Slashdot Mirror
IBM Sued for Firing Alleged Internet Addict
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.
He says he's "an Internet addict who deserves treatment and sympathy rather than dismissal".
Sounds like he indeed visited during work hours or he wouldn't have had a reason at all to say this. It's IBM's system and rules. Tuff if you can't keep your hands (mental or physical) out of your pants at the job.
Well, the servers definitely don't lie... unless he was in a position where he had access to the logs.
Slashdot is kind of like Playboy; we aren't here to read the articles.
I find that Internet in the work must only serve for work, if the person has access something that does not have, puts its job in question. http://blog.fenon.com.br/
Sounds like he's a sex addict! Just because he's using the Internet to fuel his obvious sex addiction doesn't make him an Internet addict. It's like saying someone who uses magazines to get their porn is a magazine addict.
You're not addicted to the medium, you're addicted to the content.
"If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, A hope-er, a pray-er, a magic bean buyer
I think that there seems to be confusion between addiction and disability. While you might not fire somebody for a recognised disability (and some addictions tend to fall along those categories), I've never heard of having to hold on to somebody because they're addicted.
If that were the case, it would mean that when Bobby and Johnny get caused smoking pot in the back during work hours, or when Sally gets caught with a needle in her veins in the washroom, they could claim that the company could not fire them because they were addicts. I think not.
Surely the test should be whether you use company resources for personal reasons. So long as the usage is actuually legal, surely it should not matter what sites you visit. Bible quote website, /., dilbert, tits & ass... what gives any company the right to discriminate?
Engineering is the art of compromise.
This sounds like a bullshit complaint that's about a bitter loser denying reality. Remember, anyone can file a complaint; whether it goes anywhere is what matters, and I doubt this one will. Big companies like IBM have checklists for firing people, and if they're saying they warned him months ago, they've almost certainly got it in writing. They've probably also got logs showing his workstation accessing porn. And as for Internet Addiction, even established addictions don't prevent you from getting fired--being addicted to heroin, for example, won't save your job just because you're legitimately, medically addicted to something everyone agrees is uncontrollable.
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
Pacenza: Couple who had sex on desk merely transferred
He argues that other workers with worse offenses were disciplined less severely -- including a couple who had sex on a desk and were transferred.
Fred McNeese, a spokesman for Armonk-based IBM, would not comment.
Pacenza claims the company decided on dismissal only after improperly viewing his medical records, including psychiatric treatment, following the incident.
"In IBM management's eyes, plaintiff has an undesirable and self-professed record of psychological disability related to his Vietnam War combat experience," his papers claim.
Diederich says IBM workers who have drug or alcohol problems are placed in programs to help them, and Pacenza should have been offered the same. Instead, he says, Pacenza was told there were no programs for sex addiction or other psychological illnesses. He said Pacenza was also denied an appeal.
Diederich, who said he spent a year in Iraq as an Army lawyer, also argued that "A military combat veteran, if anyone, should be afforded a second chance, the benefit of doubt and afforded reasonable accommodation for combat-related disability."
Companies fire people all the time for addiction. Why else would they make you take drug tests pre-employment and sometimes during employment? If you are addicted to drugs and show up to work high, you're gonna get fired. Why should it be different if you're addicted to porn and look at it at work, on the company's computer?
I got nothin'
His lawyer ... says Pacenza never visited pornographic sites at work, violated no written IBM rule ...
... (says) ... its policy against surfing sexual Web sites is clear. It also claims Pacenza was told he could lose his job after an incident four months earlier, which Pacenza denies.
International Business Machines Corp.
Seems pretty obvious. If IBM can produce those written policies, and has kept a written record of the previous warnings, Pacenza doesn't have a leg to stand on.
References to his past history in the military don't really seem all that relevant. Yes, many vets of Viet Name and other action carry the scars with them but that does not give them a right to totally ignore their employer's direction.
Three Squirrels
Usually when you focus on some self-gratifiying behavior to the detriment of everything else (job, spouse, family, friends, etc.) they'll slap the "addiction" label on it. Such destructive behaviors can be sex, gambling, video games, and yes, the internet.
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
Like you inferred, I believe it mainly is age discrimination here. His lawyer even cites two people making snu-snu on a desk at IBM and they were just transferred. Also, I think you're right about them trolling his station, for the simple reason that before stomping off to a manager, common decency says you (the co-worker) turn off the monitor for him and have a talk with him personally. And, as this plaintiff cites, after 19 years of service to IBM, you would think his superiors would make every effort possible to salvage this man's reputation with a paid vacation for clinical counseling. This does smack of age discrimination. It really is in IBM's interest to settle this case. I wish the Vet well.
I hope, when they die, cartoon characters have to answer for their sins.
illegal to discriminate against someone solely on the basis of a disability
IANAL, But I can't imagine it would be against the law to discriminate against someone solely on the basis of a disability if it could be proven that it is detrimental to the job performance. Chauffers must be able to see, for example.
Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
Why would you sue a company (and expect to win) when you were fired for violating a companies (reasonable) policies. The lawyer probably knows his client doesn't have a chance, but it milking this chap for legal fees.
"I'll see you next time." - LeVar Burton
If indeed IBM simply transferred two other workers who had actual sex on a desk (one assumes this occurred when someone could witness it, rather than in a private office late one night), it's going to be hard for them to justify firing this guy for engaging in otherwise legal activity even though it was using company resources. That's not to say this is age discrimination or some other malfeasance on the part of IBM, but the lack of consistency is troubling.
And before anybody accuses me of being insensitive here, I have a psychological disability myself But I recognize that it's *MY* problem, not other people's, and that it's up to me to make choices at work that do not put me in situations where my disability would reflect anything less than the most professional behaviour of which I am otherwise capable.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
The argument with the couple snu-snu'ing isn't a good one since you are stopping the 'issue' by separating them, on this guy you can't solve the issue so easily because he is getting his snu-snu from the same tools he is expected to use for work. Although, at 19 years of employment and months away from retirement (don't you retire at 20yrs?) I do agree with the notion that the manager should have been more proactive, at least making it VERY clear what the out come will be if he doesn't snu-snu at his own home.
Even if he never visited adult sites at work, if it affected his ability to work, he should be terminated. If you have an alcoholic who is so affected by his drinking that he becomes unproductive, you should fire them. If they come in with a hangover every day and have zero productivity, that's wrong even if they've never had a drink at work.
I work in the insurance industry and while I am not in the USA, I can't see how someone can lose their pension. He might lose his next six months income, and that may have a minor impact on his pension, but he can surely retire early or something. In any case, if he wants to retire, then IBM has nothing to gain (or should not be able to gain) from his being fired. The law should normally prevent that.
I think IBM should just allow him to retire early, and save themselves 6 months wages at the same time, or just give the guy his 6 months salary, damn, he has been working there for like only 19 years. It is not worth it to fight this guy.
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."
Perhaps they considered a meeting from 8 years ago about the zero-tolerance policy to be a previous warning.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
While it's quite possible his age had something to do with this, it's also very likely he is guilty as charged. It would be a sensible thing for an employer to put a close eye on someone approaching retirement with pension, in the hopes that they screw up enough to justify termination, this saves the company money. This is not necessarily a bad thing, and sorry but PTSD does not justify surfing porn at work any more than forgiving turrets at mcdonalds. Crackheads are not allowed to smoke up at work just because they are crackheads. If you have a behavioral disorder you need to keep it in check while you're at work, or you need to find a different job that is known to be tolerant of your behavioral problems. I suppose another parallel we could draw is someone spending an hour a day at work on an online casino, and claiming its OK because they are a gambling addict.
Bottom line, if you are 6 mos from retiring with pension you should know to be on your best behavior. If you walk out the door with a company stapler, i don't care if you are a recovering klepto, out you go. (I consider deliberately wasting company time to be theft)
I hope this fellow loses his case and gets to pay IBM's attorneys.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
so is alcoholism but if i go to work drunk i would be fired.
you can't be fired for being addicted to porno
you can be fired for looking at porno on the job
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
Being a manager myself, I find it more likely that this guy has a habit of pissing off his co-workers (which is not uncommon with PTSD employees). That having been said, it wouldn't take much for one of his co-workers who was pissed off about this guy taking excessive breaks (also not uncommon with PTSD employees) who decided that enough was enough and turned the guy in. Nobody likes having to pick up the slack for a guy who is not pulling his weight, especially not one who is making $65k / year.
-=Geoskd
I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
It is more likely that what is going on here is the guy is not well like amoung his co-workers, and one of them found an opportunity to get the guy fired. IBM could be in a real bind with this one. If someone complained about the content, they have three choices: First, find somewhere to transfer the guy, but from the description, his job is not the kind of thing you can just switch to something else. My guess, is that its as close to blue collar as the compter industry gets, and that his high wages are a result of many years served. The second option is to ignore the problem, or give him a warning, which it sounds like IBM did once already (Companies do not make claims like that in court unless they can back them up with documentation). The trouble with this is that if the employee who filed the complaint sees no action taken, he/she then has cause to sue IBM for sexual harassment, or some variant thereof. The third option is to fire the guy. As we can see, the third option results in a lawsuit as well. It really is a no-win situation, and one which any marginally competent manager would avoid at all costs, not create.
-=Geoskd
I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
This is not necessarily a bad thing
How can that not be a bad thing? If a company is more critical of an employee months away from retirement, that is by definition age discrimination. Sorry, but saving a few bucks is not justification for prejudice in the workplace.
It's not necessarily a matter of the server logs. It's whether a formal record was kept of the warning.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
Porn is probably more offensive than religion because someone from a distance can easily discern porn on your screen. It's mostly visual, after all. A religious website is just text, like your spreadsheets, emacs buffers, etc. It looks like work. People fucking on your screen is clearly not work.
Also, people are conditioned to think that "sex is bad OMG something must be done", so that's playing against you too.
I think it's generally understood that looking at porn at work is going to get you in trouble. If you don't understand why, it's probably good that you got fired.
My other car is first.
Firing addicts when they screw up their jobs due to their addiction, is good thing, not a bad thing. Make their self-medication have consequences. Make them hit bottom and want to recover.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Right. And if someone has cancer, and is exhausted and nauseous after receiving their chemotherapy, you should fire him too?
Most medical professionals consider alcoholism a disease. I would expect a firm to assist the employee with treatment and support for some period of time. If the employee continues to abuse drink, it's not that difficult to set up a testing program. Long term drinkers can appear normal with very high levels of alcohol in their blood. Sooner or later, he'll arrive at work with enough alcohol in him to fail a test, and then you have a legal right to terminate him. But at least you've given him a chance to clean up.
These are things I've learned as the son of an alcoholic.
What was once true, is no longer so