Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

IBM Sued for Firing Alleged Internet Addict

Posted by Zonk on from the i-have-been-told-the-internet-is-for-porn dept.

globring sent us a link to a CNN article covering a trial with a unique defense. James Pacenza, a 58 year old Alabama man, has been fired from his position at IBM for visiting adult sites during working hours. The man is now suing the company for $5 Million, alleging that he is an internet addict. The plaintiff claims he visits these sites as a way of dealing with traumatic stress incurred in the Vietnam War. He claims that while he is addicted to sex and the internet, he never visited adult sites at work. Age-related issues, he says, are the cause of his filing. IBM, on its part, says that Pacenza was warned during a similar incident several months ago. Pacenza denies this as well.

5 of 341 comments (clear)

  1. Someone's lying here... by BTWR · · Score: 4, Informative
    "He claims that while he is addicted to sex and the internet, he never visited adult sites at work."

    The CNN article states that this wasn't his first warning: ""Plaintiff was discharged by IBM because he visited an Internet chat room for a sexual experience during work after he had been previously warned," the company said."

  2. Blatant nitpickery by Robotech_Master · · Score: 4, Informative

    Technically, it's not "a unique defense." Pacenza is the plaintiff, not the defendant.

    --
    Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
  3. Re:What about visiting Bible sites or /.? by StarvingSE · · Score: 4, Informative

    Because you are using the company's resources, and that means you must follow their rules. If you use IBM's computer, and use their internet connection during time they are paying you to work, then they had every right to fire this guy if he was visiting porn sites. I'm sure there is an employee handbook detailing what is considered appropriate computer use at work. Every employer I've worked for has made it pretty explicit.

    Its just like you can't use racial slurs, sexually charged language, and other offensive things at work. Someone could be walking by, see your porn on your workstation, and be offended.

    --
    I got nothin'
  4. Re:Snu snu?? by Skater · · Score: 5, Informative

    I think snu-snu is just sex. The punishment was "death by snu-snu". That implies that snu-snu does not always involve death, sort of like how "death by misadventure" doesn't imply that misadventure always leads to death.

    (That's one of my favorite episodes.)

  5. Re:What about visiting Bible sites or /.? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
    Almost anything taken to an extreme can become illogical. The issue here is about IBM's rules for computer use.

    Let's not speculate about what could be done: Read the actual rules. We sign a contract every year that we will follow IBM's Business Conduct Guidelines. If you're curious, the short section on information and communication systems.

    I think the rules are very reasonable. Does anything in there strike you as unreasonable?