What Employers Can Learn From the USC Coach Steve Sarkisian Situation - Updated!

***Edited to add:  Note, as I was finishing this post up late yesterday, an update broke.  On the afternoon of October 12, 2015, USC Athletic Director Pat Haden released the following statement:

"After careful consideration of what is in the best interest of the university and our student-athletes, I have made the decision to terminate Steve Sarkisian, effective immediately."

It looks like USC felt they had done the necessary investigation of the matter and decided that a termination was the proper response.  Given the continued line of stories that had continued to leak out about Coach Sarkisian and his apparent battle with alcohol while on the job, I cannot say I am surprised that USC went this route.

With that being said, I am still posting the below in its original form.

This past Sunday, University of Southern California coach Steve Sarkisian allegedly showed up to team facilities and appeared to be intoxicated.  Coach Sarkisian then apparently did not show up at the practice field, left the facility, and talked with USC Athletic Director ("AD") Pat Haden by phone.  Afterward, the AD announced that Coach Sarkisian was on a forced leave of absence and another coach will take over on an interim basis.

I wanted to highlight this unfortunate situation so that employers can use this situation to learn how to deal with a problem situation like this.  

Employers Should Not Make Hasty Decisions

After getting reports of the condition of Coach Sarkisian on Sunday, the AD took steps to put him on an indefinite leave of absence rather than terminate him.  That was the right call.  By not terminating the Coach immediately, the AD took steps to protect the employer (USC) and provide some coverage.  For all we know, the Coach could be dealing with a medical issue or a disability.  Had he been terminated yesterday after the first reports of his conduct started to leak, that could lead to a discrimination claim.  Instead, placing the Coach on leave, investigating the matter further, and offering to help him get the help he needs is a step in the right direction.  

However, Employers Should Not Let a Situation Escalate Before Deciding to Act

On the other hand, an employer should not sit idly by and let a problem fester and then act once it becomes too late.  Again, I think USC took the right step here by placing Coach Sarkisian on a leave of absence.  As reports have started to leak out over the past few days, it is apparent that Coach Sarkisian had a potential drinking problem for a while that USC likely had been made aware.  Going back as far as his days at the University of Washington as head coach, there are reports of the Coach drinking heavily (often at team related events) and showing up to work apparently under the influence.  Unless USC stuck its head in the sand and ignored everything (never a good idea, employers), an employer should be diligent and pay attention to the conduct of its employees and take action before a situation escalates.  

As of this point, it does not appear that the situation with Coach Sarkisian got out of control (in regard to other employees, interns, student athletes, etc. being harmed).  However, that does not mean USC should get a free pass.  Employers should be vigilant and take steps to be proactive when a problem employee becomes apparent, rather than be reactionary.

Employers Should Do Their Due Diligence & Investigate the Matter

This is a great opportunity to point out that when a problem situation appears, an employer should take action and investigate.  Rather than making a hasty decision to terminate the Coach, the AD instead chose to impose a leave of absence and give himself time to investigate the matter more fully.  Since yesterday's events, stories have started to leak out about Coach Sarkisian's actions over the past few months and years.  For those unaware, there was a report that Coach Sarkisian showed up to a USC booster function in August and appeared to be under the influence of alcohol and painkillers.  In addition, former players and coaches have stated that they saw the Coach pass out on team planes after drinking, have seen large stashes of liquor in team equipment storage, and witnessed him coaching during games in an apparently inebriated state, among other incidents.  

Whether any of these reports are true is unclear.  However, as reports start to stack up (and witness come forward and videos or pictures surface), USC can start to build a case for whether the Coach is capable of continuing his employment.  An employer who does their due diligence, investigates the matter, examines the entire situation, and then acts, puts themselves in a much better position if the terminated employee files suit. 

Employers Should Remember to Protect Fellow Employees/The Company

One of the most important things that employers need to remember is that other employees and the company itself need to be protected from an employee who is not fit to continue employment.  As head coach of a major football program, Coach Sarkisian has been entrusted with overseeing and guiding nearly 100 student athletes, coaches, and others involved with the football team.  Having a head coach that is allegedly under the influence during games, shows up to meetings intoxicated, and has questionable judgment in regard to exposing others to these types of actions, is a major risk that USC has allowed to exist.  One of the recruits for USC recently announced that in light of Coach Sarkisian's situation, he had decommited from USC.  More could follow.  Nationally, the USC football program has started to suffer as commentators, analysts, etc. have noted that Coach Sarkisian's alleged actions have sullied USC's storied reputation.  What if the Coach was actually a construction worker who was operating heavy machinery under the influence?  What rational employer would allow this situation to exist, knowing the potentially fatal damage this intoxicated employee could cause to other employees or company property??

If Coach Sarkisian had done something inappropriate towards a player, coach, cheerleader, intern, etc. while under the influence, USC could be responsible.  An employer needs to remember to take steps to protect fellow employees from an employee who could pose a threat.  Removing the problem employee from the situation (in this case by way of a leave of absence) is the first step to protecting other employees and company property.

When Dealing With An Employment Agreement, Consider How a Buyout is to Occur

It appears that Coach Sarkisian has a buyout with USC, should he leave the position before his contract is up.  Since USC is a private school and they have no requirement to release the employment contract (while a public university would), the terms of the agreement are not clear.  With that being said, a buyout does apparently exist in the Coach's contract and USC could be figuring out how to terminate the Coach without having to pay him his buyout.  

For the sake of this point, let us use an example.  Let us say that an employment contract has a provision that an employee could be terminated by the employer and no buy out would have to be paid if the employee was found to have engaged in "improper conduct", committed a crime, brought the employer embarrassment, ridicule, etc.  If, after fully investigating the matter (as any good employer would do...see my above note) an employer determines that an employee engaged in unlawful conduct, the employer could choose to terminate the employee and not pay a buy out on those grounds.  Of course the terminated employee could still bring a suit against the employer, but if an employment agreement contained this type of provision, the employer might be on suitable ground.

For now, we sit and wait as USC continues to investigate before taking further action.  My guess is USC and Coach Sarkisian will work out the terms of a buyout (likely for less than what the contract provides) and the employer and employee will part ways.  I cannot realistically envision an employer allowing an employee back on the job when a situation like this occurs and stories start to leak of how bad the situation got.  That sounds like a liability nighmare if something were to occur once the employee came back.