copyright © 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.



E-mail: rubent2@yahoo.com