Man sues IBM over firing, says he's an Internet addict

[DaveJ]

A man who was fired by IBM for visiting an adult chat room at work is suing the company for $5 million, claiming he is an Internet addict who deserves treatment and sympathy rather than dismissal.

James Pacenza, 58, of Montgomery, says he visits chat rooms to treat traumatic stress incurred in 1969 when he saw his best friend killed during an Army patrol in Vietnam.

In papers filed in federal court in White Plains, Pacenza said the stress caused him to become "a sex addict, and with the development of the Internet, an Internet addict." He claimed protection under the American with Disabilities Act.

His lawyer, Michael Diederich, says Pacenza never visited pornographic sites at work, violated no written IBM rule and did not surf the Internet any more or any differently than other employees. He also says age discrimination contributed to IBM's actions. Pacenza, 55 at the time, had been with the company for 19 years and says he could have retired in a year.

International Business Machines Corp. has asked Judge Stephen Robinson for a summary judgment, saying 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.

"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.

IBM also said sexual behavior disorders are specifically excluded from the ADA and denied any age discrimination.

I'm not just posting this because it's 'funny' but it really raises the question of whether it is right to fire a man a year before his retirement? He probably did break some rules but it begs the question "Is anyone perfect?".

Frankly, I think that age and years of service should be respected. The fact that we are Human Beings and not Robots should also be respected.

Or maybe I'm just too liberal.

So, what kind of world are we living in? One where you can just kick a guy out on his ass because he broke some rule created by a some simpleton?

[TwilightZone]

1. I guess it depends on the details of "previously warned".

And, perhaps, the frequency of said warnings.

I'm not sure I'd agree with the assertion that the rule banning internet sex at work had to be have been created by "some simpleton". It seems like a fairly reasonable expectation. I've had plenty of co-workers that I'd rather not be anywhere near should internet sex become a work habit.

[Systematic Chaos]

2. "...after he had been previously warned"

There is your key statement.

If he has anything in his file such as a write up or recorded verbal counseling session about this, then he's nailed.

If, on the other hand, this was his first and only time being caught then I think he has a case and should be awarded reinstatement, back pay and full retirement.

[OhioChick]

4. You're Absolutely Right.....

"...after he had been previously warned"

[Boojatta]

3. If he said that he has been under a lot of stress since his quit smoking...

and that he quit smoking in 1969, then the excuse just wouldn't work ... except as a punch line.

James Pacenza, 58, of Montgomery, says he visits chat rooms to treat traumatic stress incurred in 1969 when he saw his best friend killed during an Army patrol in Vietnam.

[Phredicles]

5. If he can back up his claim that his internet use didn't differ from

that of his co-workers, he might have a case. But demonstrating this without some of these co-workers sticking their necks out on his behalf might be tough.

[90-percent]

7. my work

IT set up internet porno blockers, which is OK because we all know porno and work dont mix, but.............

This software also censors "Betty Bowers, America's Best Christian" website. You can say a lot about Betty, but she sure as hell isn't into online porno!

-85% jimy

[mcscajun]

6. djohnson, please provide a link for this story.

:hi:

[DaveJ]

9. Here

Sorry, my bad...

http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/02/18/chat.room.lawsuit.ap/index.html?eref=rss_topstories


:hippie: :shrug:

[DaveJ]

8. Seems similar to a "thought crime" to me...

Come on, you already know my opinion from the OP, but think about it. WTF does this have to do with his job performance?!?!?

If his heart and soul is into benefiting the IBM corporation, then why fire him just because he likes sex?

Sex is necessary for humanity to exist!!!!

This, plain and simple, is a thought crime. It is very likely people will surf cyberspace in the future via thought alone. In 20 years do you want to get fired for THINKING about sex?

To me this issue is clear. Humans are sucking the humanity from one another.

[Karenina]

10. Sex surfing during work hours?

Errraa... I don't think so. He says he didn't, IBM says he did and was warned. Hmmmm... Will you keep an eye out for updates on this?

[Trillo]

13. Could be economic warfare

I have no idea whether this guy's firing is appropriate, but perhaps there's a deeper issue here.

It seems that the way that pensions are calculated on a exponential curve, where the highest payout occurs at the most working years, but 1/2 the number of years worked results in 'much less' than 1/2 the retirement fund payout, is part of this guys complaint.

Perhaps there's a valid observation that this type of firing is more economic punishment than it is to a employee with the company for only a year or two who is fired for precisely the same reasons (hypothetical).

The non-personal way to address this is to make sure there's a linear relationship between the years worked and the incremental increase in retirement pay.

Without that, of course there's an incentive to fire someone at some point before they retire whether they've done anything against "policy" or not. The same generalized pattern of conduct is seen in businesses who employ part time employees instead of fewer full time ones, in order to step around having to pay for benefits only prescribed for full time employees. In other words, it's all about the money, and remember:

"Money trumps peace."

Nobody ever said the employer / employee relationship isn't "war", did they?

[Matariki]

20. People surfing porn at work creates a VERY creepy work environment.

That ought to be obvious if you spend more than 10 seconds thinking about it. Last thing I want to encounter at work is one of my male co-workers sporting an erection, surfing porn. Sheesh.

[JoFerret]

21. Agreed

on basis of the details so far firing seems justified . Whole story sounds like a bit of a crock.

[NashVegas]

11. If He Were Constantly Playing Cards, or Other Video Games During Work

Would anyone blink an eye?

[muriel_volestrangler]

15. But if he left a porn mag open where others could read it

they probably would.

Diederich says Pacenza had returned that day from visiting the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington and logged onto a site called ChatAvenue and then to an adult chat room.

Pacenza, who has a wife and two children, said using the Internet at work was encouraged by IBM and served as "a form of self-medication" for post-traumatic stress disorder. He said he tried to stay away from chat rooms at work, but that day, "I felt I needed the interactive engagement of chat talk to divert my attention from my thoughts of Vietnam and death."

"I was tempting myself to perhaps become involved in some titillating conversation," he said in court papers.

Pacenza said he was called away before he got involved in any online conversation. But he apparently did not log off, and when another worker went to Pacenza's station, he saw some chat entries, including a vulgar reference to a sexual act.

If that happened, and IBM didn't do anything at all about it, they could also be laid open for sexual harassment charges by the other employee. I think the question here is whether they over-reacted. I certainly think suing for $5 million is over-reacting. You don't build up that kind of pension in 19 years (even if he has lost the pension, which isn't explicitly said in the article).

[LanternWaste]

23. Don't know too much about IBM

Don't know too much about IBM, but my company does, and will fire people for misuse and abuse of company equipment, including the PC's. We've had people fired for surfing porn and we've had people fired for playing games. Doesn't seem *too* unreasonable to me...

[muriel_volestrangler]

25. I used to work for them

and the policy was basically "nothing that you would feel ashamed of absolutely anyone (eg your mother, or the police) watching you doing; and anything like playing games is OK if it's on your own time, or your job is such that you can put in the work, and take breaks, when you want" (but if you infect the PC, or IBM's network, with a virus, you expected to get major shit - firewalls restricted various typing of downloading). You could post to public newsgroups and so on with an IBM email address if it was all clean, legal and so on, as long as there was a disclaimer about "does not reflect the views of IBM"; I think political activism with an IBM address was banned.

[AtomicKitten]

12. oh, if only that would work for me ...

but I'm self-employed and my boss knows I'm easily distracted by shiny things

[melm00se]

14. a work PC, the

network it is attached to and the access it provides the is the property of the employer.

an employer may set any limit to the use of that equipment as they see fit (or as necessary to perform the job function). If the policy is published and agreed to and an employee violates that policy, he/she does so at their own risk. Now if the policy was not clearly defined he MAY have a case...

BUT I am confident that IBM has a "hostile work environment" and/or sexual harassment policy in place (I have yet to see a major company not have one), the fact that the act of having a web site of a sexual nature up on a work PC can be (and has been) used a evidence of a hostile work environment and/or sexual harassment, I see no choice by IBM but to take this action regardless of the employees defense and/or seniority, especially based upon the comment of "previously warned".

[Thickasabrick]

16. Two other employees caught boinking on a desk were just

transferred. This is about screwing him out of retirement....plain and simple.

[JerseygirlCT]

17. I'm not buying the disability thing

That sounds like a case of no self-control, and attempting to make it someone else's problem.

Know you tend to get too involved when on the net? DON'T EVEN GO at work.

Whether IBM is targetting him b/c of his age is another question. That I think is a good one. Have others been similarly disciplined? What were their ages? What did that warning consist of? How clear are the rules?

[Pavulon]

18. Dont surf port at work. Pretty simple

the response from IBM can be argued, were they to harsh, blah blah.

Had he not been a total moron and got caught surfing porn, twice, IBM would not have had that reason to fire him. What do you expect. Plenty of people retire from ibm.

Unless he filed a claim and has previous psychological backing proof of this he is making it harder for people who really do have mental health problems to get a fair shake in the workplace.

[Matariki]

19. "because he broke some rule created by a some simpleton"

really? surfing porn at work, "some rule created by some simpleton"?

As a woman in the work force, I think it's a damn sensible rule.

[Deja Q]

22. If somebody else used James' PC, James would still be held accountable.

So it may be true James didn't go to naughty sites, and IBM has the right to fire if that's the case, but why didn't James lock down his PC when he left his desk?

Where are the time stamps as to which sites were accessed? When? If he can prove he was away, he's still in trouble for not locking down his PC but there's somebody in IBM that needs to be reprimanded.

[Seldona]

24. Pretty hostile work environment for women I would think.

Not to mention a waste of company time that he was pretty well compensated for. I agree with IBM. Just because one is an addict does not mean one is excused from responsibility for ones actions.