VTTW Board Index

That didn't take long

Showed up for a speaking engagement drunk....then to practice in the same shape equals no job.

The Southern Cal lawyers must have approved this. TRO can probably shed light on this but I think that in some states (and I believe California would be one) you can't fire someone for alcoholism unless they refuse to go to rehab.

True under the ADA for the most part.  I'm not sure about CA, but the federal law doesn't protect employees who abuse alcohol while at work, or whose alcohol abuse prevents them from performing any essential part of their job. If an employee abuses alcohol while on duty (and that may be the case here), or the alcohol abuse makes it impossible to do the essential functions of the job, then an employer probably can terminate the employee without the accommodations required by the law.  My guess is the USCw attorneys made that clear the first time the alcoholism was raised.

Thanks for the insight Droner and TRO. I wondered what the process was.

Regardless, hopefully Sark gets whatever help he needs. Substance abuse is a vicious thing.

Is he fired actually?  This morning on ESPN it was "indefinitely suspended".

Fired later in the day.  got it.   :biggrin:

Does this mean that lame kittens dream job is open again?????

 :laugh:

He has cursed two programs now. It would nice if he pulled the trifecta.  :biggrin:

Starting in two weeks!   :dance:

LOL!!!  :clap:

Latest: http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaaf-dr-saturday/steve-sarkisian-sues-usc-for-wrongful-termination-183907459.html

I wonder if Southern Cal has evidence that he was drunk on the job.  They better have had their defense lined up at the time he was fired, and as droner mentioned initially, the lawyers were likely involved up front.  It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

In response to former coach Steve Sarkisian's wrongful-termination lawsuit filed against USC on Monday, the university issued the following statement from general counsel Carol Mauch Amir: Much of what is stated in the lawsuit filed today by Steve Sarkisian is patently untrue. While the university does not as a matter of practice comment on personnel matters or litigation, the record will show that Mr. Sarkisian repeatedly denied to university officials that he had a problem with alcohol, never asked for time off to get help, and resisted university efforts to provide him with help. The university made clear in writing that further incidents would result in termination, as it did. We are profoundly disappointed in how Mr. Sarkisian has mischaracterized the facts and we intend to defend these claims vigorously.

Well, there you have it. :biggrin:

Between Sarkisian, Kiffin, and Orgeron, I'll bet that USC coaching staff threw some epic recruiting parties back in the day. :frown:

Well, at the moment, we can only rely on lawyers for information  :eek: :wtf: :dunno: :beer:

I'm guessing SC has documentation to prove what they're asserting.  If not, their lawyers are pretty bad.

I don't know if it would be a winning strategy but as his attorney, my response would be: "No kidding! Those are exactly the symptoms of his disease/disability."

I thought the timing of the action was a bit off, then and more so now based upon their release.

BTW, please pass to BTV than I will support his icon come NY's day :nod:

I'm sure they'll raise that. They allege that SC never gave Sarkisian the "reasonable accommodation" of allowing "time off to get help for his disability."  But, if he never asked for time off to get help, as SC asserts, it's tough to provide an accommodation.  While I don't know CA law, it would be unusual for an employer to be able, much less required, to force an accommodation on someone.  Absent his willing participation in an interactive communication process, SC can do little but keep offering assistance and warning of the consequences of a failure to abide by university conduct rules. But, this is in CA, so....  :wink:

I suppose it will be settled out of court. Why should a football coach with a disease be any different from any other profession.He will get some bucks. In this day and age, Majors would be a goner too. He was an alkie as well.

From what I read elsewhere, alcoholism is an addiction covered by California law and by law is a protected disability. The state will have to prove it has a program and procedure of how to deal with alcoholism. You cannot be fired simply because you are an alcoholic. They will have to prove he met with a supervisor in person, was counseled, told what he had to do, and prove he rejected it. This cannot happen in one meeting or after the fact. It would be in the best interest for USC to settle out-of-court.

I am not a lawyer (by God I have some standards), but I worked enough in companies with Federal contracts to have been given management training on how to deal with problem employees.

I do this in the federal system, and if the SC lawyers are even average they will have covered everything and documented what was done.  Alcoholism is a disability but it also carries with it some unique rules, usually involving conduct, and inappropriate conduct generally is not excused due to a disability.  I wouldn't recommend settlement unless SC messed up big time.  If they did, the lawyers should be held accountable, especially if they are on staff at SC.  If they were giving advice and messed up bad enough to justify a settlement, I'd seriously start thinking malpractice (whether acted upon or not).  If SC wants to offer a "nuisance" settlement to end things, that's different.