A man in the US is suing IBM for $5m in a wrongful dismissal case after he was fired for visiting adult internet chat rooms while at work.
James Pacenza, 58, says he was addicted to online chat rooms and that IBM should have offered him sympathy and treatment instead of firing him.
The Vietnam War veteran says he has suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder since 1969. He argues that he used the internet to control his psychological problems.
'Self-medicating'
Mr Pacenza says that seeing his best friend killed in action while they were on patrol in Vietnam in 1969 brought on his post-traumatic stress disorder.
He says that his psychological problems have left him addicted to sex, especially adult internet chat rooms.
When a fellow employee at IBM told managers that Mr Pacenza was visiting such sites while at work, he was fired.
The stated reason was that he visited an internet chat site for a sexual experience after he had previously been warned.
James Pacenza's lawyers will argue in court that their client was using the internet to self-medicate as a way of controlling his post traumatic stress disorder.
They will also argue that Mr Pacenza's claimed addiction to adult internet sites should be treated in the same way as other employees' addictions to drugs or alcohol.
The case has potential implications for employers across America and their attitude towards regulating how their employees use workplace computers.
Anyone can sue anyone over anything. That's the way it works. I doubt that this particular suit will get far based strictly on the article.
What the article fails to mention is the employee's responsibility in the matter. Had he informed his employer of his "addiction"? Had he sought help from his employer? Had he sought professional help with the knowledge of his employer? Had help been provided or denied?
According to the article, he had previously been warned. So, it is reasonable to assume that the employer has established an internet usage policy. He was obviously aware of the policy. Did he discuss his "addiction" at the time of the warning?
Also, as far as I know, "sex addict" is not a protected class under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act, nor it's many amendments. It seems unlikely that it will be added any time soon.
But even if it is included, to receive its protection, it is generally required that an employer be made aware that a person is a member of the protected class so that any necessary job site alterations consistent with the disability can be made. The article doesn't indicate that this individual notified his employer.
It would be interesting to see how this turns out. If there are updates maybe you could post them from time to time. Thanks.
#4. "RE: Sex addict sues over firing" In response to KJT (Reply # 1)
IBM is neither a half way house nor a psychological clinic. Their employees secret mental problem is not their problem, if it even really exists. An employer is entitled to expect a days work for a days pay. This is simply the usual shyster lawyer game looking for a big score from deep pockets. If the man had been working for Joes Dry Cleaners the lawyer would not have been interested.