Is this a 'true' disability?

A man in White Plains, NY is suing IBM for $5 million dollars after he was terminated for accessing an adult chat room while at work. He is arguing that he was wrongfully terminated for his internet addiction, and that he should have been instead offered treatment and compassion for his addiction. He has worked for IBM for approximately thirty years.

Should internet addiction be considered a disability?

If internet addiction should be considered a disability, was IBM nonetheless justified in his termination?
No. Addictions can be avoided by our own actions. Real disabilities cannot. Maybe, a drug addiction caused by legally prescribed meds should qualify, ONLY if it is as a result of a chronic condition that the person can never be cured from, but that's where I draw the line.
He can certainly attempt to claim that it is a disability but I doubt he will be successful. That's the great things about our judicial system, it is good at figuring out questions of liability. Proof that the system is not broken.

The real crime is when insurance companies and right wing idiots use a case like this to draw the conclusion that regular people should have limited access to the courts to address their grievances. This is one of hundreds of thousands of cases that are processed successfully through the legal system and I seriously doubt the plaintiff will win.

The good news is that the next person who does have a real disability will still have the right to take thier case to court, just like this idiot.


Answer:
Wow!! Yet another way for people to place blame on something else instead of taking responsibility for their own actions. Trial lawyers are such a wonderful thing

Yeah. As soon as watching too much TV is considered a disability as well

There are many employers, particularly those with unions, who offer assistance before termination in cases like alcohol abuse, but I don’t feel that it should be an employer’s responsibility to keep a person from falling down. It should be a choice based on what the person has given the employer in the past and whether or not they feel that the person can be rehabilitated and continue to offer a valuable service to the company.

It may sound harsh, but sometimes people need to crash and experience some pretty negative ramifications before they’re actually willing to take steps to treat or change their own behaviors
Not recognized by law and not recognized by most everyday people.
no not at all who ever told you that they lied to you k
If it hasn't been in the past, it probably will be after this case. He was hired to do a job, not to spend his work hours accessing adult chat rooms. He's not getting paid to do that, he can do it on his own time. Seems to me that IBM is completely justified in firing him, but no doubt some judge will see it differently, or maybe the ACLU will take up his case. Too bad he can't just take responsibilty for his own actions. Guess he hasn't learned much in all his years.
All addictions are ultimately a matter of choice. You can choose not to have them (some need the help of 12 step programs, some don't).

If you choose to violate company policy than the company can choose to fire you.
IBM was justified..they were paying this man to do a job and he was not doing it...If I am employed by Burger King and I go to sleep in the backroom instead of serve customers shouldn't I be fired? This is just an example of time wasting lawsuits...I bet IBM has a policy about using resources for personal use...especially porn viewing....if he had a porn addiction whats wrong with him getting treatment on his own..instead of expecting others to pay for it.
I am more ticked off at the attorney representing him.