Internet addiction excuse for inappropriate conduct at work?
So, I was just perusing cnn.com and found this article which immediately made me think of L416! Basically, IBM is being sued by an employee that it fired for "inappropriate" use of internet at work (i.e. entering adult chatrooms) but the employee says he is an internet addict and cannot help himself. If it goes to trial, this case could definitely have an effect on the way employers monitor internet use. I just thought it was an interesting take on things. Do you think the man has a good argument? I don't know much about it, but does addiction affect the way an employer/employee relationship can be terminated? For example, if the man was an alcoholic, could he have been fired for drinking on the job? Since he doesn't appear to have been treating his psychological ailment, I feel that perhaps IBM was within reason of firing him. What do you think?
posted by Sara at
7:16 PM
6 Comments:
This case is brought under the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, which we'll deal with in more depth after spring break. If the employer can prove that his condition meets the definition of a disability under the statute (a questionable proposition), then the employee could pursue a claim that his addiction should have been accommodated. However, only reasonable accommodations must be provided to disabled employees. Thus, it would be a contested question whether allowing him to go to adult chat rooms would have been a reasonable accommodation.
Sorry, the second sentence in the comment above should read, "If the employEE can prove his condition . . . ."
I cannot believe that this employee has claimed that an adult chat room addiction is a disability. I would consider myself pro-labor, but this has gone too far. This is a slap in the face for persons with disabilities, not a fight for their rights. Please have some respect! Imagine the ramifications if IBM looses. Firms will have to hire inefficient "internet addicts" in order to be politically correct and prevent more court costs.
If Professor Prenkert checks this, I would like to know how the Americans with Disabilities Act deals with addictions in general. An internet addiction is a little questionable, but does it cover proven addictions (alcohol, etc)?
Sara's intuition is good here. The ADA treats addictions and some sexual issues specially.
Here's a helpful primer for the ADA as written by the EEOC and directed at small businesses.
"Current illegal use of drugs is not protected by the ADA. You do not need to hire or retain someone who is currently engaging in the illegal use of drugs. Tests for the current illegal use of drugs are permitted at any time prior to or during employment.
"While people with alcoholism may be individuals with disabilities, the ADA still allows employers to hold them to the same performance and conduct standards as all other employees, including rules prohibiting drinking on the job."
The ADA also includes the following language: "transvestism, transsexualism, pedophilia, exhibitionism, voyeurism, gender identity disorders not resulting from physical impairments, or other sexual behavior disorders;
(2) compulsive gambling, kleptomania, or pyromania; or
(3) psychoactive substance use disorders resulting from current illegal use of drugs."
(Sec. 511 of ADA.)
So this guy faces an uphill battle with regard to both addiction and sexual issues.
Hollow Promises, the book I read for the book reflection, delt with the ADA. The first thing a plaintiff must prove in order to succeed in an ADA claim is that he/she is disabled. "Disabled" is defined as: (1) having an impairment that substantially limits the plaintiff in major life activities, (2) having a record of such impairment, or (3) being regarded (by the employer) as having such an impairment.
After reading about how much trouble the mentally disabled (people with bi-polar disorder, depression and the like) have in proving they're "disabled", I think it should be emphasized that the plaintiff has a very big mountain to climb in arguing his case.
In addition, mentally disabled persons who don't take medications to treat their impairments are often blamed for not having their impairments under control. Why should sex addicts be treated any differently?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home