Ex-coach Sarkisian Suing for Wrongful Termination

[ABYUFAN]

My limited understanding of the California law in question is that it only protects you if the disability does not interfere with your ability to perform the actions required by your job. There was plenty of evidence that the alcoholism was affecting Sarkisian's ability to function as the head coach of a football team, such as missing meetings, making a fool of himself while speaking to boosters (and potentially losing their donations), etc. I'd wager that if USC takes him to court, they win.

You're mostly right, it comes down to "can he perform the essential job functions?" But that analasys must include the phrase "with (or without) a reasonable accomodation." The trial will focus on what accomodations were needed for him to have performed the essential job functions, (he will argue that he could have performed the essential job functions with a reasonable accomodation of an unpaid leave of absence to enter rehab.)

This kind of case costs into the millions to litigate, I wouldn't be suprised if it settles.

[stgeorgefan]

My limited understanding of the California law in question is that it only protects you if the disability does not interfere with your ability to perform the actions required by your job. There was plenty of evidence that the alcoholism was affecting Sarkisian's ability to function as the head coach of a football team, such as missing meetings, making a fool of himself while speaking to boosters (and potentially losing their donations), etc. I'd wager that if USC takes him to court, they win.

Steve went to seek help and was fired by surprise. No LOA, no buy out, nothing. You're setting a dangerous precedent if you let USC off the hook here. The only debate i've heard would be surrounding conversations of Steve declining attempts by USC to help him out.

If Steve had cancer and was seeking chemo, would you think he had a strong case? I think the terminology plays a roll here in the public opinion.

IMO, the only reason people think it's not strong case for Steve is because he was a drunk. We can debate the word disability all day long, but the fact of the matter is, that's the definition the court will use.

If Vegas had a line on the chances of USC winning the case, i'd put it at 100/1

[redneckjedi]

My limited understanding of the California law in question is that it only protects you if the disability does not interfere with your ability to perform the actions required by your job. There was plenty of evidence that the alcoholism was affecting Sarkisian's ability to function as the head coach of a football team, such as missing meetings, making a fool of himself while speaking to boosters (and potentially losing their donations), etc. I'd wager that if USC takes him to court, they win.

You're mostly right, it comes down to "can he perform the essential job functions?" But that analasys must include the phrase "with (or without) a reasonable accomodation." The trial will focus on what accomodations were needed for him to have performed the essential job functions, (he will argue that he could have performed the essential job functions with a reasonable accomodation of an unpaid leave of absence to enter rehab.)

This kind of case costs into the millions to litigate, I wouldn't be suprised if it settles.

Ah, I missed the part about the accomodation. Clearly, one day isn't enough time to get rehab. I guess USC's argument would have to be that they encouraged him to take care of things in the offseason and he didn't, and that there is no reasonable accomodation during the middle of a season. That's certainly a much harder case to make.

[Ddawg]

Actually, the case stated her is not exactly how it went down. AD Pat Haden approached Sark about his alcohol problem before the season started. He wanted Sark to take a break, get help, fix his addiction, and continue with USC. Sarkisian declined the rehab.

Instead -Sark promised to not touch 1 drop of alcohol till the season was over. On that condition, Pat Haden agreed to let Sark continue coaching without rehab. The promise was not kept. Staff members reported to Pat Haden that he was drunk on the sidelines during at least 1 game. Then Sarkisian was blasted drunk in his office while the team was working out. Staff called Pat Haden - Haden talked to Sark on the phone - determined Sark was loopy drunk - he had Sark escorted off the school premises and suspended him - then subsequently fired him. I'm pretty darn sure Pat Haden consulted with school attorneys prior to firing Sarkisian. What we don't know is, what documents Sarkisian signed to promise and guarantee he will not drink any alcohol during the football season. I don't think Pat Haden is an idiot, and USC is not run by idiots. I suspect USC is on pretty solid legal footing

[ABYUFAN]

Actually, the case stated her is not exactly how it went down. AD Pat Haden approached Sark about his alcohol problem before the season started. He wanted Sark to take a break, get help, fix his addiction, and continue with USC. Sarkisian declined the rehab.

Instead -Sark promised to not touch 1 drop of alcohol till the season was over. On that condition, Pat Haden agreed to let Sark continue coaching without rehab. The promise was not kept. Staff members reported to Pat Haden that he was drunk on the sidelines during at least 1 game. Then Sarkisian was blasted drunk in his office while the team was working out. Staff called Pat Haden - Haden talked to Sark on the phone - determined Sark was loopy drunk - he had Sark escorted off the school premises and suspended him - then subsequently fired him. I'm pretty darn sure Pat Haden consulted with school attorneys prior to firing Sarkisian. What we don't know is, what documents Sarkisian signed to promise and guarantee he will not drink any alcohol during the football season. I don't think Pat Haden is an idiot, and USC is not run by idiots. I suspect USC is on pretty solid legal footing

I'm pretty sure that you are right, but juries do crazy things, and good plaintiffs (i.e. bad employees) often do just enough to mess up thier firing. This case has "settlement" written all over it.

[Ddawg]

Actually, the case stated her is not exactly how it went down. AD Pat Haden approached Sark about his alcohol problem before the season started. He wanted Sark to take a break, get help, fix his addiction, and continue with USC. Sarkisian declined the rehab.

Instead -Sark promised to not touch 1 drop of alcohol till the season was over. On that condition, Pat Haden agreed to let Sark continue coaching without rehab. The promise was not kept. Staff members reported to Pat Haden that he was drunk on the sidelines during at least 1 game. Then Sarkisian was blasted drunk in his office while the team was working out. Staff called Pat Haden - Haden talked to Sark on the phone - determined Sark was loopy drunk - he had Sark escorted off the school premises and suspended him - then subsequently fired him. I'm pretty darn sure Pat Haden consulted with school attorneys prior to firing Sarkisian. What we don't know is, what documents Sarkisian signed to promise and guarantee he will not drink any alcohol during the football season. I don't think Pat Haden is an idiot, and USC is not run by idiots. I suspect USC is on pretty solid legal footing

I'm pretty sure that you are right, but juries do crazy things, and good plaintiffs (i.e. bad employees) often do just enough to mess up thier firing. This case has "settlement" written all over it.

Agree with that. My respect for Sarkisian (which use to be very high), has sunk to the bottom of the Grand Canyon. It's a sad case.

[McY]

Actually, the case stated her is not exactly how it went down. AD Pat Haden approached Sark about his alcohol problem before the season started. He wanted Sark to take a break, get help, fix his addiction, and continue with USC. Sarkisian declined the rehab.

Instead -Sark promised to not touch 1 drop of alcohol till the season was over. On that condition, Pat Haden agreed to let Sark continue coaching without rehab. The promise was not kept. Staff members reported to Pat Haden that he was drunk on the sidelines during at least 1 game. Then Sarkisian was blasted drunk in his office while the team was working out. Staff called Pat Haden - Haden talked to Sark on the phone - determined Sark was loopy drunk - he had Sark escorted off the school premises and suspended him - then subsequently fired him. I'm pretty darn sure Pat Haden consulted with school attorneys prior to firing Sarkisian. What we don't know is, what documents Sarkisian signed to promise and guarantee he will not drink any alcohol during the football season. I don't think Pat Haden is an idiot, and USC is not run by idiots. I suspect USC is on pretty solid legal footing

I'm pretty sure that you are right, but juries do crazy things, and good plaintiffs (i.e. bad employees) often do just enough to mess up thier firing. This case has "settlement" written all over it.

Agree with that. My respect for Sarkisian (which use to be very high), has sunk to the bottom of the Grand Canyon. It's a sad case.

Perhaps one side wants to litigate this through trial, but my bet is USC and Sarkisian reach settlement at some point. That's usually how these things go. I hope for Sarkisian's sake he recovers and can move forward in a healthy way to new opportunities.

[BOID]

This will end bitterly for Sarkesian. The suit, and its notoriety, is a huge mistake for him, with no chance for him to go back and take the other fork in the road. I think all he can get by settlement, or as net gain after a long, stressful fight, is one, maybe two years' salary amount. It will not be enough to justify throwing away a career at his age. Sadly, he is apparently in a state of despair at present where in he does not believe that he could make a come back. I think he is wrong in that, and that he could have been received warmly at new coaching opportunities after rehab and continued sobriety.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]