Sark sues USC for wrongful termination

RackOps

Senior
Sep 13, 2006
1,028
896
0
I know they will settle, but I'd love to see USC fight it......but, at any rate, Sark is done as a big time college football coach.


Former USC head coach Steve Sarkisian is suing the school.

According to the Los Angeles Times, Sarkisian filed a wrongfull termination lawsuit Monday on the basis that USC fired him instead of allowing him to seek treatment. Sarkisian was fired on Oct. 12 – a day after he took a leave of absence to pursue treatment for issues with alcohol.

The 31-page suit was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court and says Sarkisian has completed treatment.

From the LA Times:

Filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court, the 31-page complaint said USC didn't give Sarkisian the "reasonable accommodation" of allowing "time off to get help for his disability."

The lawsuit alleges breach of contract, discrimination on the basis of disability and invasion of privacy.

According to ESPN, Sarkisian was headed to a rehabilitation center when he was “fired via email by athletic director Pat Haden.” The lawsuit also characterizes Sarkisian’s alcoholism as a “disability.”

"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," the lawsuit says. "Instead, USC ignored both its obligations under California law and the commitments it made to Steve Sarkisian."

Alan Loewinsohn, Sarkisian’s attorney, told TMZ that alcoholism is “a recognized disability under California law.”

“Firing somebody because of that disability is against the law,” he said.

The lawsuit also says that USC violated Sarkisian’s contract by refusing to pay the rest of the money he is owed – at least $12.6 million.

In August, Sarkisian had an incident at a USC booster event where he appeared to be intoxicated. Sarkisian, who used inappropriate language while addressing those attending the event, later apologized and said he mixed alcohol and medication.

The lawsuit says Sarkisian drank two beers earlier in the evening and had taken “two different medications that had been prescribed to him for anxiety.”

Now, the complaint says, Sarkisian has completed treatment is ready to resume his coaching career.

Sarkisian compiled a 12-6 record during his brief time at USC. He previously was the head coach at Washington from 2009-2013.
 

ok-cats-computer

All-Conference
Oct 5, 2005
5,654
3,677
0
The lawsuit alleges that USC's AD Pat Haden fired Sark by sending him an email. The way Haden has handled firing both Kiffin and Sark appears very unprofessional. Really, USC football is similar to UK basketball in that if the AD manages to hire a reasonably decent and sober coach, the program will succeed. However, Pat Haden seems in over his head.
 

Rhavic

Heisman
Dec 15, 2014
33,214
23,075
68
Hopefully Sark wins it. I think he will. It was blatantly obvious that he was fired because of his alcoholism, and despite the fact that just a day before, Pat Haden said that Sark had his full support, he went ahead and fired him the next day anyway.
 
Jun 11, 2012
15,051
15,723
0
Did he not have a clause about embarrassing the university with his actions? He should have been fired.

So he's an alcoholic but only had 2 drinks that night, right.
 

Cat06

Senior
Oct 8, 2015
555
626
0
If it is true that California recognizes alcoholism as a disability, USC will have no defense.

Hayden allowed him to continue without treatment after the booster debacle
Hayden put him on a leave of absence, during which the coach traveled to a treatment facility.
During the course of the trip to rehab Hayden fires him with an email or text message.

They will owe his entire contract plus damages.
 

Bill Derington

Heisman
Jan 21, 2003
21,401
39,402
113
I read that one thing protecting USC is that it's a private university. A public University in California can't fire someone if they are seeking or under treatment for alcohol, but private ones aren't bound by that law. I don't know if that's accurate or not.
 

Calsarmy

All-Conference
Jul 24, 2013
1,009
1,232
0
USC will win this hands down. Oh they will probably pay him his salary or a portion of it, but as to "winning". Not in this suit. He made one very large mistake. The university asked in writing and also in person with wittiness if he had a substance problem. He vehemently denied it and did so on several occasions. At that point it because of issue of his performance at practices, games, and events in general. He evidently was severely impaired on several occasions. The out for USC is that all he had to do was admit his problem, ask for help and he would at that point been home free. They could not have fired him at that point. Since there was no problem (according to him) it then went back to the episode on a plane ride, a particular game in question and several practices. He will get some of what he is owed but little else.
 

Real Deal 2

Heisman
Jan 25, 2007
10,804
11,992
113
He is not going to win, there are clauses in your contract that holds the guy accountable. He can have a problem and seek help and the Univ. can offer help.
That Sunday he was told to go home and the next day or so news conference make that hard. He was on short leash, there are stories about him going back to last year and mainly this Summer. Pat Haden stood before everyone that Sunday and said they want him to get help and come back to coach, Sark gets up on Monday or Tuesday and say he doesn't think he has problem, he would go to rehab and then later say he didn't need etc.

They would have never fired him later that week unless Sark had broken some of his promises to what he was supposed to do. They crossed the T's and dotted the i's, now a judicial board in California may say otherwise.

I have heard that Sark broke every agreement that Pat laid out for him before the Alumni function when was reprimanded for drinking on the campus, off campus at restaurants, he was written up numerous times.
Sark was given chance to get clean and flat out did not seek help, they begged him.

Sark if he was more likable may have been able to pull this off, if he had some remorse and been a man than people might look differently.

He will get a settlement from USC but it will be probably 2 seasons worth.
IMO
 

Calsarmy

All-Conference
Jul 24, 2013
1,009
1,232
0
He is not going to win, there are clauses in your contract that holds the guy accountable. He can have a problem and seek help and the Univ. can offer help.
That Sunday he was told to go home and the next day or so news conference make that hard. He was on short leash, there are stories about him going back to last year and mainly this Summer. Pat Haden stood before everyone that Sunday and said they want him to get help and come back to coach, Sark gets up on Monday or Tuesday and say he doesn't think he has problem, he would go to rehab and then later say he didn't need etc.

They would have never fired him later that week unless Sark had broken some of his promises to what he was supposed to do. They crossed the T's and dotted the i's, now a judicial board in California may say otherwise.

I have heard that Sark broke every agreement that Pat laid out for him before the Alumni function when was reprimanded for drinking on the campus, off campus at restaurants, he was written up numerous times.
Sark was given chance to get clean and flat out did not seek help, they begged him.

Sark if he was more likable may have been able to pull this off, if he had some remorse and been a man than people might look differently.

He will get a settlement from USC but it will be probably 2 seasons worth.
IMO
Totally agree with Real. The worst part is that regardless of his present health he himself has negated any opportunity going forward of ever coaching in college football or at least big time college football by filing the law suit.
 

TBCat

Heisman
Mar 30, 2007
14,317
10,331
0
Did he not have a clause about embarrassing the university with his actions? He should have been fired.

So he's an alcoholic but only had 2 drinks that night, right.
So he stated he only had 2 drinks? How is he going to make the case that it's a disability issue if it was under control?
 

Real Deal 2

Heisman
Jan 25, 2007
10,804
11,992
113
They would have never fired him if they didn't have cause and precedent. No way. They are covered in my opinion.
 

kyhusker2

Freshman
Aug 2, 2011
1,325
89
0
If it is true that California recognizes alcoholism as a disability, USC will have no defense.

Hayden allowed him to continue without treatment after the booster debacle
Hayden put him on a leave of absence, during which the coach traveled to a treatment facility.
During the course of the trip to rehab Hayden fires him with an email or text message.

They will owe his entire contract plus damages.


Alcoholism is a disability under federal law. It applies everywhere.
 

Dore95

All-Conference
Mar 2, 2008
2,435
1,906
0
Employers can't take action against an employee for being an alcoholic but they can take action against an employee for being drunk at work. Employers will sometimes enter "last chance" agreements with alcoholic employees specifying what the employee needs to do to retain his/her job. If something like that was done here and Sark violated the agreement by being drunk at practice, then it seems to me that USC would be on pretty solid ground. But, of course, there may be facts in Sark's favor about which we are unaware.
 

tmuck

All-Conference
Oct 2, 2009
10,982
3,849
0
Think they would've fired Pete Caroll if he were in the same situation? He was gonna get the boot eventually anyway, due to his lackluster record by USC standards.
 
Last edited:

Calsarmy

All-Conference
Jul 24, 2013
1,009
1,232
0
Employers can't take action against an employee for being an alcoholic but they can take action against an employee for being drunk at work. Employers will sometimes enter "last chance" agreements with alcoholic employees specifying what the employee needs to do to retain his/her job. If something like that was done here and Sark violated the agreement by being drunk at practice, then it seems to me that USC would be on pretty solid ground. But, of course, there may be facts in Sark's favor about which we are unaware.
Sark was VERY SPECIFICALLY asked in writing and verbally if alcohol was involved in anyway and did have have an alcohol disability. In all cases he stated that he ABSOLUTELY had no issue whatever. Huge legal mistake from his standpoint in CA. If he had admitted and or ask for help he would have been totally protected. In his case he himself stated there were no issues in that regard. Its CA so anything can happen, but most legal folks in CA think there is nothing there.
 

Real Deal 2

Heisman
Jan 25, 2007
10,804
11,992
113
Correct and to the pious and self-righteous....thank your lucky stars you've never been exposed to someone with alcoholism.
Agreed that this is a disease and has ruined families and many dreams.

However, he signed agreements and there are rules, he was given option to get help, he thwarted all attempts, he stated he would go and he did not think he had problem on that Monday.

The common sense theme this guy was given many chances and he lied on many occasions. He was freaking in charge of 85-115 Student athletes that parents sent for him to protect and teach. He will get a few dollars but this liar and substance abuser that needs to get help. He had his chance and did not take it, he lied on many occasions.
IM
 

TeoJ

Heisman
Oct 19, 2001
24,350
20,359
65
One person seems to be very silent in this post and I know he has seen the topic.[winking]
 

BoulderCat_rivals187983

All-Conference
May 22, 2002
7,871
3,227
0
It'll be a tough sled. Being an admitted alcoholic evokes wrath from many people, including potential juror's. Those who don't have addictive tendencies view it as simply a character flaw and weakness. It's way more complicated than that. Stress in particular, like the stress a HC of a big time college football program faces is a big enabler. It is what is it though. Perception is reality. It's a problem 10's of millions have had, and do have including myself, and it's a great challenge to overcome. People do though. I did.
 

kyboy1998_rivals34276

All-American
Mar 20, 2006
9,326
8,754
61
He would be a decent candidate for this job if he stays clean and Stoops doesn't work out.

We'd get a lot of attention, and the media would be behind us, in a heartfelt rebuild story kind of way. He can coach too.

If it didn't work out, and he was a train wreck, who cares? Just pile it on to the other 60+ years of crap football.
 
Last edited:

merrimanm

Heisman
Dec 14, 2009
17,403
29,861
113
I'm not sure which I find more disturbing...that Caitlin Jenner is considered a hero, or that Steve Sarkisian is considered a disabled individual.
This!! What is our world coming to? Nothing is ever anyone's fault. Always an excuse!!