Sex Sites and Lawsuits

Posted on February 18th, 2007 by Christine.
Categories: Current Events & Politics, Pissed Off & Proud of It.

Another fucking fuck-up that pisses me off.

James Pacenza, a 58 year old New York man who was let go from his job at IBM for continuing to visit adult chat rooms during work time (after being warned not to) is suing the company for $5 Million.

He’s claiming protection under the American with Disabilities Act because he feels that the stress he incurred during his tour of duty in 1969 in the Vietnam War has caused him to develop an Internet sex-addiction. I’m sorry… wtf????

How in the world is any of this IBM’s problem???

Pacenza is claiming that employees with drug addictions are given treatment– not dismissal at IBM– and that he deserves the same– for IBM to pay for his treatment and give him another chance.

I’m sorry, but this is one of those that just gets so far under my skin, I can barely stand it. Here’s another asshole who wants to be completely unaccountable for his actions and then claim he’s a victim and should be given a ridiculous amount of money for a transgression he created. Somewhere in his twisted thinking, he believes IBM should pay him for wasting time while he was working and continuing to break a rule they’d warned him not to break. It’s cases like these that make me wish I were a judge.

I think it’s disgusting how these losers think they can bilk large corporations for ungodly amounts of money when they aren’t even competent enough to hold down a job, and have probably already wasted enough of the company’s money earning paychecks while doing something completely unrelated to work on work time. I’m also sick of people blaming their stupidity on some trauma that happened years ago. Pacenza saw his friend get killed while in the army. That somehow makes him incapable of enough common sense to stop having sex chats on his computer during the time he’s supposed to be working? Please. Seriously… how do you come up with that without busting out in fits of laughter?

I hope IBM files a counter suit, denying Pacenza any unemployment benefits, and wins, and then I hope his wife divorces him and every company in the New York area reads the CNN report about his pathetic suit and refuses to hire him. That’s my wish for this asshole and every other lazy fuck-up who thinks they’re entitled to more than everyone else because they’ve had a rough life. Guess what… we live with the decisions we make, and sometimes the consequences of decisions are more clear cut than others (like say… being warned that the next time you visit a sex site at work you’ll be fired– how much more clear can it be?). So deal with it, Pacenza.

8 comments.

Can it Get Any Stranger? »« What’s Your Drink?

Chaim the Groupie scribbled

Ugh… I read about this today. Hilarious. It’s amazing how far into denial people can get. I am confident that this suit will go nowhere except into the looney bin of lawsuit history. This guy is a joke. I am amazed he managed to hold onto his job for as long as he did with his mind working the way it apparently does.

Anyway, I agree entirely.

February 18th, 2007

Ben2 the Soldier thought this

Sad part about it is, he will get a settlement out of this. Just watch.

February 19th, 2007

Christine the Lioness quibbed this

If he does, I really hope the media squashes it. I think publicizing this kind of thing encourages other retards to do the same thing.

February 19th, 2007

Christopher the Pyro stated

I guess in some ways this is the point of our legal system… without people testing the law progress is never made. There are a time where these types of cases annoy the hell out of me… Like Coffee is Hot case with Micky D’s, and the cases that involve Asbestoses have been truely destructive in destroying hundreds of companies that probably should not have been held responsible, however without these cases, many of the protections people enjoy today would not be in place.

February 19th, 2007

Chaim the Groupie thought this

Although I agree that incidents like this are required in many cases to perfect laws and eliminate loopholes, I fail to see how the now-present “coffee is extremely hot” warnings of cups at McDonalds and other establishments do anything to help consumers. Any idiot should know that a hot drink is hot and that they should be careful. Anyone dumb enough to not understand that is probably also not clever enough to inspect a cup for warnings. That language exists on the cup solely to protect the business in case of another lawsuit.

February 19th, 2007

Christine the Lioness hunt n' pecked this

I understand that these types of lawsuits do create progress in the sense that it keeps companies accountable and prevents them from abusing their employees or selling harmful things to the consumers. However, precendents like the McDonalds case basically just allow people to not use common sense. McDonalds wasn’t being negligent for serving coffee hot. As a matter of fact, thousands of people had bought that coffee, assumed it was hot because it was coffee, and didn’t sue McDonalds. In the same vein, IBM isn’t responsible for every trauma that has happened to every employee years before they started working for them. IBM has a right to warn and then discharge employees for doing things the employee knows is against the company’s policy. If this Pacenza guy wins, it sets a precedent that war vets, because of traumatic war experiences, are not required to follow the same policies as other employees. If I were IBM, that would make me stop hiring war vets. But then they’d be sued for discrimination, and it would negatively affect all war vets who apply and wouldn’t break policy or file negligent lawsuits, so that doesn’t really help anyone but Pacenza. The problem is, it’s a slippery slope. If McDonalds has to put language on coffee cups explaining the coffee is hot, then why don’t we write signs all over sidewalks saying the concrete is hard and be careful not to fall, why don’t we put signs all over the street explaining that cars drive there, and people need to watch for traffic, why don’t we put a sentence on bottles explaining that glass breaks and you can get cut… it becomes ridiculous. We, as a society, and an economy, shouldn’t be catering to the lowest common denominator just to protect ourselves. That doesn’t afford anyone freedoms. It creates an environment where progress is essentially slowed.

February 20th, 2007

Scotty the Virgin thought this

In the field of technical writing these kinds of statements that appear in a manual (such as “Keep laser printer away from open flame.”) impart a quality to the manual known as “drool proof paper.” As in, “We printed this sucker on drool proof paper. Legal should be pleased.”

February 28th, 2007

penned this