How many addictions should be covered?

[Ping898]

Ok, so here is what I am wondering....when is an employer responsible for helping an employee and when should they be allowed to just cut ties? I know that in my own job I would end up loosing my position and probably be fired for many different things that would be the result of addictions, like gambling losses or racking up unreasonable credit card debt from being a "shopaholic" or any DUI. No granted in theory this guy hurt no one by visiting an adult chatroom, but it seems to me that common sense says this is not appropriate behavior. It this day of political correctness it is drilled into you that just sending a dirty joke via e-mail can get you fired if the wrong person sees it and takes offense. At what point should you be forced to take responsibility for your actions and what point if any should you be given help? I always thought the ADA was used to make sure things like buildings had ramps and elevators, service animals were allowed in buildings and people were discriminated against cause they were in a wheelchair or missing a limb or blind or deaf....not cause you are an addict of some kind...


http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/02/18/chat.room.lawsuit.ap/index.html

WHITE PLAINS, New York (AP) -- A man who was fired by IBM for visiting an adult chat room at work is suing the company for $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 Web sites 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 behavior disorders are specifically excluded from the ADA and denied any age discrimination.

 

[Kacey]

First, let me say that I agree - this is a case of a man who got caught doing something he'd been warned - apparently repeatedly - not to do, and is looking for a way out of the mess he's created for himself. Is he addicted? I'm not sure... but the fact that he was less than a year from retirement and still continued the behavior gives me cause for pause. Do I think he qualifies as disabled? No, I don't... but I know which part of the ADA is open to such interpretations:

TITLE 42 - THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE CHAPTER 126 - EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES
Sec. 12102. Definitions. [Section 3]
(2) Disability The term "disability" means, with respect to an individual

(A) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of such individual;
(B) a record of such an impairment; or
(C) being regarded as having such impairment.​

​

The underlined section is the key phrase within the ADA which opens up the possibility of such suits - it was not intended, I don't think for the use to which it is being put, but it is used in that way - IMHO, to the detriment of the people who truly do have disabilities, and who truly need the protections provided by this law; the number of people who claim disabilities under this clause who don't leave many people disbelieving of those who have less visible, or invisible, but nonetheless real, disabilities, both physical and mental - anything from epilepsy to severe diabetes to mental illness.