Here is the story from the AP (via LAT):

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

There is so much wrong about this that we feel compelled to actually list some of the more bothersome aspects of the story.

#1. The amount. $5 million dollars is ludicrous. The guy is 55 years old and has at most 10 years of work left in him. Even factoring in foregone benefits that’s $500k/year (even more when you discount it into today’s dollars). Basically the guy wants to get 5x what the biggest winner can get on “Deal or no Deal” and about 80 years of his current salary of $65k/year. Ridiculous.

#2. His claim that he deserves “treatment and sympathy.” He claims to have been aware of his problem for several decades. Where is the personal responsibility in getting treatment? And a freak who can’t do at least that is not going to get sympathy from anybody.

#3. The plaintiff, James Pacenza, claims that he visited chat rooms “to treat traumatic stress incurred in 1969 when he saw his best friend killed during an Army patrol in Vietnam.” First, assuming this is true, for 40 years this guy has been a perv and has never bothered to be treated for it? He’s almost a senior citizen and now it’s IBM’s fault he can’t control himself sexually? Second what kind of sicko develops a porno habit after watching his buddy get blown up? I don’t even want to go there.

#4. He’s claiming protection under the American With Disabilities Act. We all know that the ADA is one of the biggest hand-ins to personal injury lawyers ever concocted but at least a small part of it was aimed at helping people with true disabilities. These would be things like inability to walk or see, not being a self-described “sex addict.” If I had a wheelchair I’d throw it as this a-hole as it makes the ADA look worse that it already does (if that was even possible).

#5. “Stanford University issued a nationwide study last year that found that up to 14% of computer users reported neglecting work, school, families, food and sleep to use the Internet.” Only 14%? My kids have neglected all of the above to play “Kerplunk” and I’ve stayed up well past when I needed sleep to watch “Monk”. Am I addicted to TV? Can I sue TIVO for recording shows that I might want to watch when I should be with my family or doing work?

#6. “The study’s director, Dr. Elias Aboujaoude, said then that he was most concerned about the number of people who hid their nonessential Internet use or used the Internet to escape a negative mood, much in the same way that alcoholics might.” How is it that this guy is at Stanford? How many people use the Internet to escape a negative mood? Probably the same number that go for a run, eat candy, call a friend, watch TV, read a book, pick a fight in a mosh pit,…?

#7. His lawyer said Pacenza “had returned that day from visiting the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington. 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.” Once again the connection between the Vietnam War and his need for sex talk is either the sickest form of kink on this planet or a disgusting play at sympathy. As with the people who really deserve protection from the ADA, I’d like to see the Nam vets hurt by association with this freak have a chance to vent their frustration with him in person.

The ironic thing is that if IBM didn’t sue the freak then some prude would have sued IBM for fostering a hostile workplace environment. Also, would you want to be the man or woman who used his workstation after he’d been on it?

Since true tort reform isn’t likely all we can hope is that this gets tossed out at the earliest possible stage. But what has happened to personal responsibility in this country?

tags: james pacenza

This entry was posted on Monday, February 19th, 2007 at 11:17 pm by Insider and is filed under Politically Correct ... and stupid. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.