Steve Sarkisian is "disable".

ElCidBUZZingFAN said:
Unless his contract says "I get to be drunk at practices, games, and flights home from games. Otherwise, you pay me $30M", there's no chance.
Click to expand...

If the university has policies that let you keep your job pending completion of a rehab program, and that policy isn't exempted in his contract somewhere, he might have a case. That goes for any state, not just California, although Cali is probably more generous than most states.

It really depends on how usc has handled other drunks.
 
WracerX said:
If the university has policies that let you keep your job pending completion of a rehab program, and that policy isn't exempted in his contract somewhere, he might have a case. That goes for any state, not just California, although Cali is probably more generous than most states.

It really depends on how usc has handled other drunks.
Click to expand...

they made him sign some stuff when they let him keep going after the first debacle at some USC event where he was obviously under the influence of pills/drink

he agreed to a bunch of personal behavior stipulations

his only avenue that i see is a contention on his part that forcing him to agree to those violated his rights under the ADA, and that his firing still falls under the original contract and that they did not allow him the chance to get well as one must allow a 'sick' person to do
 
alcoholism is a disease but its the only disease you get yelled at for having. -m.h.
 
BuzzCzar said:
they made him sign some stuff when they let him keep going after the first debacle at some USC event where he was obviously under the influence of pills/drink

he agreed to a bunch of personal behavior stipulations

his only avenue that i see is a contention on his part that forcing him to agree to those violated his rights under the ADA, and that his firing still falls under the original contract and that they did not allow him the chance to get well as one must allow a 'sick' person to do
Click to expand...

I agree. Also, if usc has policies in place about how to treat addict employees, then making him change his contract could be trumped by the existing policies.

It is also possible usc forced him to attend booster functions were everyone is drinking while Sark was in rehab. That wouldn't play well with a jury.

In the end, he got fired without getting a buyout. He was going to sue.
 
WracerX said:
I agree. Also, if usc has policies in place about how to treat addict employees, then making him change his contract could be trumped by the existing policies.

It is also possible usc forced him to attend booster functions were everyone is drinking while Sark was in rehab. That wouldn't play well with a jury.

In the end, he got fired without getting a buyout. He was going to sue.
Click to expand...

I never realized he hadn't received a buyout. Got to think they settle out of court quickly on this.

Anyone know what his buyout was supposed to be?
 
The Jacket said:
I never realized he hadn't received a buyout. Got to think they settle out of court quickly on this.

Anyone know what his buyout was supposed to be?
Click to expand...

12.6 million was the number I saw, as far as what he is owed and what he's suing for. I guess that's the total remaining on his contract. I'm assuming there was a separate buyout number, but I haven't seen it published anywhere. If Sark gets all that money, he will have been paid over a million dollars per win, as he was 12-6 at USC.
 
Sarkisian was on a flight to enter alcohol-rehabilitation treatment on Oct. 12 when he was fired via email by athletic director Pat Haden.
Click to expand...

Freaking Pat Haden managed to screw up what may be the easiest firing with cause opportunity in the history of college athletics.
 
Pat Haden has to be the worst AD in history.
 
my prediction is that the parties will end up settling on some number slightly less than the buyout number, in the neighborhood of $7-10million
 
If they settle for even a fraction, he can move somewhere that's never seen college football and spend the rest of his days living on perpetual investment income. Not that he's that intelligent.
 
Flywheel said:
If they settle for even a fraction, he can move somewhere that's never seen college football and spend the rest of his days living on perpetual investment income. Not that he's that sober.
Click to expand...

Ftfy
 
The thing I'm curious about is the fact that he was heading to rehab when he was fired. Had he discussed that with Haden? If he had and Haden told him something to the effect of "go get help and we'll go from there" then I can kind of see where he's coming from.
 
The Jacket said:
The thing I'm curious about is the fact that he was heading to rehab when he was fired. Had he discussed that with Haden? If he had and Haden told him something to the effect of "go get help and we'll go from there" then I can kind of see where he's coming from.
Click to expand...

this, imo, would be an area where they would argue and argue and it will depend on whether it is viewed from the perspective of his original, normal contract or whether it will be viewed from the perspective of the addendum that he signed with all the additional stipulations.

if it is seen that the addendum is legit, and did not deprive him of due process, then i think there is no way that the above statement could have inferred that he would still be the coach, since he clearly violated the stipulations of the addendum

that was my previous point, more fully explained
 
BuzzCzar said:
this, imo, would be an area where they would argue and argue and it will depend on whether it is viewed from the perspective of his original, normal contract or whether it will be viewed from the perspective of the addendum that he signed with all the additional stipulations.



if it is seen that the addendum is legit, and did not deprive him of due process, then i think there is no way that the above statement could have inferred that he would still be the coach, since he clearly violated the stipulations of the addendum



that was my previous point, more fully explained
Click to expand...


Do we know the details of the addendum? I guess I'm not fully up to speed on this.
 
relevant points:

1. at the time of the first incident, Sarkisian asserted that he did NOT have a drinking problem; but rather, that he had mistakenly mixed pills with alcohol to negative effect.

2. even if a person has a drinking problem, they can still be fired for poor performance or not adhering to work terms & conditions like showing up on time to work, not drinking on the job, and so on, just like any employee. Sarkisian failed to show up to a function, and also was related to have been intoxicated during previous games and/or practices. These would all support USC avoiding ADA issues with his firing

3. apparently the report of an addendum being signed were "reports". no official addendum has ever been offered to the public or discussed by either USC or Sarkisian

4. to your point, USC may have made a procedural error in not giving him time to recover in any way before firing him.

Still, because USC appeared to attempt to provide Sarkisian with at least one accommodation for his alleged alcohol dependency and terminated him before it was possible to determine whether or not Sarkisian could continue to perform his essential job functions with that accommodation, Sarkisian could assert that his termination while on a leave of absence for a disability was unlawful in violation of the ADA. Whether this would result in litigation is unclear for many reasons.
Click to expand...

http://www.milesstockbridge.com/lab...iring-usc-football-coach-raises-ada-concerns/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top