• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

NY Man Claiming PTSD Fom Vietnam Made Him An Internet Sex Addict

Bruce Monkhouse

Pinball Dude
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
6,294
Points
1,360
Maybe we can all claim"army.caitis".....................


N.Y. man fired for visiting adult chat room at work sues IBM for $5 million
Published: Sunday, February 18, 2007 | 8:34 PM ET
Canadian Press: JIM FITZGERALD
WHITE PLAINS, N.Y. (AP) - A man who was fired by IBM for visiting an adult chat room at work is suing the company for US$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 websites 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 behaviour disorders are specifically excluded from the ADA and denied any age discrimination.
Court papers arguing the motion for summary judgment will be exchanged next month.
If it goes to trial, the case could affect how employers regulate Internet use that is not work-related, or how Internet overuse is categorized medically. Stanford University issued a countrywide study last year that found that up to 14 per cent of computer users reported neglecting work, school, families, food and sleep to use the Internet.

The study's director, Dr. Elias Aboujaoude, said then that he was most concerned about the numbers 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.
Until he was fired, Pacenza was making US$65,000 a year operating a machine at a plant in East Fishkill that makes computer chips.

Several times during the day, machine operators are idle for five to 10 minutes as the tool measures the thickness of silicon wafers.
It was during such down time on May 28, 2003, that Pacenza logged onto a chat room from a computer at his work station.
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.
He reported his discovery to his boss, who fired Pacenza the next day.
Pacenza says he would have understood if IBM had disciplined him for taking an unauthorized break, but firing him was too extreme.

He argues that other workers with worse offences were disciplined less severely - including a couple who had sex on a desk and were transferred.
Fred McNeese, a spokesman for Armonk-based IBM, would not comment.
Pacenza claims the company decided on dismissal only after improperly viewing his medical records, including psychiatric treatment, following the incident.
"In IBM management's eyes, plaintiff has an undesirable and self-professed record of psychological disability related to his Vietnam War combat experience," his papers claim.

Diederich says IBM workers who have drug or alcohol problems are placed in programs to help them, and Pacenza should have been offered the same. Instead, he says, Pacenza was told there were no programs for sex addiction or other psychological illnesses. He said Pacenza was also denied an appeal.
Diederich, who said he spent a year in Iraq as an army lawyer, also argued that "A military combat veteran, if anyone, should be afforded a second chance, the benefit of doubt and afforded reasonable accommodation for combat-related disability."
 
scottishcanuck said:
WTF kind of excuse is that.

Ok not to fault youthful enthusiasm, but you need to read more post less for now. Most of the members/posters here are current or retired professional military and know what they are talking about. Ideas from a 15 year old “amateur enthusiast” have to be taken in context from those who have been there done that as the saying goes.
 
Danjanou said:
Ok not to fault youthful enthusiasm, but you need to read more post less for now. Most of the members/posters here are current or retired professional military and know what they are talking about. Ideas from a 15 year old “amateur enthusiast” have to be taken in context from those who have been there done that as the saying goes.


What does that have to do with me thinking that his excuse is ridiculous
 
I think he will lose his law suit for one major reason other than this is just a I hate you and I am going to hurt your pocket book job.

I am very sure that IBM makes all employees sign a legal waver to have access to the internet, just like DND.  And I am also sure that if you read through all the legal wording and ref docs that breaking the policy is ground for administration action or termination. 
 
Daidalous said:
I think he will lose his law suit for one major reason other than this is just a I hate you and I am going to hurt your pocket book job.

I am very sure that IBM makes all employees sign a legal waver to have access to the internet, just like DND.  And I am also sure that if you read through all the legal wording and ref docs that breaking the policy is ground for administration action or termination. 

I guess that remains to be seen though doesn't it?

He's claiming medical disability. IBM is saying "sexual behaviour disorders" are excluded from the Americans with Disabilities Act. He's saying that his transgression was the result of the "PTSD" (which caused the sexual behaviour) which IS recognized as a medical disability by the ADA.

IBM says they do not allow workers to visit pornographic sites. He says Chat rooms are allowed (and encouraged by IBM as their written rules laid out) and that is what he was doing vice visiting a "pornographic' site.

He was fired by IBM yet another couple who had sex on a desk at work were only moved to new positions by IBM. Which is the worse transgression? The courts will decide this one, and I'm not so sure IBM is going to win. It looks a little fishy to me, especially when if they had moved him to a new position, which they seem to have set a precedence for doing, it was going to be costing them a pension this time next year when he retired. By firing him instead, IBM saves a bundle. But are they going to in the end?

Interesting one. Time will tell.

 
If that's not a severe misuse of the American with Disabilities Act I don't know what is. This man needs to keep his chatroom antics at home where they belong.
 
SoF said:
If that's not a severe misuse of the American with Disabilities Act I don't know what is. This man needs to keep his chatroom antics at home where they belong.

It isn't misuse if he really DOES have PTSD, he's only arguing that he should have recd counselling because of that.

As for the chat room antics, I'd agree with you. The point in this guys case though is that if chat-room sex at work is bad enough to get fired for...why has that only occured with him and not the couple who had sex on the desk? Ergo his Age discrimination complaint for unjust firing and his valid point WRT IBM avoiding a pension pay-out. That's why it's in the courts.
 
Back
Top