GovernmentExecutive.com

A Transportation Security Administration worker who was fired after refusing to switch from inspecting baggage to conducting pat-down searches of passengers, has filed multiple complaints against the agency.

In an equal employment opportunity complaint filed with the Homeland Security Department last month, the worker, L.J. Coon, claimed that his rights were violated after he said he was opposed on personal and religious grounds to searching people. Coon, who started his TSA career as a baggage handler in Londonderry, N.H., in 2004, also has a complaint pending in the New Hampshire court system, claiming unfair denial of unemployment compensation.

Coon said when he began work he was trained to inspect baggage. But more than a year later, he said, he was instructed to be cross-trained as a passenger screener. Coon, who was raised a Methodist, said he believes individual body searches are intrusive and objectionable on both a religious and personal level.

He said the possibility of cross-training was not discussed during his 19-month tenure with the agency, or when he was hired and trained by government contractors. He said that, at first, his manager's sarcastic response to his objection was to instruct him to "wear four pairs of gloves" to allay his discomfort with the pat-downs. Later, he said, TSA managers claimed they had "the right to change work responsibilities" at any time.

"It's a violation of my personal beliefs," Coon said.

Coon's refusal to make the switch first had managers calling him "insubordinate," he said. Later they requested his resignation. In September 2005, he said, he was fired, and denied unemployment compensation from TSA. After four failed appeals of the denial in several New Hampshire courts, he has taken his case to the state Supreme Court, and now awaits a decision on whether or not the court will hear his fifth and final appeal.

Arnold Rocklin-Weare, chairman of the New Hampshire Employment Security Appeal Tribunal, said in a December 2005 decision that Coon "cannot claim that there was a substantial change in working conditions [from] when he was first hired, because the generic title he was hired for included both positions." Coon also waited too long to file his case, failing to "exercise his right of appeal during his job loss process," the decision stated.

The DHS official Coon said was handling the EEO complaint did not respond to requests for comment. TSA would not discuss the matter.

"The requirements of the Privacy Act preclude us from discussing Mr. Coon's employment or the specifics that led to his departure from TSA," said Ann Davis, an agency spokeswoman. "It is TSA's policy not to comment on personnel matters."

Coon said his disagreement with management over having to perform pat-down searches was the first blemish on his record in more than a year. He claimed to have a perfect attendance record, and had reaped several awards for his work, including a nomination for "screener of the year," before his firing.

In the interim, Coon said he has struggled to support his family in several odd jobs, most in carpentry.

The American Civil Liberties Union's New Hampshire division is also considering taking action on Coon's behalf, but has yet to make a decision, an official at the organization's office said.

COMMENTS

• Oh yeah, there were baggage screeners, and non-baggage-passanger Screeners hired...NCS Pearson staffing company did that first round of hiring back in 2004. Here is a quote from an earlier gov exec that said: On Nov. 19, 2004 thousands of TSA employees, mobile trainers, contractors and subcontractors came up for air to discover that they had successfully deployed trained passenger screeners to all 429 major U.S. airports. A month later, they finished deploying thousands of baggage screeners as well. "People just dropped what they were doing and went to live in airports for six months," says Tim Bradley, who directed deployment for Lockheed Martin. Lee Posted May 5, 2007 5:18 PM
• We found this article written by Thomas Franks, USA Today , and wanted to share part of it with you: "WASHINGTON — An ambitious program that paid the nation's airport screeners $18 million in bonuses as an enticement to stay in their jobs did not reduce the turnover rate at the Transportation Security Administration, which still has one of the highest attrition rates in the U.S. government, according to agency data. The TSA has battled high turnover among screeners since the agency was formed after the Sept. 11 attacks. It is looking for ways to curb a staffing problem that has lengthened lines at airport checkpoints. The TSA began paying 36,000 of its 45,000 screeners "retention bonuses" of $500 or $1,000 each in May. The turnover rate over the summer was unchanged from the winter and spring months, according to the TSA and the federal Office of Personnel Management. One in five screeners left from Oct.1, 2005, to Sept. 30. So. Why were more than a dozen screeners let go from the Manchester Airport? We're sure that these folks did not want to loose their jobs. Do you attribute this to the cross-training effort instituted there? It seems that there is some conflict in such articles. How can we retain good screeners, and dismiss them at the same time. Something does not add up here. This sounds like the nutshell game. What is the truth? Is anyone paying attention? GovExec.com reader Posted November 2, 2006 9:41 AM
• Hi LJ, Know that I do have my fingers crossed for you, and I also light a candle for you when I go to church on Sundays. GovExec.com reader Posted October 18, 2006 8:47 AM