Steve Sarkisian just filed suit against USC for $30,000,000
- Thread starter Obliviax
- Start date
LOL. I'm paraphrasing here but ...drunk and stupid is no way to go through life.
Where is suing your employer for firing your ass because you were drunk at work half the time in AA's 12 steps? Ridiculous!
I'm not trying to defend him, but usually a substance abuse problem is handled in house with respect to the addict
seems the USC route was to out him and shame him and offer him no support
$30 million seems a lot, but he may have some grounds for it
seems the USC route was to out him and shame him and offer him no support
$30 million seems a lot, but he may have some grounds for it
not saying it is right or wrong, just saying most corporate health policies deal with addiction in this manner
no doubt, Sarkisian made a public fool of himself. But the University may have violated their own employee policies (ironic, eh?) in dealing with his problem. they certainly seem to have mishandled/exacerbated the issue.
Apparently, alcoholism can be interpreted as a disability under California law and must also be weighed against the California Drug-Free Workplace Act. I couldn't find a copy of Sarkisian's law suit. Just read this on - I know, I know - TMZ:
We're told one of the main allegations is that Sarkisian believes USC broke the law by firing someone with disabilities.
We spoke with Sark's attorney who tells us, "Alcoholism is a recognized disability under California law. So firing somebody because of that disability is against the law."
The attorney tells us Sark also feels USC left him high and dry when he needed them the most.
Just found the below checklist in this article:
LINK: Drug Rehab Programs & Disability Protections under California Law
Important Rules
The takeaway rules from these statutes can seem complicated. To simplify it a bit:
In general, an employer may adopt a rule prohibiting the use of drugs or alcohol.
Employers may not discriminate against employees that have suffered from drug or alcohol abuse in the past.
Employers are not required to give protections to current users of illegal drugs.
Employees may be entitled to a leave of absence to seek treatment at a substance abuse program.
A leave of absence must be at a qualified substance abuse program.
California employees must seek treatment before they are punished for the current use of drugs or alcohol. They cannot be discharged then seek treatment and expect legal protections.[31]
All employment, including temporary employment is included in these protections as long as the employer hires 25 or more employees.
Employees are generally not entitled to pay during a leave to seek drug or alcohol treatment unless they have accumulated sick leave.
Employees have privacy protections regarding their participation in a drug or alcohol rehabilitation program.
Yes I am going to keep a close eye on this. I may be able to get that retirement house in the Sandia Mtns. after all. LOL.
Part of the problem is that sarkisian made it public through his actions. It was out in the open because of sarkisian, not USC. Could USC still have handled it better? Perhaps.
I don't know He (Sark) showed up to a least 2 public events intoxicated. Seems to me like he put himself out there.
Agree and said something similar. I also agree that USC could have handled it better but I don't think its worth 30 million. I guess I was raised to take some responsibility for my actions.
Only on this board do we use Otis Campbell as a learning opportunity.
Now imagine if he had been employed for 61 years and did nothing wrong!? He could sue for $30,000,000,000,000!
I hear you, but he brought it into the public domain himself. While I agree that these situations NORMALLY are BEST handled in private, this guy was pickled at a booster function and it was on ESPN within minutes. Pretty soon, we won't be able to fire the "Office Ass Grabber" because he is addicted to ASS!
I remember that one day Pat Haden said Sark still had a job and was put on leave and then the next day USC fired him. The word at that time was that Haden took the day to work with the USC lawyers to make sure there would be no repercussions in firing him.
Whether right or wrong this is bad pub for USC. And Haden will be fired within the year
Whether right or wrong this is bad pub for USC. And Haden will be fired within the year
Sark should just contact our Board. I'm sure they would pay him just so they could "move on"...
well let me make a comparison
I think I've mentioned here when I was in the military, I wrote an article about the Ohio class submarine. I listed some technical data. some higher up muckity muck tried to get me court martialed because he said the data was classified. I pointed to Jane's Weekly and showed that the data was in there. There was some discussion about the data being in the public eye through a knowledgeable but non-classified source versus being verified by someone WITH a security clearance.
so technically, yes Sarkasian painfully made people aware he had a problem with his public acts. did not argue that at all.
what USC did was publicly confirm his issues, which may have violated his rights under California Labor Law.
without question, the AD handled the situation poorly and with a big mouth
what is kind of ironic is that PSU seems to have handled Sandusky's 1998 and 2001 issue by the book and in compliance with existing law, and they were criticized for not "speaking out".
reading over the TMZ report (take it with a grain of salt)
it appears Sarkasian's main argument is that USC should have granted him time to seek treatment rather than kick him to the curb
it appears Sarkasian's main argument is that USC should have granted him time to seek treatment rather than kick him to the curb
I wonder if they did? I thought I remember him having some "issues" last season as well.
Interesting story, thanks for the analogy. I now get the irony as well and was confused on your point there. I lost my security clearance when I grabbed the ass of that hot, new Amazon bombshell in Logistics!
Its one thing to be fired for being an alcoholic. Its another to be showing up in your place of business drunk and/or risking the lives of coworkers and subordinates. For example, you can't be a bus driver and show up for work drunk. Regardless of your status as being hooked, you can't be at work drunk. Now, you can't be fired for being a known alcoholic, but once it affects your workplace, you're toast.
Yep. Both acts are weighed against one another. If I were a bettor, I'd wager that Sarkisian will get a settlement from USC for quite a bit less than $30,000,000.
Word on the street has it, that you lost your security clearance because of an office sting operation. You didn’t know the difference between a hot, new Amazon bombshell and a tranny. Next time go for the front to verify.
yep....well, Sarkasian is going to have a tough time getting a job with this out there so he doesn't have a lot to lose. On the other hand, USC has deep pockets and a lot to lose. This is probably less about the law than it is publicity. So, I agree, SS will make a lot of money on this filing.
Sounds like what you did, just like what Sark did, was still both dumb and detrimental to the organization. You may argue technicalities, but I simply don't want people like that in my organization. I would much rather have someone who might recognize the action that might have a detrimental effect on the organization and have the professionalism to refrain from it for the good of the organization. It's called being a team player.
Imagine if he was fired after 61 years via a late night phone call and not be allowed to speak in his own defense.
Who invited all of these hot bitche$ to the office Christmas party?
LINK to Sarkisian's Complaint for Damages
Also the the LINK to LA Times article.
Really attacks Haden. Overall, it isn't terribly convincing to me and a little personal responsibility taking goes a long way. He'll have to be able to do that or he isn't going to be sober for long. Nevertheless, USC will probably just pay him enough to make just about anybody happy. His coaching future is most definitely in doubt though. Sober for a couple of months now and he's ready to get back into coaching. Don't think so. Not happening.
Last edited:
Ouch...USC has their hands full. Doesn't Todd McNair have a lawsuit ( apparently very winnable) against USC as well? After the Reggie Bush episode? Or is McNair's lawsuit just against the NCAA ?
A
anon_xdc8rmuek44eq
Guest
This probably isn't the place to bring this up since I'm sure the information is out there somewhere, but what reason was given for Joe's firing? I can't imagine one legitimate reason now that I think about it (told the truth, to the best of his ability, to a grand jury?).
"well you know, we just had to"
probably why they paid out his contract and then some
McNair's lawsuit is against the NCAA for defamation. He also claimed in his suit that the NCAA showed bias against USC in general. He has no beef with USC.
Yes and no. Generally if an employee raises their hand and claims alcohol abuse/dependence on their own they must be provided an opportunity to seek help and return to work. However no where would that employee be allowed to violate company policies or demonstrate sever performance issues after seeking treatment and still be allowed to be employed. However, and this is a huge point, if the company is the first to raise the issue and gives the employee an opportunity to seek treatment the employee has that option and then return to work under same rules as if they had initiated treatment. If employee blows off the help, or finishes help but continues the same behavior, the company has every right to dismiss for cause.
Someone cannot simply say "I'm an alcoholic", go to treatment, then show up for work events drunk, or God forbid, drive drunk on company business and possibly kill someone. You're allowed a chance to right the ship, after that you are expected to meet/exceed your performance parameters.
In CA you also have the additional difficulty/regulations around firing someone over 40 which may help but this is really a shakedown. And, as someone else wrote above, not at all in line with the principles of the 12 Steps.
Yes but I am sure those practices were in place before he became HC. If he didn't ask for special relief before having an incident/violation then he's just being a dirty rotten POS for making a claim like that.
Here is the suit: LINK
From a personal POV, it seems weak. Legally? Do I think USC will settle and get it behind the university? Yes.
Latest posts
-
-
-
Wrestling Could Penn State be hosting a wrestling dual at Beaver Stadium this fall?- Latest: The Spin Meister
