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.
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
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
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'
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.
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 a tree falls in the forest, is it logged?
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
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.)
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