A
anon_umk0ifu6vj6zi
Guest
Suing because the spineless California law that says alcoholism is a "disability". Good God
Last edited by a moderator:
Hell...I am doing this all wrong then. I am selling my business, moving to California, getting a job there, showing up to work for the first month, and from then on taking long lunches at the local Hooters, getting s*itfaced all afternoon. As soon as I am fired, I'll just claim I am an alcoholic and sue. Nice work, Sark. Well played, man.....well played.
Yeah. I'm so glad not to live there anymore... Such a BS state. The litigious environment there is beyond ridiculous. Bad thing is... He may win. F$&%*@ California.
What a little bitch. He'd better win, because probably going to be near impossible for him to get a job now.
What an ass.
I guess he wasn't interested in coaching again, ever. I cannot imagine anyone will hire that dork now.
I guess he wasn't interested in coaching again, ever. I cannot imagine anyone will hire that dork now.
No one should be shocked. We live in a society where nothing is anyone's fault. Anything that happens to anyone is always someone else's fault or something else fault. In this case it is god's, mother nature, and whoever discovered/created alcohol. Frankly I've shocked it took him so long to come forward with this.
Uh, ever since alcoholism was determined to be a disease some 60 years ago it has the potential of being found to be a disability under federal and most, if not all, states' laws. This is absolutely nothing new and far from unique to California.
A
anon_umk0ifu6vj6zi
Guest
I also think the "disease" excuse is a damn joke. It's a decision. Same as getting out of bed in the morning. I may really want to stay in bed and skip work, because it feels better. Is that a "disease"??
Spot on 4.6.3. Alcoholism is
1. a choice
2. a moral weakness caused by the lack of a backbone
3 NOT a disease
1. a choice
2. a moral weakness caused by the lack of a backbone
3 NOT a disease
Unfortunately I know a few men & women drawing disability or SSI using booze as their disability.
What a racket. I've drank with the best but still got up & did my job, had years of it, You were looked down upon if you couldn't pull your weight after a night out. Pussies. Lawyers smell money.
California law may side with him on this.
Under that law, your can't terminate someone who is disabled once they begin treatment. The legal question is when did he begin to receive treatment. It's not a case of weather alcoholism is a sickness. That's already case law in California.
So if he sued because the University violated his rights under HIPAA everyone would be willing to accept it, right? Alcoholism is a recognized medical condition and employers -- especially past employers shouldn't be discussing ANYTHING to do with a former employee's medical conditions. USC's open discussion regarding a former employee's medical condition is easily grounds for a lawsuit. Unless Sark signed a waiver granting USC the authority to discuss his medical conditions, they didn't have the right to open their collective mouths.
I know AD's are supposed to be raging gossip whores that feed the internet message boards .. but wait .. no.
I know AD's are supposed to be raging gossip whores that feed the internet message boards .. but wait .. no.
I suspect if insurance companies, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. made a rule that they continue to pay for substance abuse treatment if diagnosed as a bad habit, but not if the patient was classified as having a "disease" the AMA would reclassify alcoholism as a "bad habit" so fast our heads would spin. Follow the money
I love all these self-declared experts who, apparently because they've sat and watched every episode of House, think they are geniuses in medicine. Because they sat in front of their computer for twenty seconds thinking about drinking, they know more then the scientists who have 60 years of continued testing of hypotheses and studying of alcoholics to back up their conclusion that alcoholism is a disease. I am in awe that this board is loaded with not only super-geniuses in coaching college football but in the medical fields as well.
There is not private right to action for HIPPA violations. An individual cannot sue for violations.
It's called opinions. People have them ... and have the right to have them, even if they are wrong. Not taking a side on the topic, but a negative comment about expressing opinions, on a message board of all places, is IN MY OPINION quite lame.
A
anon_umk0ifu6vj6zi
Guest
Exactly. I do have to confess, I considered staying home this morning trying to catch me some alcoholism.
The real problem here is not whether alcoholism is a disease or not.......but whether we should make an entire business (or football program in this matter) remain on hold, while the person with the "disease" still receives a paycheck sitting in rehab. I have no problem with, if diagnosed while employed, the person with the "disease" of alcoholism, continue to have the insurance to cover the treatment. Forcing an employer to continue to give them a paycheck is bs, however. Go get another job, Sark.
I know that the next thing to be said is that he will not be able to get another job coaching because of his ailment. Well, lots of people have to put things neatly into boxes for shipment or take your order at the drive-thru. Start at the bottom and work your way back up.
I know that the next thing to be said is that he will not be able to get another job coaching because of his ailment. Well, lots of people have to put things neatly into boxes for shipment or take your order at the drive-thru. Start at the bottom and work your way back up.
A
anon_umk0ifu6vj6zi
Guest
Oh I don't blame him. The lawyers that would take this case (and they will win) are pretty much sub-human garbage.
He'll never work again. I wouldn't hire him to coach a high school team.
People are entitled to their opinions, but they are not entitled to their made-up facts. As Harlan Ellison said "you are not entitled to your opinion, you are entitled to your informed opinion." And the opinion that alcoholism is not a disease is based on what? Just based on a dislike of the fact?! What scientific papers has anyone here perused that are contrary to the uniformly held, experimentally-based theory that alcoholism is a disease? Opinions based on ignorance and the fact that the person expressing the opinion arbitrarily decides that 'my opinion, based on nothing but cant and misplaced morality, is entitled to at least as much respect as the contrary fact based theory based on 60 years of scientific research' are not just entitled to ridicule, they should receive it.
BTW, while, despite the brilliantly espoused, scientific analysis-based opposition of some on this board to the fact that alcoholism is a disease, courts still can find that the disease constitutes a disability. But that would not mean Sark would win. He still would have to prove that he can still perform all the requirements of his job with reasonable accommodation or without accommodation. That is a fairly difficult requirement to meet.
The problem is we are talking about a disease that can be faked. You cannot fake cancer. You cannot fake Lou Gehrig's disease. Most of the diseases that are recognized are diseases that cannot be faked. With alcoholism there's a reason it's called abuse. It can be faked. Maybe Sark genuinely suffers from this disease, but then again, how can you know for sure?
I don't give a crap if alcoholism is a disease or not, Sark is an a-hole for suing USC, and is lawyer is the reason people hate lawyers, period.
Screw Sark and his lawyer.
Screw Sark and his lawyer.
I disagree with Harlan ... everyone is entitled to their own opinion regardless of whether it is right/wrong, uninformed/brilliant, hateful/loving, etc. I further believe everyone needs to own up to their opinion should others find the opinion wrong, stupid, hateful, etc. So raise your points why alcoholism is a disease (I may even happen to agree with you) but don't criticize others for having a different opinion. That's all I am saying.
From the school's perspective, he wasn't fired for being an alcoholic, he was fired for showing up for work drunk, twice, at a job whose main responsibility to to lead, train, and be an example for young men, women, and the entire university.
I'm certain after the first time he was given an ultimatum that it would never happen again, and it did. At that point, he didn't admit to be an alcoholic, he blamed the mixing of some alcohol and prescription drugs. I'm not sure at what point he declared himself an alcoholic.
I'm certain after the first time he was given an ultimatum that it would never happen again, and it did. At that point, he didn't admit to be an alcoholic, he blamed the mixing of some alcohol and prescription drugs. I'm not sure at what point he declared himself an alcoholic.
A
anon_umk0ifu6vj6zi
Guest
What Ellison meant by that, at least according to one of his essays in, IIRC, Deathbird Stories, is that only informed opinions are entitled to respect. I don't think Ellison would say you can't have any opinion you want. That would be contrary to his overall belief system (in my opinion). It's just that if your opinion is, for example, that the Earth is unquestionably flat, that opinion is not entitled to any sort of respect and not only can be challenged, it should be challenged. That's what Harlan meant and I agree with him 100%. So the opinion that alcoholism is not a disease, being uninformed and contrary to hundreds if not thousands of scientific studies, should be challenged. Now there may be quite recent studies that I am not aware of. I looked into this in depth some years back when I had 2 brothers-in-law and a good friend diagnosed with alcoholism, all within about 18 months of each other, and I try to keep up on the subject. But if there are recent contrary scientific studies that put the theory of alcoholism as a disease in serious doubt, I'll take my beating from the people here and from good ol' Harlan.
Similar threads
