porn addiction ADA qualified

mbd

does anyone have any knowledge of whether or not an "addiction to pornography" qualifies under ADA? my thought is no, however, i said that i would see if anyone has dealt with this before. it can come up when an employee is approached about using company computers to access inappropriate websites. thanks for any input that you have.

SMace

You should post this in the FMLA/ADA section or the employment law section. It will get more traffic.

It's a stretch. I'm not sure which major life activity it would severely limit. I'm not sure I want to know.

Anyway, even if it was ADA covered, allowing an employee to access porn at work is not a reasonable accomodation. If they violated a policy by doing that, apply the policy absent of ADA.

For example, if an ADA qualified alcoholic comes to work drunk and you fire people for coming to work drunk, you can fire him.

marc

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 03-25-05 AT 06:33PM (CST)[/font][br][br]I agree with Stephen - the reasonable accomodation portion of ADA should be considered. How would you make any kind of allowance for this? Allow magazines in the bathroom for breaks? x:-8 OK, that's just too weird of a picture, but you get the point. Even the interactive process might be too offensive - have witnesses present.

Cheryl S SPHR

I believe if you check the definition of disabilities in the ADA, it specifically excludes gambling addiction -- I would consider this to be similar and not a protected disability.

IMHO....

ritaanz

Please tell me this is a joke. I can't believe the question.

System

I thought the same thing, Rita. This is worded funny and I don't think it's a real problem to you, mbd.

mbd

i was entirely serious with the question. i struggled with how to word it initially, and ended up with what i thought was the most concise wording. i'm aghast that anyone would try and justify that behavior with a statement like that, but it has happened. thanks to everyone for your thoughts. it just reinforces my own opinion.

ritaanz

Boy! How I wish I was the one that the employee told about their ADA problem. I could come up with a beaut of a reasonable accomodation. x}>

System

I appologize for doubting you if this is truly a serious issue that your workplace is dealing with. I'm a known skeptic. I should move to Missouri.

Don D

There is no doubt that the condition would fall within the definition of one or more psychoses described in the literature. But, I imagine there is no way it would have any sort of ADA protection and certainly could not be a condition requiring reasonable accommodation.

Don D

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 04-05-05 AT 09:49AM (CST)[/font][br][br]But, remember, reasonable accommodation need not be requested for something to fall within the ADA. For the sake of argument, the person who is legitimately covered by the ADA need only be 'A qualified, disabled individual who can perform the job with or without reasonable accommodation'. This is off track, but it seemed some of you had centered on reasonable accommodation.

TN HR

If this somehow gained bonafide disability status, there would be absolutely no reasonable accomodation to be had in terms of work area or job design.

I suppose you could modify a work schedule to permit attendance at therapy sessions or whatever 12-step program deals with this sort of thing if this of course were reasonable in your situation.

As far as viewing porn at work, my thought would be that the individual is no longer protected while "practicing" their addiction. It would be no different than an alcoholic relapsing and drinking again. Protection gone.


Gene

pork1

Absolutely agree! PORK