Bear Down Wildcats

Sark sueing U$C for $30 million.

UAEebs86 wrote:Sark sueing U$C for $30 million.

As well he should.

$30M sure does buy a lot of fireball....

UAEebs86 wrote:Sark sueing U$C for $30 million.

The long kiss goodbye continues...

It isn't too hard to imagine him getting an eight figure settlement/award out of this.

I have to wonder if USC wants this to go to discovery. That could be very interesting.

The lawsuit uses the phrase "kicked him to the curb" like 5 or 6 times. Is that lawyer talk?

azpenguin wrote:I have to wonder if USC wants this to go to discovery. That could be very interesting.

I can guarantee you they don't want it to go to discovery. The question is, will they pony up the big money early for a settlement to make sure it doesn't go to discovery?

I'd just say that when Sark said "I need help" I figured he meant help with his horrible coaching.

SC has a pretty good case, but Sark was around for the Bush years and knows where the bodies are buried

Well since he is very likely done as a D-1 head coach he can go for broke. With this lawsuit, he might be done as a college coach so getting an 8-12M settlement sets him up for life or at least it should.

This will be interesting entertainment

http://www.usctrojans.com/blog/2015/12/ ... wsuit.html

USC Response to Sarkisian Lawsuit
By Jordan Moore on December 7, 2015 4:40 PM

Statement from Carol Mauch Amir, USC General Counsel:

"Much of what is stated in the lawsuit filed today by Steve Sarkisian is patently untrue. While the university does not as a matter of practice comment on personnel matters or litigation, the record will show that Mr. Sarkisian repeatedly denied to university officials that he had a problem with alcohol, never asked for time off to get help, and resisted university efforts to provide him with help. The university made clear in writing that further incidents would result in termination, as it did. We are profoundly disappointed in how Mr. Sarkisian has mischaracterized the facts and we intend to defend these claims vigorously."

MrBug708 wrote:SC has a pretty good case, but Sark was around for the Bush years and knows where the bodies are buried

Not really.

Some major HIPPA violations with an employees medical record.

They did not handle his impairment well, if at all.

Not defending Sark - this mess is of his own creation - and USC isn't an angel in this.

UAEebs86 wrote:http://www.usctrojans.com/blog/2015/12/ ... wsuit.html

USC Response to Sarkisian Lawsuit
By Jordan Moore on December 7, 2015 4:40 PM

Statement from Carol Mauch Amir, USC General Counsel:

"Much of what is stated in the lawsuit filed today by Steve Sarkisian is patently untrue. While the university does not as a matter of practice comment on personnel matters or litigation, the record will show that Mr. Sarkisian repeatedly denied to university officials that he had a problem with alcohol, never asked for time off to get help, and resisted university efforts to provide him with help. The university made clear in writing that further incidents would result in termination, as it did. We are profoundly disappointed in how Mr. Sarkisian has mischaracterized the facts and we intend to defend these claims vigorously."

Except, impairment is made by a substance abuse professional (SAP) and not because the individual says they are impaired.

Showing up drunk at the Alumni function should have been red flag enough to get a SAP and the university's physician on board.

I see what USC is trying to pull here, but case law doesn't necessarily support them in this.

MrBug708 wrote:SC has a pretty good case, but Sark was around for the Bush years and knows where the bodies are buried

LOL. You pathetic UCLA fans are still clinging to that? The NCAA spent 4+ years and couldn't find any real violations. Keep hoping though. That's about 1459 days longer than it would take them to nail UCLA for basketball violations.

Getting back to the complaint - anyone else enjoy the subtle line about Sark being so drunk most nights he had to take an uber home from the office?

CalStateTempe wrote:

UAEebs86 wrote:http://www.usctrojans.com/blog/2015/12/ ... wsuit.html

USC Response to Sarkisian Lawsuit
By Jordan Moore on December 7, 2015 4:40 PM

Statement from Carol Mauch Amir, USC General Counsel:

"Much of what is stated in the lawsuit filed today by Steve Sarkisian is patently untrue. While the university does not as a matter of practice comment on personnel matters or litigation, the record will show that Mr. Sarkisian repeatedly denied to university officials that he had a problem with alcohol, never asked for time off to get help, and resisted university efforts to provide him with help. The university made clear in writing that further incidents would result in termination, as it did. We are profoundly disappointed in how Mr. Sarkisian has mischaracterized the facts and we intend to defend these claims vigorously."

Except, impairment is made by a substance abuse professional (SAP) and not because the individual says they are impaired.

Showing up drunk at the Alumni function should have been red flag enough to get a SAP and the university's physician on board.

I see what USC is trying to pull here, but case law doesn't necessarily support them in this.

Not my field of expertise at all and I don't know the law here at all, but I can see Haden telling him to go see a doctor after that pep rally shit show and Sark telling him to fuck off (most likely while chugging a Petron shot and slurring his words of course), in which case I'm not sure what more an employer can do. You can't make a guy get help - or even get diagnosed.

legallykenny wrote:

CalStateTempe wrote:

UAEebs86 wrote:http://www.usctrojans.com/blog/2015/12/ ... wsuit.html

USC Response to Sarkisian Lawsuit
By Jordan Moore on December 7, 2015 4:40 PM

Statement from Carol Mauch Amir, USC General Counsel:

"Much of what is stated in the lawsuit filed today by Steve Sarkisian is patently untrue. While the university does not as a matter of practice comment on personnel matters or litigation, the record will show that Mr. Sarkisian repeatedly denied to university officials that he had a problem with alcohol, never asked for time off to get help, and resisted university efforts to provide him with help. The university made clear in writing that further incidents would result in termination, as it did. We are profoundly disappointed in how Mr. Sarkisian has mischaracterized the facts and we intend to defend these claims vigorously."

Except, impairment is made by a substance abuse professional (SAP) and not because the individual says they are impaired.

Showing up drunk at the Alumni function should have been red flag enough to get a SAP and the university's physician on board.

I see what USC is trying to pull here, but case law doesn't necessarily support them in this.

Not my field of expertise at all and I don't know the law here at all, but I can see Haden telling him to go see a doctor after that pep rally shit show and Sark telling him to fuck off (most likely while chugging a Petron shot and slurring his words of course), in which case I'm not sure what more an employer can do. You can't make a guy get help - or even get diagnosed.

True. It depends what polices the USC AD (or at the Uni level) have in place to deal with faculty and staff who are "unfit for duty". If they had a specific policy to deal with an employee with an substance abuse problem AND Sark still told them to fuck off, then its on him. If its was a nebulous, "get help, don't drink, and don't embarrass us" warning, that won't fly. I don't know anyone at that that institution, but reading what was published in the media after how Sark was handled after the Salute to Troy event, leads me to believe a formal policy wasn't in place.

What should of happened, is Sark takes a leave, gets protected under FMLA, gets help either as an outpatient or 30 day inpatient, depending on how much he needs to dry out, has counseling sessions, likely a behavior health evaluation, gets clean, and then is reinstated with agreement of legal and medical team with the warning from Haden of "stay sober, stay in some form of documentable outpatient treatment, and don't embarrass us". Even if it is a exercise in futility, the employer covers their ass for the eventual termination. Given the chronology of the life and times of Sark's fall, I can surmise, little to none of that happened.

IMO, I think USC has a case for termination with cause based one what you mentioned above, but that think they have opened themselves up to some potential risk for leaking details of his health to the public prior to termination, especially if the employer's help was "go see your own doctor and we're going to look the other way."

legallykenny wrote:

MrBug708 wrote:SC has a pretty good case, but Sark was around for the Bush years and knows where the bodies are buried

LOL. You pathetic UCLA fans are still clinging to that? The NCAA spent 4+ years and couldn't find any real violations. Keep hoping though. That's about 1459 days longer than it would take them to nail UCLA for basketball violations.

Getting back to the complaint - anyone else enjoy the subtle line about Sark being so drunk most nights he had to take an uber home from the office?

Someone got stiffed with Sark's bar tab...lol

Only in America can you come to work drunk in a job you already aren't qualified for and then claim victim when you get fired. God Bless America, the country where being a generally shitty person is rewarded.

"You mean I am not supposed to come to work drunk? You never said that"

gronk4heisman wrote:Only in America can you come to work drunk in a job you already aren't qualified for and then claim victim when you get fired. God Bless America, the country where being a generally shitty person is rewarded.

"You mean I am not supposed to come to work drunk? You never said that"

Kinda like the Seinfeld episode with Costanza having sex in the office with the cleaning lady. "Was that wrong? I mean, I gotta claim ignorance on that one."

carolinacat wrote:

gronk4heisman wrote:Only in America can you come to work drunk in a job you already aren't qualified for and then claim victim when you get fired. God Bless America, the country where being a generally shitty person is rewarded.

"You mean I am not supposed to come to work drunk? You never said that"

Kinda like the Seinfeld episode with Costanza having sex in the office with the cleaning lady. "Was that wrong? I mean, I gotta claim ignorance on that one."

That episode was the first thing that came to my mind when I heard about this lawsuit.

We apparently don't have a separate Haden, but putting this here is probably about as appropriate as it gets.

Peace out Haden.

SCCats wrote:We apparently don't have a separate Haden, but putting this here is probably about as appropriate as it gets.

Peace out Haden.

Kinda harsh.

Interesting hire.

I went and took a quick look at Lynn's wiki page to see what kind of AD or AD like experience he's had. There didn't seem to be much there.

He [Swann] was among more than 200 candidates considered for the position in charge of the high-profile department, USC president Max Nikias said. Although Swann has no experience in high-level collegiate athletic administration, he is the third straight former USC football player to take the post.

Oh.

I guess we need to take out the learning part in the institution of higher learning.

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story ... ia-trojans" target="_blank

Holding the spot until OJ gets out on parole.

Merkin wrote:Holding the spot until OJ gets out on parole.

now that's classic. I was rolling Merk

The school president might as well just come out and admit that the SC boosters are completely running the athletic department now.

well damn.

Former USC Med school dean liked to party!

http://www.latimes.com/local/california ... story.html" target="_blank

Stunning read, brutal takedown by the la times.

Wow. Crazy shit.