The state of California has ruled it a disease I heard today which gives his lawsuit merit. Sadly I don't think its a disease, I think it's a choice and that is coming from someone who has been around the "choice" their entire life. I've always felt naming it a disease was a cop out for that person
Enfuego, this was discussed very well and indepth today on either Mike & Mike or Russilo & Kanel and I caught bits and pieces. I will try to provide what I heard and I can't remember who it was from but it was a California attorney that ESPN has on retainer.
Basically the the state has previously stated it is a disease and the laws say you can not fire someone for a disease. Now the way our laws and government works is it is up to the court to interpret those laws written by government. Now it will be up to the court to determine can a college football coach showing up drunk to work and mentor kids cause for termination. Precedent has been set though in the state of CALI that alcoholism is a disease and you can't fire anyone for a disease.
Basically the the state has previously stated it is a disease and the laws say you can not fire someone for a disease. Now the way our laws and government works is it is up to the court to interpret those laws written by government. Now it will be up to the court to determine can a college football coach showing up drunk to work and mentor kids cause for termination. Precedent has been set though in the state of CALI that alcoholism is a disease and you can't fire anyone for a disease.
ENF, it does seem pretty quickly sensible (to you and me at least...heh) that a 'disability' would be something over which the person has virtually or literally no control.
Missing limbs or other body parts etc.
But as has been noted, many jurisdictions have expanded 'our' definition with a range of latitude.
All in all, just another reminder of why in 21st century America a business should very carefully decide just how much they wish to expand with Employees rather than via other methods such as outsourcing jobs to private contractors. The rules are often quite different.
Your own profession recognizes that of course. Many jobs that prior to say the 1980s are outsourced to contractors rather than to employees (actual members of the official US armed forces.
Missing limbs or other body parts etc.
But as has been noted, many jurisdictions have expanded 'our' definition with a range of latitude.
All in all, just another reminder of why in 21st century America a business should very carefully decide just how much they wish to expand with Employees rather than via other methods such as outsourcing jobs to private contractors. The rules are often quite different.
Your own profession recognizes that of course. Many jobs that prior to say the 1980s are outsourced to contractors rather than to employees (actual members of the official US armed forces.
I myself considered many times in the past 34 years of self employment that I might expand my operations w employees. It's a time honored system. I decided instead to work by myself until about four years ago when I increased my advertising and referred all subsequent jobs to other owners. I now do close to a half million a year with 85% going to other owners who pay me a differential. No employees and I am not tied to any of the other owners. If they do something to which I object (substance abuse behaviors for example) I simply stop working with them. That's actually the reason I broke with two men in past two years. Easy, no muss no fuss and no lawsuits
An increasing number of US business owners are doing likewise. Employees are expensive and frequently difficult to disengage from. USC probably wishes they could easily break with Sark, but it won't happen without a big price being paid
An increasing number of US business owners are doing likewise. Employees are expensive and frequently difficult to disengage from. USC probably wishes they could easily break with Sark, but it won't happen without a big price being paid
That is their word against his as he still stands by the claim that he did not show up the day after a game drunk.
I am doubting a just cause was in the contract as if it was cut & dry, he probably would not be suing & USC would jump to make that claim. I don't really see them having much choice but to settle just to get him out of their hair.
