Sarkisian sues USC for wrongful termination
Gist of the complaint seems to be that his alcoholism should be considered a disability which would merit reasonable accomodations.
Complaint here:
December 7th, 2015 at 1:29 PM ^
December 7th, 2015 at 1:34 PM ^
As The_Mad_Hatter would say... I am going to pop some popcorn, sit back and watch this unfold. Should be awesome
December 7th, 2015 at 2:00 PM ^
"Hey Sark, I think I can get you the money from future years' salary on your contract back (like every coach fired for losing gets) if you let me file this lawsuit." - Lawyer
"Why not? It's not like trying will ruin my reputation. Go for it." - Sark
$$$
December 7th, 2015 at 2:51 PM ^
It seems like a step towards negotiating a settlement. Even if USC has a very good case, a trial could easily involve testimony they would not want to be made public. That's outside of the costs involved in defending a case.
December 7th, 2015 at 3:57 PM ^
Sure he can get some money now but will he every get hired again??
I can say this because I am not (and will never be) in a position hire a football coach but there is no way I would hire an alcoholic that publicly sued his employer threatening bad publicity.
Sure Sarks going to make some money off of this today, and the lawyer is going to make money off of this (and will then go away), but will Sark make more money off of this if you look at the next 10 years?
I seriously doubt so.
December 7th, 2015 at 4:32 PM ^
up for work drunk more than once and got fired for it. He's not risking a lot of damage to his resume by adding litigant to it. This is pretty much the only way he can defend his reputation or collect money. The settlement could include more than just cash, but an acknowledgment that his condition was not as it was portrayed. Not saying that's in fact the case, but it's his best opportunity to make that argument.
December 7th, 2015 at 4:35 PM ^
December 7th, 2015 at 7:18 PM ^
My wife asked a friend and lawyer about suing her employer several years ago. His advice was that there were no guarantee she would prevail, and even if she did win the lawsuit she would lose out in the long run because she would have difficulty getting hired again in her profession at her level because of the lawsuit.
I've wondered if that wasn't part of Mike Leach's difficulty getting a decent HC gig. After two years out of work, the best he could do is Washington State? With his record, he should have had a lot better football programs than that beating down his door with job offers from day one.
December 7th, 2015 at 8:05 PM ^
I don't think a Division 3 school would hire him. He is done. Maybe some assistant on a high school team. But suing someone over a substance abuse problem is rediculous. Another person who wants to be coddled and not take the blame for screwing up.
December 7th, 2015 at 1:34 PM ^
Not sure there will be much of a debate. I'm not a California barred attorney, but I would think the answer to the question of whether alcoholism is a covered disability under Calfiornia law has been answered definitively already. I'd be surprised if there's not solid case law to work with here.
December 7th, 2015 at 1:37 PM ^
That question has been answered and the answer is that in the State of California it is seen as a valid disability covered under ADA. The questions seems to be if he showed up to work inebriated which would invalidate his ADA protection.
December 7th, 2015 at 1:42 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
December 7th, 2015 at 1:49 PM ^
He is still claiming that was due to anti anxiety meds and not alcohol
December 7th, 2015 at 1:57 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
December 7th, 2015 at 1:59 PM ^
again, he is denying that and blaming the reported strange behavior on anti anxiety medication.
December 7th, 2015 at 2:41 PM ^
So I'm not sure what the difference is. If that's his claim, the idea is drinking is bad but you can self-medicate with anything you like regardless of effect and that's cool? Would that be an accurate representation?
And wouldn't it be hard to show that anti-anxiety medication had the effect of making you appear drunk.....and even if it did make you appear drunk, shouldn't the school be able to say that Sark should have known the effects of it after the first time and never done that again?
December 7th, 2015 at 2:51 PM ^
December 7th, 2015 at 3:30 PM ^
That depends on what you take. Taking Diazapam (Valium) for example will make you look and act pretty similar to being drunk. That said, someone with an alcohol dependence problem was probably just drunk.
December 7th, 2015 at 3:30 PM ^
But what about your passengers?
December 7th, 2015 at 3:33 PM ^
December 7th, 2015 at 1:59 PM ^
Is there even an ADA claim in there? Looks like all state law to me -- guessing his attorneys don't want it to be removed to federal court.
That said, I wouldn't be surprised if some of the California statutes are essentially the same as the ADA.
December 7th, 2015 at 2:53 PM ^
There are only CA statutory and common law claims.
December 7th, 2015 at 3:01 PM ^
Why do you think that his attorneys would not want removal to fed court?
December 7th, 2015 at 3:42 PM ^
Speaking in very broad strokes...as a litigator...whenever we're the defendant, we remove if at all possible to federal court. When we're the plaintiff, we prefer state court. In our/my view, speaking generally, state court is much more plaintiff-friendly than federal court. You're also more likely to obtain a big verdict in state court than federal court if the case proceeds to trial, in my experience.
December 7th, 2015 at 3:46 PM ^
I don't know their reasoning, but I imagine they would have filed a claim under the ADA or FMLA in there if they were indifferent (or filed under federal law straightaway if they preferred federal court).
I think state courts are generally better for plantiffs because state court is a bit more of a wild card, and Plaintiffs often do not have the law on their side. Federal courts are more reliable, and thus generally more defendant friendly.
Generalizations only, of course.
December 7th, 2015 at 10:46 PM ^
Yea, I'm aware of the generalizations. I thought you may have had specific insight into this particular case. Sark and his case doesn't seem like the typical small plaintiff against the big corp type of case. Anyway, thanks for the response.
December 7th, 2015 at 3:08 PM ^
I do work in ADA compliance, and while I haven't encountered this specific issue (we tend to focus on construction barriers rather than employment cases), I think a major issue will be if they made reasonable accomodations (for instance, taking steps to minimize or remove encounters with alcohol at work events, offering to place him in rehab, other steps to acknowledge the alchoholism). My instinct is that he'll have trouble pointing out what they could have done that wouldn't have led to his termination, based on his showing up drunk to events/practices/games, but man, the depositions in this case will be entertaining as hell I bet.
December 7th, 2015 at 4:17 PM ^
So if alcoholism is a disability then what is next? Heroin addiction?
December 7th, 2015 at 1:37 PM ^
December 7th, 2015 at 1:45 PM ^
What's the point of making alcoholism protected under the law but revoking coverage for it if you drink at work? I mean, I see why they feel they have to do it, but if you put it in any other context it'd ridiculous. "I know you have epilepsy which is covered under the ADA, but don't have an epileptic seizure at work or else you're not covered."
December 7th, 2015 at 1:45 PM ^
So that someone can get long-term disability while they go to rehab.
December 7th, 2015 at 2:03 PM ^
Which Sark did...
December 7th, 2015 at 1:55 PM ^
They probably have to considering it is recognized as a disease by most all medical groups. Plus then you can use disability leave to seek treatment without losing your job. Also, it protects an alcoholic from being sober for 5 years, their employer finding out they still go to AA, and then firing them. Or for an employer finding out someone binge drinks a ton on the weekend and firing them even in their weekday performance is unaffected. Alcoholism isn't a thing only when an alcoholic is actually drunk.
December 7th, 2015 at 2:07 PM ^
It's a big help in hiring, housing admissions, and similar types of front-end decisions. Keep in mind that we're talking about anti-discrimination laws here. One way to establish a disability is to show you have a "record of an impairment." So if you used to be an alcoholic or a drug abuser, but you have recovered, then you have a protected disability--that's important, because plenty of employers and landlords would be inclined not to hire workers or rent to applicants with a record of alchol abuse--even if they have recovered.
Now, if you are not recovered, and are still drinking or abusing drugs, that's a different story. Then, if you get fired or turned down for an apartment, the employer or landlord isn't discriminating against you based on your history of addiction--but is taking reasonable action to protect themselves from the consequences of your ongoing conduct.
December 7th, 2015 at 2:25 PM ^
You can be an alcoholic who's 20 years sober. I imagine - and I'm just spitballing here - that allowing time to go to AA meetings or some similar support group could be a reasonable accomodation. I'm not sure how this applies in Sarkisian's case, but it makes sense overall.
I should add that I'm not a CA barred attorney either and that this post should not be taken as legal advice or credited with any more weight than one would credit the wails of a howler monkey.
December 7th, 2015 at 2:32 PM ^
Is a howler monkey's legal credibility above an ocelot or koala, or am I completely ignorant in how to best select a California attorney?
December 7th, 2015 at 2:35 PM ^
...howler monkey (a primate), ocelot (cats are smart), and finally koala (stoned on eucalyptus). I apologize to MeanJoe, but that's just the way it is.
December 7th, 2015 at 2:39 PM ^
Because having an epilectic seizure at work is not a choice, having a drink at work or drinking in such a way that it affects your work clearly is a choice, alchoholism or not.
I have no problem with the law being set up to allow someone to go to rehab without losing his or her job or protecting someone in recovery from being fired by an overly risk-averse jerk employer. However this feels like a way to interpret the law so that employers can't get rid of someone who is actively making bad choices and while I have sympathy for someone with addiction issues, I don't like that there is even reasonable grounds for a lawsuit here.
December 7th, 2015 at 2:43 PM ^
and in Canada it doesn't work like that. My father-in-law owned several grocery stores and at one he had a meat cutter who came to work several times drunk. He was sent home each time and after the third time he was let go. He fired him because he thought it was too dangerous to have him come to work and operate the band saw and other machines while intoxicated and had no idea he was an alcoholic. He got taken to court and was forced to pay the guy a years salary because he had an illness and wasn't accomodated.
December 7th, 2015 at 1:42 PM ^
Who HAS been barred from practicing law in Calif-...
Wait, that's not the same thing, is it?
December 7th, 2015 at 1:47 PM ^
But, it would appear that the California Fair Employment and Housing act treats Alcoholism as a protected disability.
December 7th, 2015 at 1:47 PM ^
Also not admitted in California. But typically, chemical dependency is going to be a covered disability with respect to past use. Sark was obviously an active alcoholic while working for USC. But it looks like he actually did go to rehab at the time he was fired. He could argue that USC could have accommodated his disability by waiting for him to complete rehab, then return to work--something that lots of employers regularly do.
Assuming Sark can get beyond the "current use" issue, his second problem is going to be establishing that the accommodation he sought was reasonable. An accommodation is reasonable if, basically, it doesn't impose an undue administrative or financial burden on the employer, or cause a "fundamental alteration" in the employer's business.
I think USC has a pretty good argument that allowing the head coach of a major college football program to take a leave of absence, go to alcohol treatment, and then return would pose an undue adminsitrative burden or fundamental alteration. All of this would take place in the public eye and would presumably put USC at a competivite disadvantage for recruits. On the other hand, employers are generally not allowed to base reasonable accommodation decisions on what third-parties would think, so that may not be a cognizable defense.
Looking at the key legal points, I think it could be a pretty close case. But I do a lot of plaintiff-side civil rights litigation, and this probably isn't one I would bring. It "feels" like USC would win, though I guess whe don't know what else might come out in discovery.
December 7th, 2015 at 3:12 PM ^
USC should have just paid him in full. I agree with those who think this will settle out of court because USC doesn't want the bad publicity a trial would cause.
December 7th, 2015 at 1:39 PM ^
Yeah, and I'll start.
Alcoholism is only a disability in the same sense that if I injected myself with polio, I would get polio.
This is stupid. You can't show up drunk to work. Plenty of football coaches have their vices (including drinking), but most of them are smart enough and have enough self-control to keep it away from the football program. Man up, take the money you already earned, go to rehab, and do something with your life.
December 7th, 2015 at 1:41 PM ^
When someone's addicted it takes more than just "self-control." The brain is literally rewired.
December 7th, 2015 at 1:45 PM ^
but if you can't do your job effectively what acommodations should be made? I get that alcoholism is a disease but where do you draw the line before terminating someone? after 1, 2, 5 stint in rehab?
December 7th, 2015 at 1:51 PM ^
The thing that struck me oddly about USC canning him was the quickness of it.
They should have let him go to rehab and finish once. Instead they canned him 24 hours after sending his ass to rehab.
Not only does that look bad, it makes everything Haden say about helping Sark recover from his alcoholism sound like a farce.
Haden fucked this up from the get go. He should have demanded Sark to go to rehab prior to the season starting after the banquet. He let this snowball and I'm shocked that Haden is still employed too.
December 7th, 2015 at 2:02 PM ^
... can keep him on as head coach while he's in rehab. It would be such a massive disruption to the org. This is a tough one in my opinion, but don't think it's reasonable for a person in such an important position be allowed to take an indefinite leave. If it was a line worker who could be removed and added back without interruption, it's one thing. When it's the HC of USC, no way.
Hope it goes to court (vs. settled), would love to see how it is resolved.
December 7th, 2015 at 2:05 PM ^
Yeah, I don't think he could be kept on, but that doesn't mean he could be terminated for cause either.
If USC got their house in order and determined that he could be terminated for cause because he showed up drunk to work and they can prove it, they have nothing to worry about. Otherwise it's an interesting case. Probably gets settled.