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.
It's more like bullshit defense. I wouldn't be surprised if IBM kept logs of their worker activities at work - if he was fired for this incident *after already having been warned once* he wasn't cheated out of his job.
I was under the impression that addiction to pornography is a real, recognized psychological problem. He could very well be telling the truth, in a way.
Of course, either way, this guy is screwed: it's not illegal discrimination to fire someone for mental issues, especially when they affect work performance or atmosphere. The whole point of anti-discrimination laws is to stop people from firing others for stuff that doesn't affect those things.
Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
Well he denies the previous warning and I imagine the "im a victim of internet addiction" is a little bit of legal smoke and mirrors but it's not impossible for someone with PTSD. Either way though this guy was 6 months shy of retirement and with IBM's track-record of less than perfect dealings with retirees pensions, I think there is more to this story than we can gather from the CNN article. I think it would be interesting to know if someone reported him because they were bothered by what they saw on his screen or if some HR manager asked IT to troll through his internet connection logs looking for something incriminating.
meep
As a law student you should understand that there are many different definitions of "disease". I'm not currently a law student, I'm an undergrad studying human development and psychology, but plan to go on to law school.
The law may not define alcoholism as a disease, however, Merriam Webster defines the word as follows:
2 : a condition of the living animal or plant body or of one of its parts that impairs normal functioning and is typically manifested by distinguishing signs and symptoms : SICKNESS, MALADY
3 : a harmful development (as in a social institution)
As for 2, alcohol is known to encourage the release of endorphins and dopamine, and I'm sure you know the functions of both. At some point, without alcohol, one cannot keep endorphin and dopamine levels high enough during sobriety to function correctly, ie, with a clear mind and without physical tremors.
As for 3, alcoholism causes many problems, what with decreased economic productivity, many many many problems in the family, and increased burden on the health system, regardless of whether the alcoholic has a job or not: If he does, it increases health insurance premiums, if he does not, it increases stress on government- and institutionally-funded health care programs.
Alcoholism IS a disease, being a drunk is not. There is a point of no return for a drunk, however, and THAT is when it becomes a disease.
So the boss is the boss, right?
By your logic, the company could also legitimately discriminate on the basis of politics, colour or religion. After all, it's their computer, right?
Hmm, our logs say you visited a Hindu website last month. Sorry, this is a Lutheran workplace; you're fired for abuse of work resources.
If an employer wants to make a rule that work computers can only be used for work, then fine. If an employer wants to make a rule that you can't stop work to read a newspaper at work, then fine. But if they start applying these unevenly, allowing employees to waste time all day on personal e-mails, irrelevant websites and tabloid newspapers, and then only jump on the employee visiting a site or reading a paper they don't like, then that's illegitimate control.
There is another aspect too: I used to work for Coca-Cola Italy. There a top-ranking manager told me that logs indicating visits to porn sites were something they specifically trawled for and then kept on file. Then, later in that person's career, if the company wanted to give him the boot without the usual legal and financial hassles, they could simply declare they had just discovered the logs, and according to the employment contract the guy's job was immediately terminated.
I don't see the connection between his surfing of sexually explicit chat rooms and PTSD. It seems somewhat tenuous that there is an apparent failure to accept that some links are NSFW and others are not. The fact that there appears the ex employee was deliberately looking for those sorts of sites on company time made him a liability whether or not he had a disability. It is not usually the case that individuals are granted accommodations which could result in employer aimed sexual harassment lawsuits. Obviously, there is more to this than what is presently known, but the assumption that this was a result of his being near retirement is not necessarily fair, even at IBM. If IBM has proper records of his being chastised for doing this in the past, then IBM really ought to be allowed to fire the guy. One of the big problems with the workplace presently is that it is nearly impossible to actually fire an older employee, because clearly the only reason why one would possibly want to do so is to avoid paying for retirement. It is a real question in my mind as to why those approaching retirement should get protection for misbehavior. The protections were meant to assure that employees wouldn't be dumped just prior to being vested in the retirement program. Not as in all too many cases where they have legitimately broken serious regulations.