Rolo: what if he has heart disease?
- Thread starter ttowncoug
- Start date
Magic money? A multimillion dollar slush fund? No approval by the Regents necessary?
Obviously, the university has cash reserves since that has been how the AD deficit has been funded. But again, the AD lost almost $32 million last year. You really think the Regents are excited about digging that hole deeper?
Rolo is making a bad situation, which he created, worse each day. Talent wise this is the best team he is going to have for a couple of years, the Cougs will lose a lot of key players to graduation and the draft this year. He better win at least 7-8 games this year, or my prediction is he won't complete his contract. He has created a big PR problem and has now put himself on a short leash.
Obviously, this is all speculation, but if Rolo has a doctor who signs a letter stating that his medical advice is that his patient should not receive the vaccine, there's very little the university can do about it.
If he has no such letter from a doctor, he could also try to document some sort of religious belief that prevents him from being vaccinated. The university then has some leeway to determine if those are "sincerely held" beliefs, although the governor provided no instruction on how to do that.
If he does neither of those things, he will be unemployed on October 19, and there will be no need to write a check. It's not performance based, he's not being fired, and "cause" is irrelevant. The state has made this a condition of employment, and if he declines to meet that condition of his position, then he has chosen to vacate the position. You don't get severance when you voluntarily leave a position, and you don't get your contract paid out.
Sure, he'll sue. But he'll lose. It probably won't even make it to trial.
Technically, his contract would be terminated for cause, the cause being violation of university policy.
The process for medical accommodation may not be as simple as that:
“Exemptions from Vaccine Requirement.
a. Health Care Providers and Workers for State Agencies are not required to get vaccinated against COVID-19 if they are entitled under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), or any other applicable law to a disability-related reasonable accommodation or a sincerely held religious belief accommodation to the requirements of this order. Nothing herein precludes individuals or entities for which Health Care Providers work as employees, contractors, or volunteers and State Agencies from providing disability-related reasonable accommodations and religious accommodations to the requirements of this order as required by the laws noted above. As provided in the ADA, Title VII, and the WLAD, individuals or entities for which Health Care Providers work as employees, contractors, or volunteers and State Agencies are not required to provide such accommodations if they would cause undue hardship.
b. To the extent permitted by law, before providing a disability-related reasonable accommodation to the requirements of this order, individuals or entities for which Health Care Providers work as employees, contractors, or volunteers and State Agencies must obtain from the individual requesting the accommodation documentation from an appropriate health care or rehabilitation professional authorized to practice in the State of Washington stating that the individual has a disability that necessitates an accommodation and the probable duration of the need for the accommodation.”
My guess is Rolo is more likely to go the religious exemption route if he seeks one of these.
C-V hits on something here.
For all the talk about "medical excuses" there are very, very few absolute medical contraindications to the vaccines.
Chief among them is an allergy to the vaccine or any of it's components.
As a matter of fact they are urging "moderate to severely immunocompromised people" (some of the most medically fragile folks around) to get a third booster vaccine ASAP.
Even those who have had a history of myocarditis are cleared for the vaccine, as long as their issue has been treated successfully.
The whole "medical reasons" thing is generally being overplayed - read the CDC/DOH guidelines for yourself. Most of the medical waivers stem from "an abundance of care". I.e. -"we aren't going to take any chances".
In reality, medically compromised people are far more at risk from the virus than they are the vaccine.
Bottom line remains - obviously ALWAYS consult with your physician, don't just take internet advice. If they feel there's a valid concern, ask them what data supports that (or maybe it stems from the LACK of data for some of this) ?
I promised myself I wouldn't bite on this topic....but I did. Doom on me.
It's not simple, and the first step is to submit documentation from a licensed HCP indicating that you can't be vaccinated and why. Those will then be evaluated by the university to see if they can be accommodated.
Two things people often overlook when requesting medical/disability accommodations:
First, they forget the word reasonable. Employers are not required to make monumental efforts to accommodate the employee. There's a point where the employer is allowed to say "no."
Second, if as a result of your condition and/or accommodation, you can't perform your job duties - your employer is not required to keep you at all.
Technically. But the university wouldn't say he was terminated, they would say that he chose not to meet the conditions for continuing employment, therefore the contract was null and void. If he's terminated, he gets severance. If the contract was nullified by his choice, he doesn't.
It's semantics, but it's semantics that cost $3M/year. Either way, the end result would be he's not the coach anymore.
I agree- If the university gets the semantics wrong, it pays millions of dollars.
Terminating a contract does not render it null and void.
