Steve Sarkisian claims USC fired him for alcohol disability in $30M lawsuit

#3
#3
I hope SS wins:(

Why? I mean I dislike USC, but just because Alcoholism is viewed as a disability doesn't mean that someone shouldn't be able to be fired for it. Trying to lead impressionable young men while an alcoholic??

I hope he gets laughed out of court-- though that won't happen and he'll probably win because PC culture and don't hurt anyone's feeling.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 9 people
#5
#5
Why? I mean I dislike USC, but just because Alcoholism is viewed as a disability doesn't mean that someone shouldn't be able to be fired for it. Trying to lead impressionable young men while an alcoholic??

The semantics are pretty important. You can't be fired for being an alcoholic. You absolutely can be fired for drinking on the job or showing up to work while plastered.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 8 people
#7
#7
He better win. His coaching prospects look pretty bleak at this point.

Can't imagine anyone would want to hire a guy who sued his previous employer out of fear of it happening again. He may have just sealed his career with this.
 
#10
#10
I sort of think USC should have went with an interim head coach while SS was in rehab and he would take over the head coaching job when he was out of rehab.

So USC should have continued to pay Sarkisian millions of dollars in the hope that he would get his **** together? What if he had hurt someone while he was drunk in the office, at practice, or on the sideline?

You are kidding yourself if you think that USC really had a choice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 8 people
#11
#11
I'm not sure what's more scary, the fact he's thinks he can win a $30 million lawsuit for showing up drunk on the job or the fact California recognizes alcoholism as a disability.

Good grief, I coulda been disabled in California for the past twenty years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 9 people
#13
#13
I think he has a decent shot of at least getting some settlement money and hell, that's what this is all about. First its California, land of fruits and nuts. Second, they could have a difficult time proving he showed up to work drunk.

His coaching career for big $$$ is over. He might get a gig at a small school or JC. No one would put their career on the line with him for big $
 
#14
#14
The semantics are pretty important. You can't be fired for being an alcoholic. You absolutely can be fired for drinking on the job or showing up to work while plastered.

I'm not sure what's more scary, the fact he's thinks he can win a $30 million lawsuit for showing up drunk on the job or the fact California recognizes alcoholism as a disability.

Good grief, I coulda been disabled in California for the past twenty years.

Im pretty sure he knows he wont win a court decision. These type of things are for settlements out of court. The sad part he will probably get like 1 million to get lost.
 
#15
#15
Im pretty sure he knows he wont win a court decision. These type of things are for settlements out of court. The sad part he will probably get like 1 million to get lost.

Spot on.

And honestly, USC should pay out a settlement and consider it a lesson learned. They knew that Sarkisian had a problem before they hired him. This wasn't news to them. Sometimes it costs a bunch of money to fix your mistakes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#17
#17
Spot on.

And honestly, USC should pay out a settlement and consider it a lesson learned. They knew that Sarkisian had a problem before they hired him. This wasn't news to them. Sometimes it costs a bunch of money to fix your mistakes.

Still doesn't change the fact California has some goofy laws. Much less that an employee can file a suit over it.

Addiction =/= Disability

Coming from a reformed alcoholic, I can speak with some certainty on the matter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#18
#18
Still doesn't change the fact California has some goofy laws. Much less that an employee can file a suit over it.

Addiction =/= Disability

Coming from a reformed alcoholic, I can speak with some certainty on the matter.

I don't disagree in the slightest.
 
#19
#19
Still doesn't change the fact California has some goofy laws. Much less that an employee can file a suit over it.

Addiction =/= Disability

Coming from a reformed alcoholic, I can speak with some certainty on the matter.

As can I, but I never went to work hammered. If I had I would have deserved to be fired.
 
#20
#20
How in the he77 does a person have the nerve to sue someone because they were terminated for showing up to work more than once drilling off his arse???

This guy is a joke. I'm sorry he's an alcoholic but that doesn't give him the right to sue
 
#22
#22
Anyone can file a suit. Doesn't mean that they have grounds, whether in law or in common sense.

That doesn't mean that USC won't throw him some bucks to make him go away. But that doesn't mean that his claim is legit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#23
#23
Im pretty sure he knows he wont win a court decision. These type of things are for settlements out of court. The sad part he will probably get like 1 million to get lost.

Bet he does win.

If he asked for a loa for treatment and they fired him, USC will pay.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#24
#24
The semantics are pretty important. You can't be fired for being an alcoholic. You absolutely can be fired for drinking on the job or showing up to work while plastered.
Exactly, but with the direction things are heading culturally it won't be long before it's ok because they have a 'disease', unfortunately.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#25
#25
So if one gets fired for sexually harrassing one's co-workers, can one sue for being fired due to a sex addiction? Where should these lawsuits end?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people

VN Store



Back
Top