Judge Doty's order and hope for Hardy

[NorthwestDallas40]

I am a lawyer and wanted to read Judge Doty's order in the Peterson case myself, not internet interpretations of it. After reading it, I believe that Hardy ultimately will be suspended for 2 games, not 10 games. Here is the key language:

"There is no dispute that the Commissioner imposed Peterson’s discipline under the New Policy. See NFLPA Ex. 18. It is also undisputed that in the Rice arbitration, the hearing officer unequivocally that the New Policy cannot be applied retroactively, notwithstanding the Commissioner’s broad discretion in meting out punishment under the CBA. See id. Ex. 119, at 16.4 Consistent with that recognition, the Commissioner has acknowledged that he did not have the power to retroactively apply the New Policy: “The policy change was forward looking because the League is ‘required to provide proper notice.’” Id. at 7; id. Ex. 35. Yet, just two weeks later, the Commissioner retroactively applied the New Policy to Peterson.

As to the maximum punishment under the Old Policy, Doty wrote:

"Specifically, the New Policy announced a “suspension without pay of six games for a first offense, with consideration given to mitigating factors, as well as a longer suspension when circumstances warrant.” Id. at 3; also id. Ex. 4. It is undisputed that under the previous Policy, first-time domestic violence offenders faced a likely maximum suspension of two games."

Because Hardy's conduct occurred before the New Policy was implemented (on August 28, 2014), he should be subject to discipline only under the Old Policy.

Hardy's next step will be to appeal the 10-game suspension to an NFL arbitrator. If the arbitrator follows the Doty decision, and the Commissioners' admission that the New Policy is only "forward looking," he should reduce the suspension to 2 games. If he does not (and he may not because arbitrators are appointed by the Commissioner and can be biased), Hardy can appeal to Judge Doty. And no doubt, Doty will rule the same way. The NFL could then appeal Doty's decision to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, but they are unlikely to succeed. The only issue in my mind is whether all of this can get done before September. Just my 2 cents.

http://stmedia.startribune.com/documents/Judge+Doty's+ruling+overturning+Peterson's+suspension.pdf

 

[pugilist]

my only question is if according to the new "forward looking policy" the MAXIMUM punishment for 1st time offenders is 6 games regardless of mitigating circumstances, then what gives Goodell the power to exceed the maximum punishment of 6 games?

 

[Fletch]

Love you bro! The Kraken will rise.

 

[speedkilz88]

Did the nfl's appeal of Doty's Peterson decision ever happen? Still happening? My hope would be if that appeal was struck down on the decision that they can't retroactively punish that would give Doty's decision on Hardy teeth so they couldn't appeal on the same grounds.

 

[reddyuta]

agree,i wonder how long Goodell will drag this on.maybe Hardy can make a deal 3-4 games?

 

[speedkilz88]

my only question is if according to the new "forward looking policy" the MAXIMUM punishment for 1st time offenders is 6 games regardless of mitigating circumstances, then what gives Goodell the power to exceed the maximum punishment of 6 games?

My only understanding is where they tried to break it up into 4 incidents. It sounds ridiculous but that appeared to be their angle.

 

[Western]

Legal precedent ~ rule established in previous legal case that is binding or persuasive for a court when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts.
Goodell ~ you lose this one.

 

[pansophy]

I am a lawyer and wanted to read Judge Doty's order in the Peterson case myself, not internet interpretations of it. After reading it, I believe that Hardy ultimately will be suspended for 2 games, not 10 games. Here is the key language:

"There is no dispute that the Commissioner imposed Peterson’s discipline under the New Policy. See NFLPA Ex. 18. It is also undisputed that in the Rice arbitration, the hearing officer unequivocally that the New Policy cannot be applied retroactively, notwithstanding the Commissioner’s broad discretion in meting out punishment under the CBA. See id. Ex. 119, at 16.4 Consistent with that recognition, the Commissioner has acknowledged that he did not have the power to retroactively apply the New Policy: “The policy change was forward looking because the League is ‘required to provide proper notice.’” Id. at 7; id. Ex. 35. Yet, just two weeks later, the Commissioner retroactively applied the New Policy to Peterson.

As to the maximum punishment under the Old Policy, Doty wrote:

"Specifically, the New Policy announced a “suspension without pay of six games for a first offense, with consideration given to mitigating factors, as well as a longer suspension when circumstances warrant.” Id. at 3; also id. Ex. 4. It is undisputed that under the previous Policy, first-time domestic violence offenders faced a likely maximum suspension of two games."

Because Hardy's conduct occurred before the New Policy was implemented (on August 28, 2014), he should be subject to discipline only under the Old Policy.

Hardy's next step will be to appeal the 10-game suspension to an NFL arbitrator. If the arbitrator follows the Doty decision, and the Commissioners' admission that the New Policy is only "forward looking," he should reduce the suspension to 2 games. If he does not (and he may not because arbitrators are appointed by the Commissioner and can be biased), Hardy can appeal to Judge Doty. And no doubt, Doty will rule the same way. The NFL could then appeal Doty's decision to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, but they are unlikely to succeed. The only issue in my mind is whether all of this can get done before September. Just my 2 cents.

http://stmedia.startribune.com/documents/Judge Doty's ruling overturning Peterson's suspension.pdf

Very helpful, though it makes me think Hardy may end up with 4 to 6 games. Given that the likely suspension under the new policy is 6 games and they gave him 10, on appeal they will argue that there were mitigating circumstances that warranted a longer suspicion.

Since the commissioner has leeway on the time of suspension even under the old policy, they will argue that Hardy should get 6 games - 2 games for a first time offender, and 4 additional games for mitigating circumstances. Interesting that this is the exact number of the new policy.

This is probably why they were specific about the "4 instances" of abuse within the single incident to try to justify that there were indeed mitigating circumstances.

In my opinion, their plan all along is to find a way to circumvent the old policy to enforce new policy and get 6 games. The real question here will be whether Doty will buy the argument of mitigating circumstances or not. If he does Hardy will get 4-6 games, not 2.

 

[hornitosmonster]

my only question is if according to the new "forward looking policy" the MAXIMUM punishment for 1st time offenders is 6 games regardless of mitigating circumstances, then what gives Goodell the power to exceed the maximum punishment of 6 games?

Nope, the policy actually says

A first offense will be subject to a suspension of six weeks without pay. Mitigating circumstances will be considered, and more severe discipline will be imposed if there are aggravating circumstances such as the presence or use of a weapon, choking, repeated striking, or when the act is committed against a pregnant woman or in the presence of a child.

Hardy has the weapons and choking going against him. Roger is in his right to hand out 10 games under the new policy. The questions is if Hardy should be held to the new policy since the domestic violence occurred before the new policy was put in place.

 

[ElGatoGrande]

I am a lawyer and wanted to read Judge Doty's order in the Peterson case myself, not internet interpretations of it. After reading it, I believe that Hardy ultimately will be suspended for 2 games, not 10 games. Here is the key language:

"There is no dispute that the Commissioner imposed Peterson’s discipline under the New Policy. See NFLPA Ex. 18. It is also undisputed that in the Rice arbitration, the hearing officer unequivocally that the New Policy cannot be applied retroactively, notwithstanding the Commissioner’s broad discretion in meting out punishment under the CBA. See id. Ex. 119, at 16.4 Consistent with that recognition, the Commissioner has acknowledged that he did not have the power to retroactively apply the New Policy: “The policy change was forward looking because the League is ‘required to provide proper notice.’” Id. at 7; id. Ex. 35. Yet, just two weeks later, the Commissioner retroactively applied the New Policy to Peterson.

As to the maximum punishment under the Old Policy, Doty wrote:

"Specifically, the New Policy announced a “suspension without pay of six games for a first offense, with consideration given to mitigating factors, as well as a longer suspension when circumstances warrant.” Id. at 3; also id. Ex. 4. It is undisputed that under the previous Policy, first-time domestic violence offenders faced a likely maximum suspension of two games."

Because Hardy's conduct occurred before the New Policy was implemented (on August 28, 2014), he should be subject to discipline only under the Old Policy.

Hardy's next step will be to appeal the 10-game suspension to an NFL arbitrator. If the arbitrator follows the Doty decision, and the Commissioners' admission that the New Policy is only "forward looking," he should reduce the suspension to 2 games. If he does not (and he may not because arbitrators are appointed by the Commissioner and can be biased), Hardy can appeal to Judge Doty. And no doubt, Doty will rule the same way. The NFL could then appeal Doty's decision to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, but they are unlikely to succeed. The only issue in my mind is whether all of this can get done before September. Just my 2 cents.

http://stmedia.startribune.com/documents/Judge Doty's ruling overturning Peterson's suspension.pdf

Nice post,,, I wouldn't doubt that the Commissioner believes this is the likely outcome but took the opportunity to deliver a harsh penalty to satisfy the mediots and agenda pushers...

 

[DFWJC]

I think Goodell's intent all along is get 4-6 weeks. The 10 weeks is to make the league look tough on the hot topic of the day. He knew all along this would be appealed and that, as before, he'd be overruled.

Want 5, give them10
Want 3, give them 6

 

[superonyx]

It certainly sounds like they know it will be reduced and this is why they added the mitigating circumstances and the additional 4 games. While it is better than 10 games it really annoys me that the league would try to get around their own rules to bump this up to 6 games.

Would Goodell have to justify these mitigating circumstances by comparing this case to the previously set precedents? This could be hard for the league to do considering the evidence and Hardy having no previous issues ect.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

He said that his decision was consistent with both policies. It was the reason for the play by play of the fight. 2 days each for throw 1, 2, the choke, the threat and the toilet.

It really does make a mockery of the court and legal system.

 

[NorthwestDallas40]

my only question is if according to the new "forward looking policy" the MAXIMUM punishment for 1st time offenders is 6 games regardless of mitigating circumstances, then what gives Goodell the power to exceed the maximum punishment of 6 games?

I think the baseline is 6 games, with possibly less if mitigating factors, "as well as a longer suspension when circumstances warrant." Really could be anything under New Policy.

 

[theogt]

Thanks for posting this. I've been wanting to read the decision and research the rules, but haven't had time. I would point out one thing -- based on the press release, it appears that Hardy is being punished under the "conduct detrimental to the league" rubric rather than the domestic violence rules. It is not clear to me whether those carried different maximums under the old policy, but this may be an attempt by Goodell to circumvent Doty's ruling, which seems to clearly provide that Hardy would be reduced to a 2 week maximum.

 

[mattjames2010]

Nope, the policy actually says



Hardy has the weapons and choking going against him. Roger is in his right to hand out 10 games under the new policy. The questions is if Hardy should be held to the new policy since the domestic violence occurred before the new policy was put in place.

Does he?

 

[NorthwestDallas40]

agree,i wonder how long Goodell will drag this on.maybe Hardy can make a deal 3-4 games?

Yes, I believe Hardy and NFL could always make a deal

 

[pansophy]

What I don't know is if Doty has the leeway to decide what constitutes a mitigating factor. If not then it's going to be 6 games.

 

[pansophy]

Yes, I believe Hardy and NFL could always make a deal

There is not going to be a deal.

 

[jrumann59]

my only question is if according to the new "forward looking policy" the MAXIMUM punishment for 1st time offenders is 6 games regardless of mitigating circumstances, then what gives Goodell the power to exceed the maximum punishment of 6 games?

Rifle butt tot he head, use or brandishing of weapons, beating someone into a coma.