Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Options
Sarky boy continues to lose ... SC fired with just cause
SteveSuckisian
Member Posts: 68
Sark vs Oregon or ASU again ...
In response to Sarkisian’s lawsuit, watch for USC to portray Sarkisian’s retelling of purported facts to contain a combination of fictitious declarations and gross exaggerations ( no not Sark lol ). Keep in mind that the allegations contained in Sarkisian’s complaint are only allegations at this point. USC has surely anticipated that Sarkisian might file a lawsuit and has undoubtedly begun compiling all relevant records, such as having him sign an agreement of no tolerance after the infamous pep rally that Sarkisian was intoxicated during. These records include emails, handwritten notes and statements from university officials that portray USC as treating Sarkisian in a reasonable and caring way and that describe Sarkisian as irresponsible and incompetent. These records would almost certainly contradict some aspects of Sarkisian’s account. One likely discrepancy concerns whether the school would have consented to Sarkisian taking time off. While Sarkisian’s complaint portrays USC as denying him an opportunity to seek treatment, while he denied in public of having a drinking problem, USC appeared to allow him to take an indefinite leave of absence prior to firing him.
USC will also be poised to argue that the kinds of accommodations that would enable a head football coach at a major program to perform his work duties while struggling with alcohol would so radically transform the essential functions of the job of head coach that they could not be considered “reasonable” under the law. For instance, although a leave of absence is normally considered a reasonable accommodation under FEHA, USC might contend that it would not be reasonable in this particular circumstance. This university will assert that if gave Sarkisian substantial time off, such a move would have prevented Sarkisian from performing vital job functions.
USC could also use Sarkisian’s own depiction of the job as USC head coach as “tremendously stressful even under the best of circumstances” and one that necessitated 100+ hour workweeks against him. Sarkisian’s portrayal of the job seems to acknowledge that it requires a person who is uniquely fit physically and psychologically. Though he admitted he was under medication, which will certainly be addressed by USC. What is particularly important given that USC must provide a safe environment for student-athletes, a legal requirement that seems incompatible with a coach actively abusing alcohol while denying it. As explained above, the more the accommodations would have necessitated a transformation of the job as head coach and imposed an undue burden on USC, the weaker the claim for Sarkisian.
In addition, USC will assert that it acted within the boundaries of contract law in firing Sarkisian “for cause.” A “for cause” firing is one where the employer does not pay some or all of the remainder of a contract because the employee has violated a significant term of the contract. Sarkisian’s contract dictated that if USC fired him without cause before Dec. 1, 2015, it owed him a liquidated damages figure of $11.25 million. USC will surely argue that it fired him with cause because he was unable to perform the essential functions of the job.
So sorry Sarky
In response to Sarkisian’s lawsuit, watch for USC to portray Sarkisian’s retelling of purported facts to contain a combination of fictitious declarations and gross exaggerations ( no not Sark lol ). Keep in mind that the allegations contained in Sarkisian’s complaint are only allegations at this point. USC has surely anticipated that Sarkisian might file a lawsuit and has undoubtedly begun compiling all relevant records, such as having him sign an agreement of no tolerance after the infamous pep rally that Sarkisian was intoxicated during. These records include emails, handwritten notes and statements from university officials that portray USC as treating Sarkisian in a reasonable and caring way and that describe Sarkisian as irresponsible and incompetent. These records would almost certainly contradict some aspects of Sarkisian’s account. One likely discrepancy concerns whether the school would have consented to Sarkisian taking time off. While Sarkisian’s complaint portrays USC as denying him an opportunity to seek treatment, while he denied in public of having a drinking problem, USC appeared to allow him to take an indefinite leave of absence prior to firing him.
USC will also be poised to argue that the kinds of accommodations that would enable a head football coach at a major program to perform his work duties while struggling with alcohol would so radically transform the essential functions of the job of head coach that they could not be considered “reasonable” under the law. For instance, although a leave of absence is normally considered a reasonable accommodation under FEHA, USC might contend that it would not be reasonable in this particular circumstance. This university will assert that if gave Sarkisian substantial time off, such a move would have prevented Sarkisian from performing vital job functions.
USC could also use Sarkisian’s own depiction of the job as USC head coach as “tremendously stressful even under the best of circumstances” and one that necessitated 100+ hour workweeks against him. Sarkisian’s portrayal of the job seems to acknowledge that it requires a person who is uniquely fit physically and psychologically. Though he admitted he was under medication, which will certainly be addressed by USC. What is particularly important given that USC must provide a safe environment for student-athletes, a legal requirement that seems incompatible with a coach actively abusing alcohol while denying it. As explained above, the more the accommodations would have necessitated a transformation of the job as head coach and imposed an undue burden on USC, the weaker the claim for Sarkisian.
In addition, USC will assert that it acted within the boundaries of contract law in firing Sarkisian “for cause.” A “for cause” firing is one where the employer does not pay some or all of the remainder of a contract because the employee has violated a significant term of the contract. Sarkisian’s contract dictated that if USC fired him without cause before Dec. 1, 2015, it owed him a liquidated damages figure of $11.25 million. USC will surely argue that it fired him with cause because he was unable to perform the essential functions of the job.
So sorry Sarky
Comments
But still
Sark looks in the mirror and says "You're a shitty coach"
Sark Replies "Oh yeah, well you're drunk"
Then Sark says "Sir, tomorrow I'll be sober but you'll still be a shitty coach"
Sark: Doc, do you think people will understand my stupid disability?
Doc: Here, drink this whiskey shot.
(sark gulps it down quickly)
Doc: Waddya know. No problem drinking. You're off disability. Congratulations!
Sark: You mean I'm cured?
Doc: No, you're still stupid.
Disagree