ESPN: Coaches file brief, side with players...'Skins assistants align with owners

[viman96]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6589809

MINNEAPOLIS -- NFL coaches are teaming up with the players in their legal fight to end the owner-imposed lockout.

The NFL Coaches Association filed a brief with the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday expressing support for the players and saying that the lockout is putting their jobs in jeopardy.

"Owners and fans increasingly demand immediate success, and coaches whose teams cannot fulfill such severe expectations face likely dismissal, which means the uprooting of families, economic dislocation, and a significantly less promising career path," lawyers for the NFLCA wrote.

 

[Hostile]

I am glad they did this. I wish it had been sooner. Both sides need to take note.

 

[DCDave]

Wow. The coaches brief is VERY interesting. Apparently, several years ago the NFL teams -- virtually simultaneously -- began insisting on so-called "lockout clauses" in coaching contracts, that would permit teams to withhold part of a coaches salary in the event of a work stoppage. Apparently, the lockout planning extended past the TV deals.

The coaches argue that, unlike the players, there is no doubt that they are a non-union workforce that depends and relies upon the federal antitrust laws as their sole source of economic protection. As such, ruling that the NFL can't be enjoined from anticompetitive practices leaves coaches virtually unprotected. "Succumbing to the NFL’s view of the law would grant the NFL teams a broad license to commit a variety of antitrust violations, rendering the Sherman Act fruitless against anticompetitive collusion the NFL might direct at nonunion employees like the NFL’s coaches." Hadn't thought of that perspective until now.

Best point in the brief: "In short, the NFL asks this Court to turn the Norris–LaGuardia Act on its head. It is commonly accepted that the Act was designed to prevent union-management labor disputes from turning into antitrust actions. The NFL suggests instead that the Act should sanitize antitrust violations by turning them into labor disputes."

 

[CCBoy]

Wow. The coaches brief is VERY interesting. Apparently, several years ago the NFL teams -- virtually simultaneously -- began insisting on so-called "lockout clauses" in coaching contracts, that would permit teams to withhold part of a coaches salary in the event of a work stoppage. Apparently, the lockout planning extended past the TV deals.

The coaches argue that, unlike the players, there is no doubt that they are a non-union workforce that depends and relies upon the federal antitrust laws as their sole source of economic protection. As such, ruling that the NFL can't be enjoined from anticompetitive practices leaves coaches virtually unprotected. "Succumbing to the NFL’s view of the law would grant the NFL teams a broad license to commit a variety of antitrust violations, rendering the Sherman Act fruitless against anticompetitive collusion the NFL might direct at nonunion employees like the NFL’s coaches." Hadn't thought of that perspective until now.

Best point in the brief: "In short, the NFL asks this Court to turn the Norris–LaGuardia Act on its head. It is commonly accepted that the Act was designed to prevent union-management labor disputes from turning into antitrust actions. The NFL suggests instead that the Act should sanitize antitrust violations by turning them into labor disputes."

So, what next, the coaches, which directly have a relationship more in line with ownership as the managerial tool, Unionize and be co-equal to the players. Or approach venue for all similarly employed employees and seek redress through legitimate labor venues? Just when do they then slot up with Worker's Compensation?

 

[Fletch]

Bet the owners around the league didn't see this one coming. :laugh2: They figured the coaches and their staffs would idley stand by and fall in line with the rest of them. Whooopsie!

 

[bbgun]

Bet the owners around the league didn't see this one coming. :laugh2: They figured the coaches and their staffs would idley stand by and fall in line with the rest of them. Whooopsie!

Just what this lockout needed: mutiny.

 

[big dog cowboy]

Bet the owners around the league didn't see this one coming.

I really wish that there was owner reaction when I saw this reported on Total Access earlier. I'm sure there are some that were

 

[Plumfool]

Makes sense coaches jobs are dependent on their teams performance.

 

[theogt]

Wow. That's pretty crazy.

Edit: Compelling arguments by the owners. Glad to see them point out the sweeping changes a decision for the owners would create, which not only would have application against the coaches, but essentially all employees in the United States.

 

[WoodysGirl]

Bet the owners around the league didn't see this one coming. :laugh2: They figured the coaches and their staffs would idley stand by and fall in line with the rest of them. Whooopsie!

Well according to the article, they weren't surprised. Aiello said the Coaches Association offices with the Players Association... whatever that means.

 

[Outlaw Heroes]

I can understand the coaches arguing that the lockout is causing them harm of very sorts. That's something that the panel arguably ought to take notice of in weighing the public interest as one of the four factors in determining whether the injunction should remain in place.

But the brief begins to lose its grip on me when it raises the specter of unspecified anticompetitive behavior that the NFL may engage in towards coaches if NLGA is found to protect the lockout. What does the NFLCA have in mind? The coaches are not subject to the lockout. Nor can I envision a circumstance in which coaches would be locked out on a league-wide basis. Coaches have individual relationships with teams. Just as the coaches do not organize in negotating the terms of their employment relationships with teams, the teams do not organize in their dealings with coaches. In the circumstances, what sort of injunction might an individual coach seek against League as a whole on the basis of anti-competitive behavior?

 

[theogt]

I can understand the coaches arguing that the lockout is causing them harm of very sorts. That's something that the panel arguable ought to take notice of in weighing the public interest as one of the four factors in determining whether the injunction should remain in place.

But the brief begins to lose its grip on me when it raises the specter of unspecified anticompetitive behavior that the NFL may engage in towards coaches if NLGA is found to protect the lockout. What does the NFLCA have in mind? The coaches are not subject to the lockout. Nor can I envision a circumstance in which coaches would be locked out on a league-wide basis. Coaches have individual relationships with teams. Just as the coaches do not organize in negotating the terms of their employment relationships with teams, the teams do not organize in their dealings with coaches. In the circumstances, what sort of injunction might an individual coach seek against League as a whole on the basis of anti-competitive behavior?

The owners could collectively agree to only pay owners up to $1 million. If any single coach (or the coaches collectively) sued to enjoin the restriction, they would be barred by NLGA (based on the owners' argument), despite the fact that it is not possible for them to even seek the protection of labor law.

 

[Outlaw Heroes]

The owners could collectively agree to only pay owners up to $1 million. If any single coach (or the coaches collectively) sued to enjoin the restriction, they would be barred by NLGA (based on the owners' argument), despite the fact that it is not possible for them to even seek the protection of labor law.

OK. That's a helpful example that we can work with. But given that we're talking about monetary compensation (which, by definition, is compensable by monetary damages) that is not the sort of thing that would be subject to an injunction in any event (i.e. not satisfying the irreparable harm test).

 

[theogt]

OK. That's a helpful example that we can work with. But given that we're talking about monetary compensation (which, by definition, is compensable by monetary damages) that is not the sort of thing that would be subject to an injunction in any event (i.e. not satisfying the irreparable harm test).

Coaches state their intention to file lawsuit due to the restriction, league locks out the coaches.

 

[Outlaw Heroes]

Coaches state their intention to file lawsuit due to the restriction, league locks out the coaches.

Yep. Pretty far-fetched, and the owners would be knowingly exposing themselves to treble damages, but that example does it.

 

[theogt]

Yep. Pretty far-fetched, and the owners would be knowingly exposing themselves to treble damages, but that example does it.

I'd suspect most people (particularly employees) assume blatant violations of antitrust law are far-fetched and shielded against by the law. We'll see if the 8th circuit panel disagrees.

 

[DCDave]

OK. That's a helpful example that we can work with. But given that we're talking about monetary compensation (which, by definition, is compensable by monetary damages) that is not the sort of thing that would be subject to an injunction in any event (i.e. not satisfying the irreparable harm test).

To the extent that you are suggesting that any time harm is monetary in nature there can be no irreparable harm, I disagree. There's a reason why the Sherman Act provides for injunctive relief, despite the fact that most antitrust injury can be measured in terms of dollars. Not all monetary injuries are at all readily ascertainable. For example, take the salary cap. I think that we all have a sense that, both conceptually and in reality, the salary cap tends to depress player salaries. That said, even in a salary cap environment, we could both probably identify players on the Cowboys roster who are, in fact, overpaid relative to what they would be making right now in a free and competitive market for player services.

How much injury has Roy Williams suffered from being forced to negotiate his deal in a salary-cap environment? Maybe alot. But probably not at all. I don't know that there's a good way to prove that, other than to put the player into a competitive market and see what happens. Which, pragmatically, is not easy to do hypothetically in court.

And what if the antitrust recidivist (which the NFL surely is), after having lost in litigation and paid damages, decides to go back to the same practices on the (correct) theory that most employees would rather suffer some harm in silence if they are required to go beyond a simple contempt proceeding, and all the way to a full-blown trial, and prove up damages, to stop you from repeating your unlawful ways. Just for alot of reasons, injunctive relief makes sense. And certainly with respect to non-union employees like coaches, there is simply no reason to take that remedy away.

 

[DCDave]

Aiello said the Coaches Association offices with the Players Association... whatever that means.

That's funny. I guess the NFL's view is that all those pesky unions are in kahoots with each other -- even the unions that aren't unions...

 

[Outlaw Heroes]

To the extent that you are suggesting that any time harm is monetary in nature there can be no irreparable harm, I disagree. There's a reason why the Sherman Act provides for injunctive relief, despite the fact that most antitrust injury can be measured in terms of dollars. Not all monetary injuries are at all readily ascertainable. For example, take the salary cap. I think that we all have a sense that, both conceptually and in reality, the salary cap tends to depress player salaries. That said, even in a salary cap environment, we could both probably identify players on the Cowboys roster who are, in fact, overpaid relative to what they would be making right now in a free and competitive market for player services.

How much injury has Roy Williams suffered from being forced to negotiate his deal in a salary-cap environment? Maybe alot. But probably not at all. I don't know that there's a good way to prove that, other than to put the player into a competitive market and see what happens. Which, pragmatically, is not easy to do hypothetically in court.

And what if the antitrust recidivist (which the NFL surely is), after having lost in litigation and paid damages, decides to go back to the same practices on the (correct) theory that most employees would rather suffer some harm in silence if they are required to go beyond a simple contempt proceeding, and all the way to a full-blown trial, and prove up damages, to stop you from repeating your unlawful ways. Just for alot of reasons, injunctive relief makes sense. And certainly with respect to non-union employees like coaches, there is simply no reason to take that remedy away.

I'm not sure we're disagreeing. It's settled law that if an injury can be compensated by monetary damages (or really any legal, as opposed to equitable, remedy) there is no "irreparable harm". You've pointed out at least one example where the amount of damages would be difficult to quantify. Fair enough. That might well ground a finding of irreparable harm since if the damages cannot be quantified it's difficult to see how a compensation award can be made.

As for your argument based on recidivism, who exactly moves for the injunction if the hypothetical employees aren't willing to assert their rights? Are you thinking of a government enforcement action? If so, isn't the argument for irreparable harm that the employees, not being willing (for whatever reason) to assert their rights, stand no practical chance of having their injuries compensated by damages?

 

[DCDave]

You've pointed out at least one example where the amount of damages would be difficult to quantify. Fair enough. That might well ground a finding of irreparable harm since if the damages cannot be quantified it's difficult to see how a compensation award can be made.

Right, but I think that the one example points to a conceptual difficulty that's common to most, if not all, players who might challenge the league's restrictions -- measuring your harm will usually require you to know what the market would look like in the absence of the challenged practices. Problem is, nobody really knows what the NFL would look like today without these practices.

As for your argument based on recidivism, who exactly moves for the injunction if the hypothetical employees aren't willing to assert their rights? Are you thinking of a government enforcement action? If so, isn't the argument for irreparable harm that the employees, not being willing (for whatever reason) to assert their rights, stand no practical chance of having their injuries compensated by damages?

No, my point is that in contrast to the hypothetical employees bringing a whole new litigation, an injunction is relatively easy to enforce. Just go to the court that entered it and tell the judge that they're violating the order. The judge then orders the violator to show up and explain why they shouldn't be held in contempt. The violator will usually be given the choice of obeying the order, or becoming the honored guest of the federal bureau of prisons. Which is a surprisingly effective way of getting the violator to stop violating, without the time, effort and expense of bringing a whole new litigation.

We see a similar concept today, in that the league's prior CBAs are the product of the 1980's litigation settlement. Every time the players think the NFL isn't acting right, they don't have to go file a whole new lawsuit -- they just file a motion with Judge Doty who -- if he agrees the NFL isn't acting right -- will promptly slap the league in the head and alter the behavior. Having that sort of mechanism, without having to resort to a whole new lawsuit, has obvious benefits in terms of making sure that the wrongdoers aren't still doing wrong.