forums

OT: Sark suing USC for 30 Mill.

Advertisement
what a precedent that would set, is there a statute of limitations? if not dennis erickosn got the niners and seahawks by the balls
 
Advertisement
According to a couple of legal opinions being thrown around it seems like he actually does have a pretty strong case in California. Everyone saying it'll be settled out of court though and ol Cutty will get paid. Pat Haden is a helluva administrator.
 
Counter sue for him pretending to be a head college football coach, then watch that bottom feeder lawyer of his pull out...
 
I'm sure they'll settle out of court I just find it crazy that the guy can drink himself into a multi million dollar settlement.

That's where we are as society, I teach and that would be like me showing up to work ****ed and being mad when they fire me because it's a disease people. **** I had t sign a waiver that said they could fire me at anytime with no reason.
 
Canesfan1899 said:
**** I had t sign a waiver that said they could fire me at anytime with no reason.
Click to expand...

That's At-Will Employment, and it doesn't count if they fire you for a discriminatory reason. When they say they can fire you for no reason, that means they can walk in one day and fire you because they just don't like you. But if they give you a reason and that reason violates discrimination laws, you're got them.

In this case, he certainly has a case because courts have determined that alcoholism is a disability that is covered by the ADA. If he can show that they did not offer reasonable accommodations to deal with his disability, he will win, slam dunk. Their defense will have to be that they attempted to work with his disability, but that he could not perform the required duties, even with accommodations.
 
Advertisement
Jaromir Jagr said:
Canesfan1899 said:
**** I had t sign a waiver that said they could fire me at anytime with no reason.
Click to expand...

That's At-Will Employment, and it doesn't count if they fire you for a discriminatory reason. When they say they can fire you for no reason, that means they can walk in one day and fire you because they just don't like you. But if they give you a reason and that reason violates discrimination laws, you're got them.

In this case, he certainly has a case because courts have determined that alcoholism is a disability that is covered by the ADA. If he can show that they did not offer reasonable accommodations to deal with his disability, he will win, slam dunk. Their defense will have to be that they attempted to work with his disability, but that he could not perform the required duties, even with accommodations.
Click to expand...

As much as I hate to agree, this is the law. Haden for being such a smart guy might not have covered his a$$. He wont get the huge dollars but enough - 50% will go to taxes, 35% will go to his lawyers and he will never work in football again
 
USC hopes Judge Elliu Schmaills is presiding and tells Sark, "You'll get NOTHING, and like it!".
 
Did any of you actually read the article or do you just like to make assumptions so you can show off your righteous indignation about the "sad state" of society today and make lawyer jokes?

First of all, alcoholism IS a disease. If you don't believe that, then you still think mental illness is caused by evil spirits in your head. People should be afforded the opportunity to seek treatment for addiction the same as any other medical condition. And, in fact, under FMLA (Family Medical Leave Act) it is required under certain circumstances. Now, if the company has an across the board policy of zero tolerance for drug or alcohol abuse and has clearly communicated that policy, then leave for treatment is not required under FMLA and termination is legal.

I don't know anything about California law, and the idea that being an alcoholic is a disability seems a little far fetched to me. But if what USC is saying is true, i.e. that Sarkisian refused their repeated attempts to get him help and never actually requested leave to enter rehab, then it may not be so open and shut. You do not have a right to work while drunk or high. You do have a right to seek treatment for the addiction. That is the key distinction. I would not be surprised to see USC prevail. Unless their liability carrier gets involved and the bean counters force a risk-reward type settlement.
 
Advertisement
Canesfan1899 said:
Apparently showing up to work drunk shouldn't get you fired if you're an alcoholic because it's a disease and it's a violation of the American's with disabilities act.

I guess I should've sued my boss when I got fired right after college because I showed up to work everyday ****faced from the night before.
Click to expand...

I actually took a law class a few semesters ago and this is true. Alcoholism is a disease and you cannot be fired for it. The company is supposed to pay for treatment and send you to rehab. If you deny the rehab and treatment or relapse then they are allowed to fire you. Crazy but true.
 
Just because Alcoholism is a disability, does not mean that Sark cannot be disciplined or terminated for being intoxicated on the job. The key will be determining whether he was intoxicated on the job.
 
Advertisement
I'm not saying alcoholism isn't a disease, just that it's crazy dude can make 30 million because he was a drunk.
 
Sark could sue the government for its large scale promotion of booze that did him no favors
 
Lol at alcoholism the disease. I know its insensitive and strikes a chord for some people.

But its a habit, an addiction. Toughen the **** up and stop buying booze, or toughen the **** up and contain your drinking to when it is appropriate if you need help coping.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top