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.
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."
If people would actually take responsibility for their actions then this country might not be so bad.
The only way I see ANY logic in this, is if Internet Addiction is considered a disability.... which causes you to look at porn... right.
:I
Maybe I can get away with classifying my need to punch stupid people in the face as a disability. After all, I shouldn't be fired for that
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
Technically, it's not "a unique defense." Pacenza is the plaintiff, not the defendant.
Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/07/29/bofh_2004_ episode_24/
"I don't actually think you CAN fire me for browsing porn.."
"Why not?"
"Well, I think I'm addicted to porn."
"I beg your pardon?"
"Addicted. To porn."
"You're joking!"
"Oh no. You see I'm fairly sure that the browsing of porn causes the release of testosterone, endorphins or something like that, which in turn causes a pleasure response in the body - or so my doctor will tell me if I ask. I'm addicted to that pleasure response, in much the same way as a drug addict is addicted to the pleasure they obtain from their drugs."
"So you're saying you have no control over your actions?"
"None."
"And you.... Believe that this is somehow the company's problem?"
"Oh no."
"Good."
"No, I think it's the company's fault. It's completely different."
"I think you'll find that to demonstrate fault, the company would have to be aware of a problem."
"They are. I filled out a workplace hazard form about it six months ago."
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.
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."
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'
Allowing employees to visit adult sites may create a hostile work environment and sets you up for a lawsuit from other employees who might see it and be offended. You may be able to get away with it when it's you and a couple of buddies starting up, but when your profits are in the billions, you're a giant stack of cash waiting for the first person to claim sexual harassment.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
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
This reminds me of an incident I once saw while working IT at a fairly major firm.
One of the VPs called us into his office to report a problem with his computer. Apparently somebody had ejaculated all over his keyboard. He wanted us to get rid of the soiled keyboard, and bring him a new one. Not really being in a position to ask questions, we just did what he wanted.
About a week later, the same VP is on the phone, telling us that there's more ejaculate on his keyboard. So we bring him a new keyboard, yet again.
Another week or so later, we get a third call from the same VP. This time we went to the President of the firm, and reported this incident to him. He assured us he would look into it. I'm not sure exactly what the outcome was, but the VP ended up leaving his job soon after. According to some of the secretaries near his office, there was a pretty serious confrontation between him and the President of the company. One of the secretaries quoted part of the VP's yelling: "Yes, I got my sperm on the keyboard! It's because I have a fucking masturbation addition!"
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.
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.)
"what gives any company the right to discriminate?"
The federal government gives them the obligation to discriminate. If the manager hadn't taken action, the employee who had caught him could have sued for sexual harassment, arguing that the sexual content on the computer made for a hostile work environment.
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
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?
just let me unzip it.
See my art -> http://herbevore.deviantart.com