Error editing post! Your message is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 5 characters.





What a moron. He was getting paid to do work, but he used that time to cybersex online. WTF?? Is he fucking high? I would love to be on that jury because I wouldn't make IBM pay him jack shit.
This pisses me off. People think that they do not have to be accountable for their actions anymore. Too fat? Sue McD's. Addicted to cybersex and get fired from work for visiting porn sites at work? Sue your employer because that's just not fair. Someone needs to tell this guy to hit some Sexaholic Anonymous meetings and take responsibility for his stupidity.





^^^ common sense would reach that conclusion, but this is America where such plaintiffs have the freedom to go 'judge shopping' and 'jury shopping'. Just think, if this guy manages to find a friendly court and win, internet sex will be declared to be an addiction - making him eligible for SSI benefits while he receives 'treatment' as well as the court's damage award !
Unbelievable...no really, un-fucking-believable.
Yes, he's an addict...but last I was taught...just because you are an addict doesn't absolve you from responsibilities. Just because you drink and drive and kill someone doesn't mean that you'll get off vehicular homicide charges because you're "addicted".
Geezus.
I like the response..."they should have limited his internet access..." Yeah, they could have done that...but why should they spend time babysitting someone who is blatantly breaking the rules of the workplace? They shouldn't have to. This should be a good lesson to him that just because you WANT to do something at work...doesn't mean that you should. And, if his job included internet access, then them limiting his internet at work WAS done...by way of showing him through the one-way door.![]()
Oh....My....God. People are fucking stupid. Unfortunately, I don't see the stupid law suits ending any time soon. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if he won.![]()
I believe you Dottie and you have my support
Just makes me wonder...if a stripper is caught having sex with a customer in the club and she gets fired and arrested for prostitution...can she claim that she's a sex addict and be let off?
Hrm...interesting point Venus...damn I'd like to see someone take that defense to court, I'd laugh my ass off!
I believe you Dottie and you have my support
haha. it's sad that that sex addiction case could totally be won....
This is making me feel terrible. I'm thinking back to the many hours I spend reading SW while at my day job... only to be repeated again at night.
Think my boss would understand a SW addiction?...
Sophia_Starina = stripper goddess
"Guys are so damn lame, the only way they can halfway make up for it is by opening their wallets."
AznExtasy





doesn't work when 'civil misconduct' is replaced by 'criminal behavior'. Also doesn't work when you're not an 'employee' of an above-board corporation with billions of dollars worth of assets, but an 'independent contractor' working for yourself. Dancers have a tough enough time attempting to get clubs to treat them like 100% independent contractors or 100% employees rather than an illegal hybrid that benefits the club in every instance.Just makes me wonder...if a stripper is caught having sex with a customer in the club and she gets fired and arrested for prostitution...can she claim that she's a sex addict and be let off?
At any rate, the financial point behind my original post is that lawsuits like this one even being allowed in American courts create a huge additional cost of doing business for US corporations, that foreign corporations do not also have to bear. In all probability, because the legal costs to IBM could run into the millions even if they ultimately win the case, and because the potential costs to IBM and every other US corporation would run into the billions if this yahoo does manage to establish a legal precedent that adult internet surfing is an 'addiction' (which must then be treated the same way by employers as alcoholism and other 'addictions', i.e. tolerating lost productivity, paying for rehab etc.), odds are that IBM will choose the path of lowest overall cost and settle out of court i.e handing this guy a million dollars to 'just go away' without any official legal precedent being set.





Uh oh. Watch out, I'm addicted to SW!
Haha. That's so lame. Do these people win?
Right along these lines...I was watching Fox news here today, and a man here is charged with posession of child pornography on his WORK computer at the CHILDRENS hospital. His defense? He has multiple personalities, and while HE doesn't condone child porn, his 'other personalities' do.![]()
I believe you Dottie and you have my support

We know nothing about this guy and the strength of his argument. Up until the 1970s homosexuality was thought to be a mental disorder and was listed as such. Maybe there is research that shows that internet addiction is a true addiction. Maybe it does release the same chemicals that are release when you take drugs or drink. Maybe these people really are disabled. I do not know.
When there is a dispute like this how do we resolve it? Do we gun it out like the Old West? Or do we have a civil means by what we can resolve the matter? Like go to court.
Our court system is set up to keep disputes, frivolous and not so frivolous, from being filed. For instance it takes years even to get to trial. Once you get there, if you win there are devices that can be used after an award is given to knock down the amount that needs to be paid. For instance your McDonald's example. "A stupid lady was burnt by her coffee what a whiner. Now she gets a jury award of three million dollars."
However, did you know that she received third degree burns? Did you know that she had hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills? Did you know that this particular McDonalds had knowledge that its coffee was too hot and could cause serious injury? Do you know how much she actually got? There is a judicial tool called remittitur. It allows a judge to look at a jury award and determine that the jury award "shocks the consciousness of the court." In this case, the judge lowered the award so that all the McDonalds had to pay was medical bills.
Do you know why Corporations pay so much in legal fees? Because they can and little guys cannot. They run the little guys into the ground to keep us out of court.
PookaShell- No these people never win. Even if they win they do not really win because they have wasted years going after the few dollars that they actually get to take home with them
Yeah, I knew, but it's almost useless to quote the actual facts of the case. Corporate America, particularly insurers, have done such a great job of demonizing that case, just using the words "spilled coffee" without revealing the actual facts, that it's now the PR straw man for everything wrong with the system.
Mega-Insurance USA isn't letting up, either.
(Link arguably provided for public discussion insofar as tort reform and jury awards can directly or indirectly affect the finances of people.)(Of course, everything directly or indirectly affects the finances of people.)(Butterfly effect, and all that.)![]()
Well, I thought that the McD's coffee thing was the fault of both entities (the woman and the coporation). You just don't put coffee that is in a styrofoam or paper cup between your legs. But, anyways...
This woman was physically harmed by this company's product. This man, who we know nothing about except that he has a porn addiction, was not harmed by being fired from IBM. Maybe its me, but just because someone has an addiction does not mean that they cannot be held liable for their actions stemming from that addiction. I mean, just because someone is a cokehead doesn't mean that they cannot be fired from the workplace if they are caught doing blow in the bathroom. I find it preposterous (sp?) that society is working to take the responsibility from the INDIVIDUAL and put it on the company/government/outside entity. You have an addiction...you deal with it. If it interferes with your job, then expect to get fired. Addiction is NOT an excuse to act like an asshole and not experience repercussions.
If this passes, who's to say that there will be someone who was driving drunk, killed a family, and got off because he "has an addiction". The whole, "I am powerless over my addictions..." is a bunch of bullshit. No, you are not powerless over your addictions...you are CHOOSING to stay in your addiction...and you know...just like the rest of the free world...when you do something, there are consequences. Just because you have an addiction, does not give you pass to do whatever you want.
If you do not want to get fired from work for surfing porn or cybersexing some old, fat guy...then buck up and don't do it. Know that if you do it and get caught, you will get fired and that's your tough shit.
But, that's just my honest opinion.![]()





Hmmm, an awful lot of 'ambulance chasing' attorneys appear to be perfectly willing to take on 'little guys' as plaintiffs for no money up front ... in exchange for 30 odd percent of the 'little guy's' jury award later !Do you know why Corporations pay so much in legal fees? Because they can and little guys cannot. They run the little guys into the ground to keep us out of court.
In cases where a corporation can and will financially break the opposition, contingency fees ("cut of the take") are sometimes the only viable means of conducting a lawsuit. And it carries the clear risk that the attorney will end up paying costs of several thousand or several hundred thousand out of his or her own pocket. It's not a job for the squeamish.





^^^ true, but if the payoffs weren't there the attorneys wouldn't be taking the risk. After all, it's still a winning situation if two losing cases cost the attorney a few hundred grand but he rakes 30% of a 10 million dollar settlement on the winning third case.
However, in ALL cases, win or lose, the corporations wind up having to foot their defense attorneys' bills.
If the money wasn't there, they wouldn't do it. They don't just get 30% of the final verdict. They get 30% of the final verdict PLUS reimbursements. Which can total upwards of 50% (or more) of the jury award (depending on how long the trial went on).
Yeah, the little guy gets peanuts that he's waited for years to get. But, in this case...it was this own guys fault...he shouldn't get anything.
Yeah, I wasn't answering to this particular case, which I didn't read - only replying to overgeneralized statements. If there's a better way for truly damaged people to sue corporations who are willing to crush them financially rather than cough it up, hey, the market's wide open.

The guy with IBM is likely trying to say that his condition porn/internet addiction is a disability under the Americans with Disability Act. It basically says that if a company can make reasonable accommodations for someone with a disability then they need to do so. In this case the guy and his attorney are trying to prove that he has a disability under the ADA and that IBM could have taken reasonable steps to allow him to keep his job.
This has nothing to do with a criminal case. If an alcoholic is driving drunk they can be jailed. The ADA is confined to Civil Court. The Civil and Criminal Justice system have very little to do with one another.
As for attorneys taking a high percentage of the judgment, think about how many they lose and if they lose they get nothing.
The ambulance chasers you see on TV usually make money by having a high turn over in cases. They go in for quick settlements and close out the cases to be able to work another. Which keeps the clients happy because they get their money quicker and protects them from an insurance company that would rather under pay. And any way, why trust an insurance company? They are not out to take care of you. They are a corporation out to make money. They do not make money by paying on claims. Do not het me started on insurance companies.





actually, you have reminded me that these civil 'settlement' suits are a double whammy for most American businesses. The first whammy is of course the cost of defense in civil court (usually leading to hefty settlements in order to avoid setting legal precedents like the one you just cited ... where every corporation in America would potentially be required to 'accomodate' internet porn surfers i.e. tolerate lost productivity, pay for 'treatment' etc.). But the second whammy takes the form of astronomical insurance premiums, which not only adds to the cost of doing business in America but indirectly pushes up the cost of all types of insurance.
Again, other than the 'entertainment' value, my point in posting this thread was to focus on the 'mandated' costs of operating a business in America which competing foreign businesses do not have to pay. Civil lawsuit 'settlements', legal defense costs etc. purportedly add 4% in costs for every American corporation, with disability insurance premiums, and high insurance premiums in general adding yet more costs. This provides yet more motivation for American companies to relocate / outsource and avoid having to pay these additional costs, thus providing 'former' American corporations with a chance of remaining on a 'level playing field' versus their foreign competitors.










^^^ no, it's a rather timely and absurdely extreme example of what is a very real phenomenon with very real additional costs. No, corporations should not be exempt from lawsuits. However, juries making multi-million dollar awards from the 'deep pockets' of corporations to people who wouldn't earn a million dollars in their entire working careers have had an effect other than making defendents' bank accounts larger ... they have created an incentive for US corporations to position themselves so that they will not have to bear the costs of such lawsuits i the future.
Like all applications of the 'law of unintended consequences' those same jury members who felt good about making a corporation 'pay' for their 'mistreatment' of a particular defendent have, in just as real a sense, caused former American jobs to become Asian jobs (with the associated loss of paychecks and tax revenue), and have caused former American corporations to become Cayman Islands corporations (with the associated loss of US tax revenue), and have thus indirectly contributed to their own paychecks not increasing over recent years and have also contributed to their own taxes increasing significantly. Of course practically nobody ever 'connects the dots', or considers that a precedent set by one truly 'worthy' case can then be applied to 1000 other people whose cases are nowhere near as 'worthy'
Also, these lawsuits wouldn't be filed if there were a reasonable pre-screening process in place. However, in America's interest to protect defendant's "rights", the defendant has nothing to lose and everything to gain by bringing such lawsuits - particularly so when an attorney is willing to plead their case with no money down !
Bookmarks