Ex-coach Sarkisian Suing for Wrongful Termination

Sarkisian is suing USC for a boatload of money, I've heard 30+ million dollars, for wrongful termination of his job.



http://www.upi.com/Sports_News/2015/12/08/Ex-USC-coach-Steve-Sarkisian-files-wrongful-termination-lawsuit/5601449558230/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The suit states that Sarkisian has, at times, been "a person with a disability" because of his alcoholism, under federal law, and the stress of his job contributed to his alcohol dependency.



"Under the circumstances of this case, California law required USC to make reasonable accommodation of giving Steve Sarkisian time off to get help for his disability and then return to his job," according to the lawsuit. "Instead, USC ignored both its obligations under California law and the commitments it made to Steve Sarkisian."

Being one who suffers from depression, I can have empathy for that. I know there are those who would just want to fire him and throw him off into the junk pile of life, but the law says that's a no no.



USC placed him on indefinite leave and then fired him the next day. I'm not a lawyer, nor do I pretend to be one of those vile creatures, but I see a lot of problems with what USC did.



I work at Kennedy Space Center and there are counselors there, full time, specifically for helping those with problems and it's all confidential. I have used it. It saved my life and my job.



Supervisors can even suggest their underlings go get help. A lot of effort is put into helping somebody before such a drastic action as firing somebody is ever done. That is done as a last resort.



Even though it's irritating, though very wonderful, I can talk with those high and mighty in NASA about my depression, they don't judge me, but they tell me to please take advantage of that counseling. They take it seriously. The leaders in the Church even are being more compassionate with depression. They are beginning to understand it better.



I don't choose to be depressed and without external help, medicine, and time, it only gets worse and I end up doing things just to find a morsel of happiness and finding the morsel only makes it worse.



I don't know why Sark did what he did, but I believe he has good reason for his suit, but whatever happens, I hope him the best.

I hope for the best for him as well because if this report is accurate, he just turned nuclear. He won't coach anywhere again except the high school for the inner city choir boys.

He was warned and given plenty of advance notice. He was sincerely crippling the school and its reputation (hard to believe that school has selected three dumpster fire coaches in a row) with his choices by not managing his addiction. I doubt he wins the suit, but he may. But regardless, he will be nuclear and no school will ever want to be associated with him again. I'm compassionate toward his "disability" and concerned for him as a former Coug (though I have far more for max hall's addiction etiology from an injury). But essentially blaming someone else and taking to this level is a bad sign for his future as he will be locked into his views of the world and his own addiction. Feeding him $30mm would on,y feed his addiction.

Alternatively, he should have sobered up, rehabbed up, and restarted somewhere else. Others have done that. Shoot even some of you on here suggested he come to byu. I'm sure by now you have realized the foll heartiness of your fantasy.

I think that regardless of illness and depression, there comes a time when we have to take responsibility for our actions. If we face issues with depression, we have to be willing to seek and accept help. Some of his actions seem to show that he chose to avoid the help he needed - and was probably offered. If USC simply ignored his issues, then perhaps his lawsuit has merit. But I suspect he'd been given many chances to get the help he needed.

Jason Scukanec (former BYU cougar) has a sports talk show here in the

Portland area, and he talked about the law suit yesterday. Jason thinks that USC will for $5M just to be done and avoid a trial with the accompanying legal fees.

He'll be less toxic than Mike Leach was, and Mike seemed to find a new job in the P5 pretty easily.

I think USC better settle, because the way they handled this, they are likely on the line for the $30 million if it goes to trial. The suspension one day/firing the next really looks like they were trying to avoid a diagnosis they knew was coming, and thus be subject to all the ADA requirements. Judges look down on that type of maneuvering from businesses.

Cougs_Rule wrote:
I He was sincerely crippling the school and its reputation (hard to believe that school has selected three dumpster fire coaches in a row) with his choices by not managing his addiction.

Step 1 in AA, NA, Lds addiction recovery etc; basically says "you're powerless to overcome your addiction and your life is unmanageable"



An actual alcoholic or addict CANNOT manage their own addiction. If(and i'm assuming this to be 100% true) Steve was an actual alcoholic and not just a heavy drinker or problem drinker(there is a difference) than Steve's life was run by alcohol. He could had said he was ok and had it under wraps, he could have said he didn't need treatment etc. All that would be false and the federal and state laws will back this up.

Steve will either win or get a settlement, USC broke the law. You;d think in California of all places, they would have jumped through all the right loops before sending Sark on his way.

This takes nothing away from Steve deserving to be let go, he messed up, but so did USC and now they will have to pay to make it go away.

IowaCougar wrote:
I think that regardless of illness and depression, there comes a time when we have to take responsibility for our actions. If we face issues with depression, we have to be willing to seek and accept help. Some of his actions seem to show that he chose to avoid the help he needed - and was probably offered. If USC simply ignored his issues, then perhaps his lawsuit has merit. But I suspect he'd been given many chances to get the help he needed.

Sometimes depression makes one not want help. It's often not a matter of choice.



One time I went through the house yelling and screaming at my boys when they were little and I broke a few things. That is not me in any way, but I did it. Also, the whole time I was telling myself to stop doing that, but I kept on doing it. I did it for about ten minutes and finally I was simply emotionally exhausted.



Yes, there are consequences to actions. but should we be so eager to heap more than enough consequences onto another heads in order to make sure he suffers enough.



There does come a time when a company will have to drop somebody if depression if he refuses help or the help isn't helping, but it shouldn't be a matter of "Hey, we asked you if you wanted help one time and you said no. Adios buddy."



I don't know what USC has or hasn't done to help Sarkisian, but they had better have dotted their I's or crossed their T's, else they could be in for a heap of financial hurt.

IowaCougar wrote:
I think that regardless of illness and depression, there comes a time when we have to take responsibility for our actions.

You cannot separate those with depression/addiction and those without it and judge them both equally.

IowaCougar wrote:

If we face issues with depression, we have to be willing to seek and accept help. Some of his actions seem to show that he chose to avoid the help he needed -

Doesn't work this way.

You cannot judge an addict or seriously depressed person, with having normal brain function. It would make sense that when Steve's life was spiraling out of control for him to accept help or to reach out. Well, that's not how it works out 90% of the time. Ever wonder why addicts go down hill so fast, why they do things sane people wouldn't touch?

Alcoholism/addiction lives in the mid-brain and as such is on par with other mid-brain activities. The addiction runs in the background, and if left unchecked will eventually lead to self destruction. That's just the basic facts and that is why the Feds and the States classify addiction as a disability. It's also the reason rehab's will move into your neighborhoods....but that's a separate topic.



FWIW; I'm an addict/alcoholic. Been to rehab and jail and throughout the justice system. Had to lose a job based on it(my work did it the right way...kinda) Been active in recovery based meetings etc. for years(LDS 12 steps mostly)

My apologies if it sounds like i'm talking down to anyone. There is just so much mis information out there and i'm passionate about these topics.

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.

redneckjedi wrote:
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.

redneckjedi wrote:
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

ABYUFAN wrote:

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.

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

Ddawg wrote:
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.

ABYUFAN wrote:

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.

Ddawg wrote:

Ddawg wrote:
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.

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 ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">