Employee from IBM gets fired over adult chat room visit

If James Pacenza symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder is true and IBM knows about it, IBM would have taken necessary action to correct its employee problem rather fire him. I agree to some of the comments here that if IBM would have not punished James by firing him for chatting in adult room, others would have followed him. But if he would have saved by IBM, people would have surely not followed James but IBM. Even though the sites were blocked, we know that it can be opened by proxy or some websites which provide these proxies. So blocking sites does not help here. Only option I can think right now is to help James to come out of his problem. Every company would initially give a warning to such incidents and if people continue to do then they have right to fire. I do not know if IBM has given any warning to James. To come to a win-win situation, IBM had options to correct James and others who are in such situations. If IBM fires James, they have to fire each and everyone who has post-traumatic stress disorder problem who tend to goto adult chat room or something similar to that to resolve the stress. IBM are in fault side as its against employment policy that no employee should be stressed at work neither physically nor mentally. James is going to win the case and IBM will be sued for this case.

The IBM have reason for fire the person from job because the person is doing adult chatting  so that this action will show to the future employees will not involve in the adult chat.Employees over the IBM are knowing how to visit adult site and to stop doing this this action is correct from company point of view.

      IBM should have given some other reason for firing Mr.James. Because many companies normally block such kind of sites form accessing by the user, so they should have given the real reasons like symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder and his age which is acceptable. Using such kind of reasons brings down the name of the company.

If james had visited adult chat site & if it is against the policies of the company then necessary action should be taken against him. Post Vietnam disorder.. blah.. blah... or so cannot be taken as a reason to flout company policies & values. It should be an example for others to follow

I second Alka's opinion. Benefit of doubt should have been given and not only that, if the employee was a good one, he should have been given counselling and pshychatric treatment to help him overcome the stress. Also IBM should have blocked access to  adult chat sites and adult content viewing at work. Better still create a separate room for adult viewing where a person cannot stay online for more than 30mins. System should shut down after that. I thought tech firms in any case have such filters in place. Prevention is better than cure. 

You have a right to defend yourself to prove you are MOT GUILTY!!

Stress can lead to SEEKING relief. Relief can be sought in many forms. Going to an Adult chat room is by law, during your work time, an offence, but before you make an example of the person, its right to give him a chance to justify his action!! If he has breached a law then he has to know that too. Was he very clear about the regulations of using the internet?? Was he tempted by some of his colleagues to visit such places?? There are ways by which you are able to hide your IP address, if he isnt well versed with that he was found out. But I think he should be given a chance to justify his action before making an example out of him!!
Thanks for the referral!!

If there is a policy that prohibit visits to the chat room then James has committed an offence. However, this does not warrant dismissal unless he was given warning notices before. On a lighter note, I hope IT had a 'no unauthorised persons allowed' sign on the door of the chat room and HR has good grounds for firing.
Thanks for the referral Gargi.

Whatever james has done is not correct.It needs disciplinary action.

Was  james the only employeee in IBM who has done this act? Or was it james alone whom IBM could catch ?its ridiculous.The It section can easily find out hundreds in this same activity.Why fire only James?

All this must be answered by IBM before the court.Its certainly not fair on the part of IBM to have singled out JAmes

If IBM has any code of conduct and if James has done against the code of conduct then there is no question of appeal. If there is no code of conduct and as long as James has delivered his job i think firing him is not warrented. James could have been warned instead of firing. 

I Agree all but there is human psychology when james would have entered the chat room coz he may be frustrated with his work else was disturbed with personal life may be his wife wanted him to be with him,so the best thing is that IBM can do is give him an good counselling and give him one more chance not to do it again and also inform the system adminstrator to block all the adult content sites through out the networks and servers so no employee will try to login into such sites and also if tries then it will get blocked by admin permission requesting for an password which is set up by the system admin.

Some parts of Alka's comment is not acceptable. if his current state of mind/situation could have led him to do such offense, he must take medication and must notify the same to the employer before hand. if it is not done before itself how would the employer know whether he is under stress and other things. More over the reason might not be a correct one. I cannot go and beat my manager because i am stressed. More over considering his age (60) he must have been retired a long back.

Very few people get the capacity to rule over the sexual aspiration, it is just about to regulate and control our wish coz we are a part of society or any formal gathering. 

Considering all views.. I feel this should not happen, Its a failure of system of such a big company... HR had not played its role properly.

Yes, I agree with Alka. At the same time I also see that if IBM considers the visit to these chat rooms is a strict no business value aspect, then it should have ensured that the employees are cannot visit these via their network. There are enough mechanisms in place to filter out these things and their internal IT department should have put this in place. I think its a very reactive or a preempted way of cornering the individual. 
Its a failure of their IT organization and their HR organization. 

Benefit of doubt is what every convicted person has the right to. Everyone deserves at least one chance to say something in his own defence. Big shots like IBM should not jump to a conclusion. Again I am not defending James. He is wrong in whatever he has done as office is not a place for all these things, but things can be explained........right?? His state of mind, his current situation could have led him into doing such things. Not everything that the eyes see or the ears hear is right all the time.