The Great Head Coaching Search of 2015

[Bo Diddley]

You need to slow down. The attorney isnt arguing that alcoholics are a "protected class" per se, but that alcoholism is a disability (which is a stupid argument because it isnt at issue, really) and that SC knew and had a responsibility to help him or work with him to get help. Those aren't the same thing. And yes, other states recognize alcoholism as a disability because the ADA (federal) recognizes it as a disability. That being said, as CMBF correctly alluded, if your disability affects your ability to do your job, that protection erodes quickly. And in the case of alcoholism, there are many rules in place that would allow an employer to fire the employee and it sounds like Sark broke those rules multiple times...drinking on the job, drinking affecting his performance, etc.

Maybe Alan Loewinsohn needs to slow down then:

We spoke with Sark's attorney Alan Loewinsohn who tells us, "Alcoholism is a recognized disability under California law. So firing somebody because of that disability is against the law."

[Commando]

Maybe Alan Loewinsohn needs to slow down then:

Sounds like he's right on, other than specifying that it's California law... I mean technically the ADA is the law in California, so...

[TripletDaddy]

Maybe Alan Loewinsohn needs to slow down then:

No, I think you still need to slow down.

unfortunately for Alan, his quote is unhelpful and not accurate. USC isnt going to argue that alcoholism isnt a disability because that isnt a question. You can most definitely fire someone with a disability, however, so Im guessing that is where USC will attack and where Alan Loewinsohn will eventually lose.

[Eddie]

So, what exactly is a "reasonable accommodation" for an alcoholic?

Could that be his argument? That USC agreed to allow him time for treatment, and then changed their mind?

[Bo Diddley]

Sounds like he's right on, other than specifying that it's California law... I mean technically the ADA is the law in California, so...

Not if he's leading his client to believe that they broke the law.

We're told one of the main allegations is that Sarkisian believes USC broke the law by firing someone with disabilities.

if what DDD suggests is true:

if your disability affects your ability to do your job, that protection erodes quickly. And in the case of alcoholism, there are many rules in place that would allow an employer to fire the employee and it sounds like Sark broke those rules multiple times...drinking on the job, drinking affecting his performance, etc.

Back to my original point, Haha! California is a screwed up state. Tell me I'm wrong.

[creekster]

Not if he's leading his client to believe that they broke the law.



if what DDD suggests is true:



Back to my original point, Haha! California is a screwed up state. Tell me I'm wrong.

You're wrong.

[TripletDaddy]

You're wrong.

[Commando]

He's an attorney making a blanket public statement. He's not going to identify the liabilities of the case for public consumption- that + rehabilitation of those liabilities will be presumably done in briefing. The only win he could hope for is the forthcoming settlement.

[Bo Diddley]

You're wrong.

I apologize for dissing on your beloved state then. I should be more sensitive.

Edit: Will you at least stipulate that it's screwed up in one of the infinite dimensions?

[Commando]

I apologize for dissing on your beloved state then. I should be more sensitive.

[TripletDaddy]

He's an attorney making a blanket public statement. He's not going to identify the liabilities of the case for public consumption- that + rehabilitation of those liabilities will be presumably done in briefing. The only win he could hope for is the forthcoming settlement.

That settlement will likely be pretty minimal after SC trots out players and coaches to confirm that Sark was drunk in team meetings, smelled like alcohol on the sidelines, had beer in the locker room for post-game, and cursed at donors during a public event.

[Commando]

Reminds me of that old simpsons episode where bart sues burns for running him over. After Homer inadvertently destroys the case the lawyers pass a new settlement figure across the table to homer's lawyer, looks at it and sees it's "0" and says "I say we take it."

[All-American]

Reminds me of that old simpsons episode where bart sues burns for running him over. After Homer inadvertently destroys the case the lawyers pass a new settlement figure across the table to homer's lawyer, looks at it and sees it's "0" and says "I say we take it."

Marge destroyed the case. They put her on the stand and she testified that Bart wasn't really all that affected. Burns's legal team presented a "nice round figure."

[Commando]

Marge destroyed the case. They put her on the stand and she testified that Bart wasn't really all that affected. Burns's legal team presented a "nice round figure."

I stand corrected. I couldn't find a youtube clip and was relying on my memory of the episode. I assumed that Homer ruined it, but I now remember that it is Marge's uprightness and lack of guile that ruined it, much to Homer's chagrin.

[Art Vandelay]

That settlement will likely be pretty minimal after SC trots out players and coaches to confirm that Sark was drunk in team meetings, smelled like alcohol on the sidelines, had beer in the locker room for post-game, and cursed at donors during a public event.

No jello shots of a Song Girl's stomach? At this point, that is the the only way he can salvage his ruined reputation. If history has shown us anything thing, it's if you've failed at SC, and are considered by most of the coaching community to be a lying pariah, you will never get another chance to allegedly sleep with your employer's daughter coach again.