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.

Someone's lying here...

[BTWR]

"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."

Blatant nitpickery

[Robotech_Master]

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

Re:What about visiting Bible sites or /.?

[StarvingSE]

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.

Re:My Rights Online?

[LoRdTAW]

Apparently it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_addiction [wikipedia.org]

Re:Might have a Case with the punishment different

[Courageous]

I would have to admit that if one employee views porn at work, and another set of employees FUCK at work, and their treatments by management are starkly different, with this person approaching a big retirement pension, the situation rather does look something like selective preferential enforcement. One of the reasons corporate consul will recommended treating all employees the same and have equitable and equally enforced policy is exactly because disparate treatment makes a good argument for a hidden agenda in court.

C//

Key Word is Accomodation

[vic-traill]

Send Buddy over to my department. I am willing to assume the company's Duty to Accommodate - plus it will help mitigate the Undue Hardship I'm experiencing in trying to locate 'The Really Good Shit' porn. I need a professional.

Just when you think I'm being a smart-ass, this isn't as far out there as you might think. I understand the motovation(s) for this sort of governance, but the implementation is getting pretty whacky. From the Canadian Human Rights Commissions website:

1. What is the duty to accommodate?

The duty to accommodate is the obligation to meaningfully incorporate diversity into the workplace. The duty to accommodate involves eliminating or changing rules, policies, practices and behaviours that discriminate against persons based on a group characteristic, such as race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex (including pregnancy), sexual orientation, marital status, family status and disability. emphasis mine

So my contribution to diversifying sexual orientation is that I wanna monkey spank all day sitting at my desk. Where's the beef? ... [Slaps Head]

http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/preventing_discrimination/ page1-en.asp [chrc-ccdp.ca]

Re:Just to move away from the precise issue for th

[ShanghaiBill]

Could anybody tell me why it's OK to discriminate against people being stupid in the workplace

No, it is not okay to discriminate against stupid people, at least in the USA. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Griggs vs Duke Power [wikipedia.org] that people could not be hired or promoted on the basis of general intelligence.

Re:Snu snu??

[Skater]

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.)

Has happened before

[caseih]

and the guy was successful, too, well kind of. The story is that my at one workplace my boss was at a few years ago, there was a man fired for browsing porn while at work. This wasn't just a one-time thing. He was caught spending up to 6 hours a day surfing for it. After the man was fired, he sued the company saying that his porn surfing was the result of addiction for which he was seeking treatment, and thus he had been wrongfully terminated. His claim was that he was disabled and that the company had fired him because of his disability. The case never went all the way to trial, though. Instead the company settled with him, agreeing to take him back on as an employee if he agreed to not surf any porn at work, and to have his every internet use monitored while at work. The sad thing is that he lasted a week under this arrangement. After about 5 days or so, he was caught surfing porn again. This time his lawyers told him to just go quietly. It would almost be a funny story if it wasn't so pathetic. Some of these people really do need help with their addictions (sexual or whatever). Suing IBM is not something that is going to be helpful, however.

Re:WTF?

[DocJohn]

Addiction to pornography (or the Internet) is not a recognized mental disorder, nor is there any diagnosis for it that an insurance company would reimburse you for. While the media continues hyping these things, the science and research still says these are not legitimate or recognized separate disorders.

So this guy doesn't have a leg to stand on from the mental health standpoint. If he has PTSD, that's a separate issue, but it certainly wouldn't be a legitimate reason for viewing porn at work.

Sounds like he's trolling for dollars and publicity. And lookee here, he's getting at least the latter!

--
If you need to ask, I can't answer.

Re:WTF?

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless it can be done with a "reasonable accomodation". Obviously you cannot accomodate a blind chauffeur but you can fairly easily accomodate someone with a "pornography addiction".

Re:What about visiting Bible sites or /.?

[Anonymous Coward]

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 [ibm.com]. If you're curious, the short section on information and communication systems [ibm.com].

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

Re:WTF?

[evanbd]

As long as it's actually critical to the job, you're right. You can't fire (or even fail to hire) someone because they can't use the stairs into the building; but if the job description involves, for example, lifting and moving things that can't be done in a wheelchair, then someone in a wheelchair is legitimately unsuited for the job. There's also language about reasonable accommodations -- if you as an employer can make reasonable changes to the facilities, etc. then you are obligated to do so.

One example that comes to mind (though I have no idea if it's ADA related) is that we recently hired a new machinist at work. He's short. Our lathe isn't particularly usable by someone his height. Well, guess what? It now has a platform in front of it so he can use it easily. We did it because it's the right thing to do; however, I'm sure the ADA would prohibit us from rejecting him because of it.

Oh, IANAL and all that. But I have been known to read those giant anti-discrimination posters employers are required to post.