backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 28 comment(s) - last by Cave Troll.. on Feb 25 at 3:32 PM
Fired employee: IBM owes me $5 million because I'm an Internet sex addict

A man who was fired by IBM for visiting an adult chat room at work is suing the company for $5 million, reports the Associated Press. James Pacenza, 58, claims that he was visiting the adult chat room as a treatment for the trauma he experienced during the war in Vietnam, where he saw his best friend killed.

 

Pacenza said in court papers that the stress caused him to become “a sex addict, and with the development of the Internet, an Internet addict.” He is claiming that his addiction should be classified as a disability, and thus he should be protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

 

His lawyer, Michael Diederich, says Pacenza had recently returned from a Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington before logging on to ChatAvenue as “a form of self-medication” for post-traumatic stress disorder.

 

“I felt I needed the interactive engagement of chat talk to divert my attention from my thoughts of Vietnam and death,” Pacenza reportedly said. “I was tempting myself to perhaps become involved in some titillating conversation.”

 

IBM isn’t buying Pacenza’s argument, saying that the company has issued direct warnings against surfing sexual Web sites at work. Pacenza denies having received such warnings.

 

“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 in a statement.

 

Pacenza and his lawyer plan to fight IBM on its policies. “A military combat veteran, if anyone, should be afforded a second chance, the benefit of doubt and afforded reasonable accommodation for combat-related disability,” said Diederich.

 

A judge will decide next month whether or not the case will see trial.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Saw this a few days ago
By flyboy84 on 2/21/2007 4:53:09 PM , Rating: 2
In other coverage of the article, the guy who is suing makes an interesting point. A couple at his work location had sex on a desk and they were only transferred. Doesn't seem like equal treatment.




RE: Saw this a few days ago
By angryhippy on 2/21/2007 4:59:15 PM , Rating: 2
In other coverage of the article, the guy who is suing makes an interesting point. A couple at his work location had sex on a desk and they were only transferred. Doesn't seem like equal treatment.

True, but did they have sex on a desk again after being warned once? Sorry, don't have much sympathy for the guy. Even if his addiction is real, $5,000,000? Come on. I'm just tired of all the frivilous lawsuits I guess.

On the bright side, if he wins everyone with internet access at work will be able to have adult chats all they want. :-)


RE: Saw this a few days ago
By retrospooty on 2/21/2007 5:08:01 PM , Rating: 2
agreed... 5 mil is rediculous. I am not sure who is wrong or right here, but lets assume the guy is in the right. No way should he get more then 1 year salary. This is more then enough time to find a job. 5 million is more then he will make his entire life, unless he is VP/CEO level.


RE: Saw this a few days ago
By flyboy84 on 2/21/2007 5:20:51 PM , Rating: 2
While the 5 mil is a lot, he was 1 year away from being able to retire (19 years with IBM) and collecting a pension. I also read he made 65k/year. So He's suing for his pension basically (though I doubt that would have amounted to 5 million!).


RE: Saw this a few days ago
By retrospooty on 2/21/2007 5:24:22 PM , Rating: 3
I didnt see that part... OK, so absolute max should include his pension amount. Still nowhere near 5 mil.


RE: Saw this a few days ago
By nomagic on 2/21/2007 5:42:56 PM , Rating: 2
The jusge will award an amount of $ that he finds justifiable. People often sue for more than what is justified, but that doesn't mean they will receive that amount. It just leaves room for deduction. (from a negative amount due to losing the case to a positive amount definitely less than 3 Mil.)


RE: Saw this a few days ago
By angryhippy on 2/21/2007 5:38:41 PM , Rating: 1
While the 5 mil is a lot, he was 1 year away from being able to retire (19 years with IBM) and collecting a pension. I also read he made 65k/year. So He's suing for his pension basically (though I doubt that would have amounted to 5 million!).

Ah, ok that makes more sense. Lawyers will probably get at least 1/3 or half of his award if he wins, plus taxes. IBM might have liked having an excuse to fire him just to not pay his pension. I have some more sympathy now. :-) The couple having sex at work were probably not as close to retirement.


RE: Saw this a few days ago
By thejez on 2/21/2007 5:58:23 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The couple having sex at work were probably not as close to retirement.


we can only hope so


RE: Saw this a few days ago
By alifbaa on 2/21/2007 8:20:32 PM , Rating: 2
I can't believe there's a news item like this, and it took me this long to find anyone making fun of this situation!!! Good on 'ya!


RE: Saw this a few days ago
By CascadingDarkness on 2/21/2007 6:45:38 PM , Rating: 5
Hit the AP link, and you will lose all sympathy. Here are some points missed by DT summary.
quote:
...Pacenza was told he could lose his job after an incident four months earlier...

While his entire explanation says view the stuff was part of treatment related to his post traumatic stress disorder. It never mentions once this was suggested or prescribed by a mental health professional (extremely doubt this would be a treatment offered).
quote:
He claimed protection under the American with Disabilities Act.

quote:
...sexual behavior disorders are specifically excluded from the ADA...

Makes sense to me, because protecting someone's sexual disorder at work is likely going to be seems as sexual harassment to many other people. It's likely more harmful to more people to have this kind of content to ok, all to just help one guy.
quote:
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.

Don't know about you guys, but at my company that is right there is considered sexual harassment and grounds for immediate termination.

The article doesn't mention whether or not he spoke to supervisors/HR about his disorder/treatment. I myself have a medical condition that affects my work. Went to HR, explained it supervisor and guess what? Everyone was infinitely helpful and understanding. Sure this case is only slightly similar, but it doesn't mention anything about him trying same approach.


RE: Saw this a few days ago
By slacker57 on 2/22/2007 12:21:24 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The article doesn't mention whether or not he spoke to supervisors/HR about his disorder/treatment. I myself have a medical condition that affects my work. Went to HR, explained it supervisor and guess what? Everyone was infinitely helpful and understanding. Sure this case is only slightly similar, but it doesn't mention anything about him trying same approach.


Yes, here is how you know if a person is full of shit or not -- the difference between BEFORE and AFTER. If you have a pre-existing condition, you darn well better get it checked BEFOREHAND so you know that your workplace can accomodate you. And get a professional to sign off on it for crying out loud! Bringing it up after you're fired is what is called "an excuse," and mommy used to tell me when I was little that I should always give reasons instead of excuses.


RE: Saw this a few days ago
By slacker57 on 2/22/2007 12:26:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The article doesn't mention whether or not he spoke to supervisors/HR about his disorder/treatment. I myself have a medical condition that affects my work. Went to HR, explained it supervisor and guess what? Everyone was infinitely helpful and understanding. Sure this case is only slightly similar, but it doesn't mention anything about him trying same approach.


Yes, here is how you know if a person is full of shit or not -- the difference between BEFORE and AFTER. If you have a pre-existing condition, you darn well better get it checked BEFOREHAND so you know that your workplace can accomodate you. And get a professional to sign off on it for crying out loud! Bringing it up after you're fired is what is called "an excuse," and mommy used to tell me when I was little that I should always give reasons instead of excuses.


RE: Saw this a few days ago
By MrTeal on 2/21/2007 6:57:03 PM , Rating: 2
The AP article didn't mention anything about a pension. Is there any other source that shows he would have been able to collect a company pension?


RE: Saw this a few days ago
By mindless1 on 2/22/2007 2:58:02 AM , Rating: 2
I don't think you understand the reasons for large figures, 5 mil is not about compensation, it's about making penalty high enough to be a deterrent to the offender. That is, IF IBM were to be found in the wrong.

I can't blame IBM since they plainly warned against it, and the guy should've known better either way, that's just common sense. If he felt compelled to engage in this at work, he needed to find a place of employment that expressly permitted it, since for right or wrong it is obvious the sex police will come and get you.


By The Irish Patient on 2/22/2007 10:43:18 AM , Rating: 2
Putting aside the merits of this case, if any, there seems to be a lot of confusion regarding what are known as "ad damnum" clauses. No matter how many times the media sensationalizes an overblown request, no plaintiff can control the amount of the judgment. The legal effect of a claim for $5 million is only to say: "No matter how much or how little the court awards me, I absolutely, positively refuse to accept more than $5 million."

Ad damnum clauses are archaic. Many jurisdictions have eliminated them. For example, a plaintiff in Connecticut can only allege that his/her case is worth more or less than $15,000. Cases worth more than $15,000 qualify for a jury, while those worth less than $15,000 generally receive court ordered arbitration.


ridiculous
By kevinkreiser on 2/21/2007 6:07:37 PM , Rating: 4
seriously, how can people have the guts to sue over these things. internet addiction as a dissability? so let me get this straight, we should pay the people that don't have the will power to act in a socially acceptable manner? i mean, lots of people suffer traumatizing events, you can't blame everything on that. at some point you have to be responsible for your own actions. that'd be like saying: "i was abused, so now i can't help but look at porn while at work." give me a break.




RE: ridiculous
By mindless1 on 2/22/2007 3:01:08 AM , Rating: 2
I agree with your concept but only until you get to the point of "socially acceptible". It shouldn't be up to others to judge whether what you do is "acceptible", only what real impact it has on them.

That would be if the concept of acceptibility mattered, which is doesn't necessary, since this is a place of employment and the employee is essentially being paid to do, and not do, exactly as instructed.


RE: ridiculous
By frobizzle on 2/22/2007 8:04:03 AM , Rating: 2
Sadly, this guy probably has a good chance of winning under the ADA. While the original intent of ADA was good, it has been sorely bastardized and should either be repealed or severely overhauled!


Its time to work not play romeo.
By verndewd on 2/21/2007 8:57:02 PM , Rating: 2
Lets just have group sex at work and say its all ok.Theres a time and place for everything.Find a girl in your off time .I would toss the case out.




RE: Its time to work not play romeo.
By Davelo on 2/22/2007 12:32:31 AM , Rating: 2
This is such BS. This guy (and his dirtbag lawyers) should get a fine or jail time just for bringing this bogus claim to the courts. Companies like IBM are always very plain and up front about what happens to you if you are caught using their computers for porn. I'm sure this guy had even signed documents verifying he knew.

So the guy needed porn to ease his postwar stress? That's laughable.


hmmm....
By Souka on 2/21/2007 6:48:27 PM , Rating: 3
Welp, if was a valid disability, he should had have a medically approved condition that has been certified. Far as I know, he didn't.

Also, once he had been warned, he should have sought such measures....but from what I see he didn't, and got caught again...and fired.

If a superior at work tells you to DO or NOT DO something, and you fail to follow suit, you can be terminated. (Obvious exceptions are unethical, innapropriate or illegal requests...)

IBM should kick this guy to the curb, but offer to support him in de-addicting him from his problem... possibly keeping his job available for once he's "cured". "cured" meaning DEAD. :P

Anyhoo.... let the lawyers and $$$ decide his fate. I say STFU and go away.

My $.02 of ramblings.




Good news for me if he wins...
By KeithTalent on 2/21/2007 8:16:30 PM , Rating: 3
then I can sue when I get fired for neffing on AT at work <shifty eyes>




Such tripe
By fishmonger12 on 2/21/2007 7:57:09 PM , Rating: 2
Self medication... what a load of bull.

Perhaps if he saw a psychiatrist, who diagnosed him with internet addiction, and then was caught at work... maybe. But to just say "I'm addicted to the internet." and try and get 5 mil. No. Sorry, won't fly.




Here's my idea
By alifbaa on 2/21/2007 8:19:10 PM , Rating: 2
OK... Let's say I'm addicted to the internet. I'm also addicted to masturbation. So if I get a job, surf for porn and get carpal-tunnel from all the typing and "repetitive motion," and am no longer able to do my job, could I get disability benefits and no longer have to work? :-)




ROFL
By Armorize on 2/21/2007 8:46:08 PM , Rating: 2
This is just hilarious... i dont know if i could look at that guy with a straight face and ask him if he was serious or not. I dont understand why people would look at porn at work unless it was just to be funny in an email or something. He cant just talk on the phone or through emails?! I'm baffled... just plain baffled. Self medicate yourself at home.




Accountability
By nwyman on 2/22/2007 7:48:38 AM , Rating: 2
it's really disgusting and disturbing to see how far some people will go to avoid taking accountability for their own actions.
spilling coffee on themselves while driving, being shot for trespassing on private property... any number of issues, and people refuse to take responsibility for them.

here's a scenario: i'm j-walking across a busy street and get hit by a car. i'm so angry with my broken leg that i sue the driver for 10 million dollars. why? because i'm dumb enough to "illegally" cross a busy street, and choose to blame someone else for my stupidity.

these people make me sick.




By crystal clear on 2/23/2007 4:42:06 AM , Rating: 2
"A judge will decide next month whether or not the case will see trial"

Unquote-

There are hackers who use their skills for good purposes,like below-
He sent the JUDGE TO JAIL by HACKING HIS COMPUTER???????

Quote-

Police caught onto Kline after a Canadian computer whiz hacked into the judge's Irvine home computer and discovered sexually explicit images of young boys and a diary that revealed Kline's fantasies involving young boys. A subsequent search of his court computer revealed more images and more Web sites.

Brad Willman, the Canadian hacker, forwarded the information to an anti-pedophile watchdog group, which then sent the information to Irvine police detectives.

Meyer and Levine asked for probation, arguing that Kline should, among other things, be given credit for time served in home confinement.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Gregory W. Staples asked for a 33-month term, arguing in a written brief that "to sentence the defendant to anything other than a long term in prison would signal that our justice system treats its own with favor. … Of all people in society who must be held strictly accountable for their crimes, it is members of the justice system themselves."

Staples said Kline possessed thousands of sexually explicit pictures of young boys, used his computers to search for and store images of child pornography, and kept the diary that detailed his interest in boys.

Kline's conduct, Staples said, "sullied the state judiciary."

Kline case timeline

October 1995: Orange County civil attorney Ronald C. Kline is appointed to Orange County Superior Court bench by Gov. Pete Wilson.

May 2000: A Canadian hacker downloads lurid diaries and pictures of nude boys from Kline's Irvine home computer and forwards them to a pedophile watchdog group.

November 2001: Kline is charged in federal court in Santa Ana with seven counts of possession of child pornography.

January 2002: The Orange County District Attorney's Office files five counts of child molestation against Kline after a man comes forward to say he was molested by Kline in 1979 when he was 14.

March-November 2002: Kline does not campaign for re-election and is replaced by write-in candidate John S. Adams.

June-October 2003: A federal judge rules that 1,500 photos of naked boys, diary entries and Web sites found on Kline's computers cannot be used in the federal child-pornography case, contending that the Canadian hacker was serving as an agent of authorities and therefore his "search" of Kline's computer was illegal.

July 2003: A Los Angeles Superior Court judge dismisses all molestation charges against Kline because of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling banning prosecution of old sex-abuse allegations.

October 2004: A federal appeals court reverses the pornography rulings, saying the Canadian hacker was acting on his own when he gained access to Kline's computer.

December 2005: Kline pleads guilty to four counts of possessing child pornography on his home computer.

Feb. 20, 2007: Kline is sentenced to 27 months......

http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/homepage/abox...

also-the Inquirer.




It costs all of us
By Cave Troll on 2/25/2007 3:32:04 PM , Rating: 2
IMO the story of the judge arrested after his computer was hacked was interesting, but doesn't belong here.

Okay, so in a sane world, the judge in this IBM suit throws it out without a moment's hesitation. But even if he/she does, how much has IBM spent on legal work regarding the suit? How much are all of us going to pay thanks to this sex-addict idiot and the millions of others like him?




"This is from the DailyTech.com. It's a science website." -- Rush Limbaugh

DailyTech Poll
Which web browser do you use on your primary personal machine? 






44 Comments







botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki