Internet addicts: the next wave in accommodation claims?

In an article for the American Journal of Psychiatry titled "Issues for DSM V: Internet Addiction", Dr. Jerald Block posits that internet addiction should be included in the update to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).  He describes internet addiction as a "compulsive-impulsive spectrum disorder that involves online and/or offline computer usage" and which involves four specific components:

1. excessive use, often associated with a loss of sense of time or a neglect of basic drives;
2. withdrawal, including feelings of anger, tension, and/or depression when the computer is inaccessible;
3. tolerance, including the need for better computer equipment, more software, or more hours of use; and
4. negative repercussions, including arguments, lying, poor achievement, social isolation, and fatigue.

The validity of internet addiction as true disorder is and has been questioned.

So, here's the question.  If people can become addicted to the internet in the same way they can become addicted to alcohol or drugs, how might that play out in the workplace?  At Ohio Employer's Law Blog, Jon Hyman theorizes that even if internet addiction is adopted as a mental disorder in the DSM, employers in the US ought to be able to legitimately regulate computer use at work without coming into violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.  He states:

'Just as the ADA does not entitle an employee who claims sex addiction to sexually harass co-workers, the ADA is almost certainly not going to permit an Internet addict not to perform his or her job."

While I agree with the premise that employers have a legitimate interest in ensuring employees remain productive and do not misuse company technology, the pendulum in Canada in relation to the accommodation of disability in the workplace has clearly swung in the direction of employees.  As a result,  I'm not so certain that Canadian employers who attempt to take a strictly black and white approach to the enforcement of technology use policies (for example) won't come into conflict with human rights legislation.  Using Mr. Hyman's example, if an employer moved to terminate an employee in Canada for excessive personal use of the internet on work time and the employee then disclosed a potential disability connected to that internet use, I think an employer would be wise to stop and explore what the employee was saying before taking any further steps.  Some of the questions an employer would need to ask itself are:

• can the employee, through medical information, provide support for an addiction claim?  Can the employee show that the computer usage rule may well be prima facie discriminatory?;
• can the employer prove that any rule it has regarding computer usage is a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ)? (here, the three-part test set out in Meiorin would apply and the employer would have to be able to answer "yes" to all three questions below in order for the rule to qualify as a BFOQ)
  • was the rule adopted for a purpose rationally connected connected the performance of the job in question?
  • was the rule adopted in an honest and good faith belief that it was necessary to fulfill the work-related purpose?
  • is the rule reasonably necessary to accomplish the work-related purpose?  Specifically, can the employer demonstrate that it is impossible to accommodate the employee claiming internet addiction without imposing undue hardship on the employer?

A failure to engage in this kind of analysis, no matter how flagrant an employee's violation of the computer usage rule, will, in my view, only invite scrutiny on the part of human rights commissions -- at least in this country.

Further reading:

"Recognize Internet Addiction as a Mental Disorder, Journal Urges" - Edmonton Journal

"China tackles rise in 'Internet addiction'" - CTV.ca

Comments

[Jon Hyman]

Donna,

I've posted a response:
http://ohioemploymentlaw.blogspot.com/2008/03/dealing-with-internet-addiction-under.html.