Steve Sarkisian Files Suit Against USC - Wrongful Termination

[1Nation]

Honestly, he probably is going to make a lot of money off of this deal. The termination without allowing him to seek treatment is a direct violation of federal law.

http://espn.go.com/college-football...iles-wrongful-termination-lawsuit-usc-trojans

Would be interested to hear the opinions of any of our Cyclone attorneys out there.

 

[Judoka]

I'm not a lawyer but I thought that you couldn't fire somebody for being a drunk. But you could fire them for being drunk at work. And that's what they fired him for.

 

[1Nation]

You have to allow them to seek treatment first because addiction is a disability in the eyes of the law.....I think?

 

[TXCyclones]

A person can be given the opportunity to seek treatment without termination if they admit to having a problem BEFORE being pulled for a test, or before being inebriated on the job. Telling your employer AFTER you've been caught is too late.

 

[Wesley]

Guess they did not want a drunk running the program. If you are drunk at work against work policies, you may have less of a keg to stand on.

 

[weR138]

Guess they did not want a drunk running the program. If you are drunk at work against work policies, you may have less of a keg to stand on.

Or, more likely you are an alcoholic. Stupid move by SC to just jettison the guy. Should've given him a chance to go to rehab.

 

[Mtowncyclone13]

The term "disability" has a specific meaning under the ADA. Under the ADA, "disability" means (i) "a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities"; (ii) "a record of such impairment"; or (iii) "being regarded as having such an impairment." See 42 U.S.C. s. 12101. Examples of major life activities include caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, seeing, hearing, eating, sleeping, walking, standing, lifting, speaking, breathing, learning, reading, thinking, communicating, and working. The statute further defines "major life activities" to include the operation of a major bodily function, including but not limited to, functions of the immune system, normal cell growth, digestive, bowel, bladder, neurological, brain, respiratory, circulatory, endocrine, and reproductive functions.
Note: Employees who are "regarded as" disabled by their employers do not have to prove that they in fact have an impairment or that they are substantially limited in their major life activities or that their employer believes they are substantially limited in their major life activities. It is sufficient that their employer believes, even mistakenly, that they have a disabling condition. See 42 U.S.C. s. 12102(3).
The first question is whether an employee who is an alcoholic has a "disability" within the meaning of the ADA?
Courts generally agree that an employee suffering from alcohlism has "a physical or mental impairment." They do not always agree, however, that such an employee's major life activities are substantially limited by his condition. This requires proof, usually supplied by the plaintiff, that meets the statutory requirements. That is, the plaintiff must show that his disability (alcoholism) substantially limits one or more of his major life activities. Nevertheless, in most cases, the court will find, or the employer will concede, that an alcoholic employee has a "disability" within the meaning of the ADA.

The second question is whether an alcoholic employee is qualified to perform the essential functions of the position?
Importantly, only "qualified" employees are protected by the ADA. See 42 U.S.C. s. 12112(a) (prohibiting discrimination "against a qualified individual on the basis of disability"). Many ADA lawsuits based on alcoholism lose in court because the plaintiff cannot prove that he was qualified to perform the essential functions of his position. The essential functions of a position are the fundamental duties and responsibilities of the job, as defined and judged by the employer. Significantly, attendance and punctuality are essential functions of most positions. If an alcoholic employee cannot meet these requirements, he may not been deemed "qualified" for the position; hence, he may not be protected under the ADA.
The third question is whether an employer is required to "reasonably accomodate" an alcoholic employee?
It depends. An employer is not required to accommodate an employee's intoxication or the adverse effects of excessive alcohol use. For example, even if an employee has the disability of alcoholism, the employer is not required to allow the employee to arrive late to work due to the effects of a hangover. On the other hand, the employer may be required to accommodate the employee's efforts to obtain treatment for the alcoholism. As an EEOC guidance memorandum explains:
Example: An employer has warned an employee several times about her tardiness. The next time the employee is tardy, the employer issues her a written warning stating one more late arrival will result in termination. The employee tells the employer that she is an alcoholic, her late arrivals are due to drinking on the previous night, and she recognizes that she needs treatment. The employer does not have to rescind the written warning and does not have to grant an accommodation that supports the employee’s drinking, such as a modified work schedule that allows her to arrive late in the morning due to the effects of drinking on the previous night. However, absent undue hardship, the employer must grant the employee’s request to take leave for the next month to enter a rehabilitation program.

***** MOST IMPORTANT*****

The final question is whether an employer can discipline an alcoholic employee for poor performance or workplace misconduct caused by or related to his drinking?
Yes. The ADA expressly provides that an employer "may hold an employee who engages in the illegal use of drugs or who is an alcoholic to the same qualification standards for employment or job performance and behavior that such entity holds other employees, even if any unsatisfactory performance or behavior is related to the drug use or alcoholism of such employee." In other words, there is no "alcoholism" excuse for poor performance or workplace misconduct. Employees who drink on the job or who are drunk on the job or who fail to perform their duties due to drinking or who engage in misconduct due to drinking may be subject to appropriate discipline, up to and including termination.

 

[ISUCubswin]

Didn't the dude come to work drunk multiple times?

And had been given multiple warnings about it?

What, is the school that's paying him millions expected to pay for his treatment, too?

 

[2020cy]

I figured he would try something like this after he sobered up and realized what he had done.

 

[CysRage]

Didn't the dude come to work drunk multiple times?

And had been given multiple warnings about it?

What, is the school that's paying him millions expected to pay for his treatment, too?

I read somewhere that it was so bad, Sarkisian would come go to practice hammered to the point he could barely talk so the AD sent him home and had Sarkisian's assistants run practice. If it is that bad, I don't blame the AD for getting rid of him if legal. It would be interesting to see if one of the resident lawyers do say he was wrongfully terminated due to alcohol abuse being a disability. You would think they would have consulted with lawyers before terminating his contract.

 

[JM4CY]

Honestly, he probably is going to make a lot of money off of this deal. The termination without allowing him to seek treatment is a direct violation of federal law.

http://espn.go.com/college-football...iles-wrongful-termination-lawsuit-usc-trojans

Would be interested to hear the opinions of any of our Cyclone attorneys out there.

 

[Incyte]

Looks like he's suing under Cali law, not the ADA.

 

[bawbie]

I read somewhere that it was so bad, Sarkisian would come go to practice hammered to the point he could barely talk so the AD sent him home and had Sarkisian's assistants run practice. If it is that bad, I don't blame the AD for getting rid of him if legal. It would be interesting to see if one of the resident lawyers do say he was wrongfully terminated due to alcohol abuse being a disability. You would think they would have consulted with lawyers before terminating his contract.

Based on my reading of what mtown quoted, I think the only thing that could get USC in trouble is if he requested a leave to go to rehab and they said no, then they fired him the next time he showed up drunk. But even that is questionable.

 

[cycfan1]

Did we give LE the chance for rehab?

 

[CysRage]

Did we give LE the chance for rehab?

I seem to remember LE admitted he had an issue (although it was after the pictures surfaced) and wanted rehab but Bruce and Geoffroy said nope and canned him.

 

[cycloneworld]

Part of the actual lawsuit:

Stewart Mandel ‏@slmandel 1h1 hour ago
One of the supporting points in Sark's lawsuit is that a Bleacher Report writer gave him A+ for his coaching job vs. ASU.

10:22 AM - 7 Dec 2015 · Details

Good luck using that in court.

 

[CysRage]

Part of the actual lawsuit:

Stewart Mandel ‏@slmandel 1h1 hour ago
One of the supporting points in Sark's lawsuit is that a Bleacher Report writer gave him A+ for his coaching job vs. ASU.

10:22 AM - 7 Dec 2015 · Details

Good luck using that in court.

 

[TXCyclones]

Remember also that there are typically "morality" clauses that these coaches must abide by. Sarkisian was likely cut loose without the entire buyout portion of his agreement due to this morality clause so he's fighting to get an equivalent of that.

 

[1Nation]

I seem to remember LE admitted he had an issue (although it was after the pictures surfaced) and wanted rehab but Bruce and Geoffroy said nope and canned him.

LE technically resigned....different situation.

 

[CysRage]

LE technically resigned....different situation.

Technically but let's be real, BVDV and GG weren't going to let LE coach at ISU again.