PFT: Judge rejects NFL’s position on “fundamental fairness” in arbitrations

[Sydla]

On what basis would the NFL appeal the injunction? The issue is fundamental fairness... the courts wants to hear the case. If the NFL wants to avoid that from happening then what is their technicality? They have none. They will have to wait until the court docket finds time for the case.

Again, we aren't arguing the merits of the case or any appeal.

We are simply discussing the options the NFL has. If the judge issues an injunction in two weeks, the NFL has the option to appeal if they want. Multiple people in this thread have now stated this. That's all we are talking about here, simply what legal options does the NFL have if an injunction is granted. You stated this in reference to the NFL and an option to appeal:

The NFL doesn't have that option. If the injunction is granted then that's all the legal maneuvering that can be done until the case is actually heard my the court.

This appears to be false. They can appeal the injunction. If you don't believe me, just read the other people on this page stating they can appeal if they want. Will they? Who knows. Would they win an appeal? Who knows. But that's not the question I am asking.

I am simply asking what options does the NFL have if the injunction is granted. According to you, they have none. According to multiple people, they could appeal the injunction.

 

[GhostOfPelluer]

This is the NFL's case against Ezekiel Elliot, they are the ones pressing the issue. Elliott has appealed the suspension and that appeal was not successful when Harold Henderson's ruling concurred with the original ruling to suspend him 6 games. Even before Henderson's ruling was announced, Elliott filed in a Texas court for a TRO and injunction of the suspension until a court of law can address the actual case. These motions were granted in Texas and the Texas judge eventually ruled that a lack of fundamental fairness is a factor in this case, ruling in Elliott's favor. The NFL appealed the Texas judges ruling to the 5th Circuit of Appeals in New Orleans not on the merit of the actual case, but a technicality because the NFLPA filed too soon and should not have done so until Henderson's ruling was announced. The 5th Circuit agreed but also stated the NFLPA can file for an en banc rehearing and so the ruling by the judge in Texas was reversed, which means the suspension was back in force. The fundamental fairness issue has not been settled but it has been ruled it is in play contrary to what happen in the Brady case. The suspension is now on hold because the court wants to find time to actually address this issue. The NFL has no case to get this hold overturned before the court hears the merits of the case.

The NFL has no recourse to overturn the TRO, but if there is a PI granted - which is likely when the judge returns from vacation - the NFL could try again to pursue an emergency stay. They may choose not to do so, but it is a potential legal recourse available to them. They emergency stay would have to be on the grounds that fundamental fairness isn't necessary as the jurisdictional issue has already been fixed. Highly unlikely the league would be successful.

They could also outright appeal the PI. Which is highly possible.

This is going to get heard and resolved in a court setting unless the league sees where it's headed and decides on its own to revoke the suspension.

The league may want to revoke the suspension and not leave it to the courts because if a legal precedent is set that Art. 46 isn't the blank check the league thinks it is, they could lose a serious bargaining chip for the next CBA. Fundamental fairness would become an issue for nearly every future suspension. I'm not sure they have the foresight to do so.

 

[Sydla]

The NFL has no recourse to overturn the TRO, but if there is a PI granted - which is likely when the judge returns from vacation - the NFL could try again to pursue an emergency stay. They may choose not to do so, but it is a potential legal recourse available to them. They emergency stay would have to be on the grounds that fundamental fairness isn't necessary as the jurisdictional issue has already been fixed. Highly unlikely the league would be successful.

They could also outright appeal the PI. Which is highly possible.

This is going to get heard and resolved in a court setting unless the league sees where it's headed and decides on its own to revoke the suspension.

The league may want to revoke the suspension and not leave it to the courts because if a legal precedent is set that Art. 46 isn't the blank check the league thinks it is, they could lose a serious bargaining chip for the next CBA. Fundamental fairness would become an issue for nearly every future suspension. I'm not sure they have the foresight to do so.

Based on everything to date, the NFL sure seems arrogant enough to think Art 46 gives them wide power and eventually the courts will agree with them. This would be a colossal screw up on their part if they lose this case in the end.

 

[GhostOfPelluer]

Based on everything to date, the NFL sure seems arrogant enough to think Art 46 gives them wide power and eventually the courts will agree with them. This would be a colossal screw up on their part if they lose this case in the end.

Especially since this isn't the kind of air-tight case you die on the sword for.

 

[JoeKing]

Again, we aren't arguing the merits of the case or any appeal.

We are simply discussing the options the NFL has. If the judge issues an injunction in two weeks, the NFL has the option to appeal if they want. Multiple people in this thread have now stated this. That's all we are talking about here, simply what legal options does the NFL have if an injunction is granted. You stated this in reference to the NFL and an option to appeal:



This appears to be false. They can appeal the injunction. If you don't believe me, just read the other people on this page stating they can appeal if they want. Will they? Who knows. Would they win an appeal? Who knows. But that's not the question I am asking.

I am simply asking what options does the NFL have if the injunction is granted. According to you, they have none. According to multiple people, they could appeal the injunction.

If an appeal is to be mounted then there must be a basis for the appeal or it is a moot point. I'm asking on what basis that appeal would be filed? I don't know of one and I'm not seeing anyone else provide one so the NFL functionally have no appeal.

 

[Sydla]

If an appeal is to be mounted then there must be a basis for the appeal or it is a moot point. I'm asking on what basis that appeal would be filed? I don't know of one and I'm not seeing anyone else provide one so the NFL functionally have no appeal.

I have no idea what their basis would be.

It was a simple discussion on what options the league has and how this could proceed. As multiple people have now said in this thread, the NFL has the option to appeal if the injunction is granted. No one is talking about how strong their case would be, whatever. It's a very simple question.

Can the NFL appeal the injunction? The answer is yes.

 

[JoeKing]

The NFL has no recourse to overturn the TRO, but if there is a PI granted - which is likely when the judge returns from vacation - the NFL could try again to pursue an emergency stay. They may choose not to do so, but it is a potential legal recourse available to them. They emergency stay would have to be on the grounds that fundamental fairness isn't necessary as the jurisdictional issue has already been fixed. Highly unlikely the league would be successful.

They could also outright appeal the PI. Which is highly possible.

This is going to get heard and resolved in a court setting unless the league sees where it's headed and decides on its own to revoke the suspension.

The league may want to revoke the suspension and not leave it to the courts because if a legal precedent is set that Art. 46 isn't the blank check the league thinks it is, they could lose a serious bargaining chip for the next CBA. Fundamental fairness would become an issue for nearly every future suspension. I'm not sure they have the foresight to do so.

There are various ways to lose a case before it really gets started, one of which is to repeatedly and prematurely filing injunctions to speed up a ruling while the case is pending in another court. Ruling on "fundamental fairness" requires due diligence from the court and it can not be expedited by injunctions, no matter how many you file. The courts have been clear, they want to hear the case. All parties involved will simply have to wait until the court's docket finds time for it.

 

[JoeKing]

I have no idea what their basis would be.

It was a simple discussion on what options the league has and how this could proceed. As multiple people have now said in this thread, the NFL has the option to appeal if the injunction is granted. No one is talking about how strong their case would be, whatever. It's a very simple question.

Can the NFL appeal the injunction? The answer is yes.

The answer is no. You can not appeal without a basis for that appeal. The court will demand a basis for the appeal before they will hear it.

 

[JoeKing]

You also can't appeal the decision by writing your appeal in crayons either but that's not the point.

Again, the issue isn't the merits of the case or the basis of what they would argue for the appeal. It's a simple question. I'll ask it another way. Does the NFL have an opportunity to appeal the injunction or is it impossible to appeal an injunction?

There are a number of ways to appeal an injunction, none of which will be available to the NFL in this case. They effectively have no other recourse. The technicalities they previously used have been worked out.

 

[GhostOfPelluer]

There are various ways to lose a case before it really gets started, one of which is to repeatedly and prematurely filing injunctions to speed up a ruling while the case is pending in another court. Ruling on "fundamental fairness" requires due diligence from the court and it can not be expedited by injunctions, no matter how many you file. The courts have been clear, they want to hear the case. All parties involved will simply have to wait until the court's docket finds time for it.

I'm not going to presume what the NFL will or won't do. Just pointing out where they could potentially seek relief. My guess is if they find Judge Failla as friendly as Mazzant was, they won't hesitate to take action with CA2. Even regarding the likely pending PI.

 

[Seven]

I just want Goodell on the witness stand under oath.

The judge had better move due to the the bolt of lightning that will strike....................

 

[CalPolyTechnique]

I guess nobody actually read the article. The judge said the issue of "fundamental fairness" is irrelevant to the case.

 

[NorthDalal]

I guess nobody actually read the article. The judge said the issue of "fundamental fairness" is irrelevant to the case.

No actually you "misread". Judge Crotty said the idea that "Fundamental fairness" is irrelevant to the discussion as asserted by the NFL attorneys was irrelevant.FF is a legal concept required as part and parcel of the rights of the arbitration process the NFL was trying to ignore it and assert article 46 granting the Commisioner dictatorial powers in meting out punishment was not exclusively controlling.

Here's (attorney) Florio on "Pro football talk" quoting Crotty.
"Judge Crotty writes that the NFL “maintains that the issue of fundamental fairness is irrelevant” in Elliott’s case “because ‘there is no such thing as fundamental fairness review under the Labor Management Relations Act,'” and that the NFL “contends that the Second Circuit determined [in the Brady case] that fundamental fairness was not the appropriate standard for reviewing an arbitral order.” The NFL instead, as Judge Crotty points out, “asserts that the only relevant ‘issue is whether the Arbitrator even arguably construed or applied the contract,'” and contends that the Brady ruling “forecloses judicial review of arbitral decision for fundamental fairness.”

Says Judge Crotty, point blank: “That is quite wrong.”

He adds that the Brady case “did not hold that courts cannot review arbitral decisions for fundamental fairness,” and that the Brady ruling “did not decide that issue.”

 

[erod]

The United States legal system is an arbitrary load of crap.

It's based in no law whatsoever. It's based entirely upon the political aspirations and leanings of the court appointed. By definition, "law" shouldn't change regardless of what court you are sitting in, and in what state or precinct.

But that isn't the case. This much we surely now know.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The Brady case specifically states that there were no fundamental fairness issues relevant to the circumstance in the Brady case. That to me left the door open for it being an issue in future cases.

I argued that to that troll who kept on saying he was right on Brady trumps all because he went to Harvard.

I've always maintained that there were issues with arbitration law because of their suppressing inconvenient aspects of the investigation as well as with labor law because of unequal punishments.

I've been pleased to see Kessler make these arguments and am cofident in their merits.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The answer is no. You can not appeal without a basis for that appeal. The court will demand a basis for the appeal before they will hear it.

Then they dismiss the appeal. Procedurally one can appeal an injunction. Sure the NFL will use the same old tired arguments they've been using for decades at this point as they always do however that will not stop them from filing an appeal.

 

[iceberg]

Judge rejects NFL’s position on “fundamental fairness” in arbitrations

Put simply, Judge Crotty doesn’t agree that the ultimate outcome of the Tom Brady case gives the NFL as much power as the NFL thinks it secured through the Tom Brady case.

Judge Crotty writes that the NFL “maintains that the issue of fundamental fairness is irrelevant” in Elliott’s case “because ‘there is no such thing as fundamental fairness review under the Labor Management Relations Act,'” and that the NFL “contends that the Second Circuit determined [in the Brady case] that fundamental fairness was not the appropriate standard for reviewing an arbitral order.” The NFL instead, as Judge Crotty points out, “asserts that the only relevant ‘issue is whether the Arbitrator even arguably construed or applied the contract,'” and contends that the Brady ruling “forecloses judicial review of arbitral decisions for fundamental fairness.”

Says Judge Crotty, point blank: “That is quite wrong.”

He adds that the Brady case “did not hold that courts cannot review arbitral decisions for fundamental fairness,” and that the Brady ruling “did not decide that issue.”

...

In English, Elliott actually has a chance to defeat the suspension.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...tion-on-fundamental-fairness-in-arbitrations/[/S]

this is so much bigger than zekes suspension, but it is what has put this under a microscope and we've all wanted that. it's stupid the CBA allowed goodell to do this but it's more stupid goodell pushes it beyond reasonable use.

we'll see what happens from here.

 

[diefree666]

this is so much bigger than zekes suspension, but it is what has put this under a microscope and we've all wanted that. it's stupid the CBA allowed goodell to do this but it's more stupid goodell pushes it beyond reasonable use.

we'll see what happens from here.

It is hard to believe the NFL front office is so tone dead on all of this. The NFLPA is clearly setting the table for this to be a significant part of the next CBA negotiation.

While some here claim that most players do not care I really doubt that. They see how unfairly some are treated and that has to have an effect. More importantly the team union reps and the members of the board DO see how bad this is. THEY are the movers and shakers in the NFLPA. THEY are the ones that set the agenda for the NFLPA.

The worse the NFL looks in this the more the NFLPA gains. Goodell and company are just plain deaf dumb and blind to that so far.

 

[CATCH17]

From reading this article. It basically states that the NFL FLAT OUT is arguing that fairness doesn’t matter and that their contract allows them to do what they want.

So the NFL didn’t even bother trying to argue that their process was fair to begin with?

Unbelievable

I don't get why the NFL wants to fight this battle so hard.

There is no long term gain for them win or lose with how they have abused their powers.

This will be priority #1 in the next negotiations and the players won't play if they don't get it squared away.

Also, I don't think the owners like how this makes their product look.

It's like Goodell wants to get fired.

 

[CATCH17]

this is so much bigger than zekes suspension, but it is what has put this under a microscope and we've all wanted that. it's stupid the CBA allowed goodell to do this but it's more stupid goodell pushes it beyond reasonable use.

we'll see what happens from here.

Yeah this isn't about Zeke anymore. It's about the NFLPA vs the NFL and how Goodell abuses power.