Steve Sarkisian Files Suit Against USC - Wrongful Termination
- Thread starter 1Nation
- Start date
I suspected that Sark was more of an ******* who was just using alcoholism as an excuse for acting out and doing whatever the hell he felt like.
This seems to confirm it. High level of entitlement with this guy, drunk or not.
This seems to confirm it. High level of entitlement with this guy, drunk or not.
You're probably right...but maybe the booze made him an ***hole. Or maybe ***holes don't necessarily deserve to get canned for being alcoholics.
If SS really is an alcoholic my sincere hope is that he gets help, get's another Pac job (maybe takes an open Wazzu, Ore St. or CU) and kicks USCs ***.
Exactly 18 months sober today.
I can't comment on getting fired from a job due to drinking but I absolutely can comment that an alcoholic either hits rock bottom and goes to rehab or there is an external force in his life making him rethink his choices. Whether or not alcoholism is a disease is not for me to answer.
When you "get sober" you man up and admit your mistakes or you cower away, embarrassed. You don't hope no one catches you and then when you're caught you go and make a scene of things. This is a money grab.
If he really wanted to get sober he would be forthcoming and seek treatment prior to this event. 100% This is absolutely a "I got caught and want to deflect blame elsewhere" play.
I can't comment on getting fired from a job due to drinking but I absolutely can comment that an alcoholic either hits rock bottom and goes to rehab or there is an external force in his life making him rethink his choices. Whether or not alcoholism is a disease is not for me to answer.
When you "get sober" you man up and admit your mistakes or you cower away, embarrassed. You don't hope no one catches you and then when you're caught you go and make a scene of things. This is a money grab.
If he really wanted to get sober he would be forthcoming and seek treatment prior to this event. 100% This is absolutely a "I got caught and want to deflect blame elsewhere" play.
I'm thinking that if he's trying to sue USC at this point in time, when he's sober and out of rehab, after they put up with his antics for some time, he's the type of person who views himself as some kind of victim in this and isn't taking much responsibility for his role in this.
He's got (presumably) loads of cash.
I sometimes I wonder if alcoholism is any more of a disease than a low IQ, or the inability to make wise life decisions. A lot of our weaknesses as humans are things beyond our immediate control. You can't decide to be smarter. At some point, I think you can view any negative trait as a disease.
Doesn't the article state that he got news of his termination while on a flight to rehab?
Look, SS is rich and probably a big ***hole...I'm not crying for him. But I don't see USC as a good actor in this either. I'm related to an alcoholic who was persuaded by his business partner to seek treatment. It worked and he didn't have to let his career and marriage burn to the ground to get help and straighten up. I don't think ****canning him was the proper or smart move.
Sounds like not just a money grab, but an attempt to get money from his buyout he feels USC owes him. Apparently they didn't pay him his full buyout or lost wages because the termination was for a lack to fulfill contractual obligations.
The alcoholism part of the suit is piling on, but USC should've paid the man his money.
We have a policy of offering a chance to get treatment to employees if they are caught (documented through UA) under the influence on the job. I have sent several and not a single one has worked out. I have also had employees come to me asking for a leave so they could go through treatment. Every single one of those has worked out.
If the guy was showing up to work drunk and had to be sent home and it affected the team I don't have a lot of sympathy for him.
If someone saw the writing on the wall (pending disciplinary action) and takes off for treatment knowing the hammer is about to fall, it doesn't sound like a serious attempt to get help but rather a hail Mary to save his job.
If the guy was showing up to work drunk and had to be sent home and it affected the team I don't have a lot of sympathy for him.
If someone saw the writing on the wall (pending disciplinary action) and takes off for treatment knowing the hammer is about to fall, it doesn't sound like a serious attempt to get help but rather a hail Mary to save his job.
With my limited experiences with that issue I've found that it can still be troublesome getting someone canned for showing up hammered to work. CA is basically a third world country in terms of dysfunction, so I have no idea all the hoops you have to jump through to fire an employee there (I probably should being that we have multiple employees there), but in Iowa if you have an employee showing up drunk to work your best strategy would be to just fire him under the guise of low performance, showing up to work a little late or really any reason that doesn't have 'drunk' or 'alcohol' attached to it.
Probably. But if I were the Ore St./CU/Wazzu AD in transition he'd be at the top of my list. I'd do my due diligence, structure a zero tolerance contract (regarding booze), low-ball him and be happy if he said yes.
I have read all of your comments and sound reasoning, and I can tell you that you can throw it all out the window as California labor laws do not make much, if any, sense. They take what could be a sensible law / practice and elevate it to a totally different level and it makes compliance by the employer more difficult than it needs to be. In the state's eyes, employers do not have any rights.
USC is a private institute so it won't be as bad as if it were say, UCLA. That said, I am in a managerial position in San Francisco and I can completely agree that the labor laws make negative 100% sense. I actually have a template rejection letter (that has been used many times) ready for when employees demand to work from home. There is a law in SF that allows for an employee to work from home and/or work different hours than everyone else and unless the employer has a well drafted rejection/reasoning for not allowing said employee to work from home you are open for lawsuit. When this passed in 2013 (?) it was the first city and I believe it is still the only city to have such a law.
Additionally some of the unions here work 7 hour days and get paid for 8 hours....
In summary, SS is going to get PAID.
You would think SC did their research to ensure they were in the right to terminate him. If they didn't or he wins his suit, someone didn't do their job before the termination.
This is what I was thinking. IIRC it was reported over a day earlier about what happened, and then they even mentioned it's taking some time to make it official as USC wanted to make sure it wad within their rights to do legally.
