|
|
Fired IBM worker sues for net addiction
Author: Brett ThomasPublished: 20th February 2007
Do you think there's a case for internet addiction?
A former employee of IBM has sued the company for $5 million over what he deems a "wrongful dismissal." According to the reports, he used office time and computers to log into an adult chatroom whilst on the job. Though he claims he was called away before engaging in any direct chatting, another employee reported his actvities. He was fired the next day.
The employee, James Pacenza, is claiming that he is an internet addict who deserves treatment rather than a pink slip. According to his lawyer, Mr. Pacenza has been self-treating a severe case of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) by his online activities. He apparently obtained PTSD from watching one of his close friends get killed in Vietnam.
Pacenza is arguing that the PTSD turned him into a sex/internet addict, and that he should be afforded treatment just like an alcoholic or drug addict. He may not be all wet, either - a recent Stanford study found 14% of people acknowledging that they have neglected some crucial aspect of their lives in order to surf the internet. Most companies, including IBM, offer treatment programs for their employees that are struggling to overcome addictions.
IBM has already asked a judge to dismiss the case, stating that its policy against surfing sexual internet sites whilst at work is very explicit. If the judge chooses to let the case proceed to trial, it could have very large implications for non-work related web surfing and how companies treat it.
Do you have a thought on the dismissal or subsequent lawsuit? How about on internet addiction in general? Let us know about it in our forums.
Recent articles on bit-tech.net
Comments (26)Stats: 0.064 seconds
Feel sorry for his disease but he clearly broke the contract he signed
If he had brought the issue to his Human Resources people, then IBM would most likely have helped him get the counseling he needs. Most companies these days have an employee assistance program in place. Instead, he chose to log on to an adult site while on the job, using a work computer. Under the terms of his employment, IBM was just in firing him. It would be the same if he had been caught shooting up in the restroom.
-monkey
anyway IBM was in their rights to sack him.
mental illnesses are not a soft matter.... they can kill you or the people around you.... if you don't treat it correctly.
nice choice of words, there :D
How is that a defense?
although on the disability front, its a bit harsh if you break your arm, through no fault of your own then get fired
And yes, if he'd sought help, things might have been different...
Claiming "addiction" just because you've been caught doing something you know full well you shouldn't is a load of crap.
I use MSN a lot at work - only in the office, and am careful to whom I talk, and how long I use it... If I'm on a clients site, I can't use it....
If I was caught messing about - like several people here have, then I'd damn well expect to be fired with no mercy. :'(
That's bulls**t and you know it. The reason there is employment law is so that people have to have good reasons and due process when someone is employed or terminated. If someone gets pregnant you can't fire them for that (with some exceptions like, I believe, the military). If someone is HIV positive, but it doesn't affect their ability to do their job, you can't fire them. You don't like that someone is gay or lesbian, tough - get used to it because you can't get fired for that either. The law is there to protect vulnerable people against ignorant twits who for for one reason or another have come to run a business.
BUT, there are equally ignorant peasants who are no good at their job or take the piss, and then pull out the minority /disability / sexual discrimination card when they're legitimately fired. In this case, IBM probably could have saved themselves a fair amount of hassle if they'd given him a verbal warning; then a written warning if his behaviour hadn't changed, and finally fired him.
It just aint that easy anymore and I agree.
We had a guy who was fired which took 2 years to fire him. My employer needed 2 years evidence to be back up the desision incase of an employment tribunal. This guy had a illness, some kind of mental disorder, stutter, was Bi sexual and stunk of BO all the time. He had lots of cards to play on if he took the employer to a tribunal.
When it came to sacking him the team he worked with were asked to leave and stay in the canteen and then called in the police ready to escort him from the building after they told him. He kicked off and went mental and destroyed the place while the police chucked him out.
He was not safe to work with but they could not just sack him. Because all these crazy laws now it took 2 years before he got sacked while in the process cause alot of stress for the people he worked with and they were scared all this time. People had left the job because they couldnt work under these conditions because of this one person.
1 person made the lifes of 40 hell. Do you really think its fair that an employer can not just fire someone just like that anymore?
For example, you are a great employee, do your job perfectly, but also mess around with the boss' wife. You get caught (by the boss). Now, do you think it's fair that you get sacked, because you messed around with his wife, and he wants to get back to you? Something totally irrelevant to how you do your job, how you behave at work, how your co-workers think about you,...