Former USC Coach Throws the Challenge Flag After Getting Fired for Drinking

Clifford Geiger
Clifford Geiger
12/10/2015

Earlier this week, former University of Southern California (USC) Head Football Coach Steve Sarkisian filed a wrongful termination lawsuit against his former employer. Sarkisian’s complaint alleges violations of California law, including a failure to accommodate his alcoholism. Sarkisian, who is seeking at least the $12.5 million left on his contract, asserts that USC “kicked him to the curb” by firing him instead of allowing him time off to seek treatment.

On October 12, 2005, Sarkisian was dismissed from his position as USC Head Football Coach following several widely reported incidents that raised questions about his sobriety. At a booster event in August 2015, Sarkisian slurred his words, shouted profanities, and insulted USC’s rivals. The Los Angeles Times reported that during USC’s September 26 game against Arizona State, assistant coaches pulled Sarkisian out of a sideline huddle because they thought he was intoxicated. The Los Angeles Times also reported that Sarkisian appeared inebriated at a team meeting on the morning of October 11, 2015 following USC’s loss to Washington, and he missed the team’s practice later that same day. Despite admitting that he suffers from alcoholism, Sarkisian’s complaint denies that he was drunk on any of these occasions.

In any event, USC Athletic Director Pat Haden called Sarkisian after learning that he missed practice on October 11. According to Sarkisian’s complaint, he told Haden: “I’m not right, I need time to get well.” According to the lawsuit, Haden responded, “Unbelievable! Can’t you even go back to the office to finish the day?” Sarkisian responded, “No, I need help. I’m not right.” Haden later told Sarkisian that he was being placed on an indefinite leave of absence. Sarkisian claims that he believed his request for time off had been granted, and the next day, October 12, he took a noon flight to an inpatient treatment facility. But when the plane landed, Sarkisian learned that he had been fired as USC Head Football Coach.

USC issued a written statement responding to Sarkisian’s lawsuit. USC’s General Counsel wrote, in part, “Much of what is stated in the lawsuit filed today by Steve Sarkisian is patently untrue … [T]he 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 it clear in writing that further incidents would result in termination, as it did ….”

While Sarkisian’s disability claim is brought California law, we can look to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) as a guide to how these sorts of matters are handled generally.

The ADA treats alcohol and drug use somewhat differently. An individual currently engaged in the use of illegal drugs is not an “individual with a disability” under the ADA. However, a person who is an alcoholic (and currently drinking) is likely an “individual with a disability” entitled to the protections of the ADA. This does not mean an employer must tolerate an employee who is drunk at work. The ADA specifically provides that an employer may: (i) prohibit the use of alcohol in the workplace; and (ii) require that employees not be under the influence of alcohol in the workplace. Also, employees who use alcohol may be held to the same performance standards as other employees even if the unsatisfactory performance or behavior is related to the alcoholism; provided, however, an employer cannot treat an alcoholic employee more severely than it does other employees for the same performance or misconduct.

Against this legal backdrop, it is easy to see why Sarkisian says he was not under the influence of alcohol at work. Instead, he is claiming that his anxiety and depression, combined with his off duty drinking, caused him to not feel well or perhaps appear intoxicated. From the press description of the incidents at issue, it seems there should be plenty of witnesses to testify about Sarkisian’s conduct.

Although it is too early to tell, the statement issued by USC may provide some insight to USC’s position. In addition to challenging Sarkisian’s version of events, USC may focus on its right to deal with certain inappropriate workplace behavior regardless of the underlying cause of that behavior. If USC is able to prove that Sarkisian engaged in inappropriate behavior, was warned about the consequences of additional incidents, and requested accommodation only after being faced with termination, then his request for accommodation was too late. An employer generally is not required by the ADA to rescind or forego disciplinary action when a request for accommodation comes after the misconduct.

No Comments
prev next
Email Updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Loading