A Minnesota federal court judge this morning ordered the NFLPA’s lawsuit, filed yesterday against the NFL over the suspension of Patriots QB Tom Brady, to be sent to Manhattan federal court, where the league had earlier pre-emptively filed to enforce the decision. It is a critical decision not just for Brady and the NFLPA, which has found much success in the labor-friendly Minnesota court, but overall league legal issues if cases can now get tried in N.Y. rather the Midwest. “This Court ... perceives no reason for this action to proceed in Minnesota,” Judge Richard Kyle wrote today. “On the same day the Award was issued, Respondent National Football League ... commenced an action against the Union in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York seeing to confirm the Award." The “New York Action triggers application of the first filed rule,” Kyle ruled. This gives precedence to the first party to the courthouse steps. Perhaps more important to the future of NFL-NFLPA legal disputes, Kyle basically took a meat cleaver to the union’s rationale for having disputes heard in Minnesota because they had been there before. “Carried to its logical conclusion, accepting the Union’s premise would mean that a court that had decided, for example, a large corporation had engaged in racial discrimination would be the appropriate venue for every future racial discrimination case against that corporation, no matter where the employee was located or where the alleged discrimination had occurred,” he wrote. “Venue simply cannot be predicated on such a thin reed.” For Brady, the move to N.Y. is sure to be seen as a setback, although given Kyle’s decision, it may have been best for him not to have been before the Republican-appointed judge. The N.Y. judge chosen for the case is a President Clinton appointee (Daniel Kaplan, Staff Writer).
INSIDE THE UNION'S REQUEST: USA TODAY's Tom Pelissero reports the union in its filing to the U.S. District Court in Minneapolis asked the court to vacate NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell's punishment of Brady "on four major grounds, including Goodell's partiality." The lawsuit asked that the court "either rule by Sept. 4" or "issue an injunction that allows Brady to play" in the Patriots' Sept. 10 season opener. Attorney Jeffrey Kessler, who the NFLPA retained to represent Brady at his appeal hearing last month, "derided" Goodell's decision to uphold a four-game suspension, as well as the "gravity Goodell gave to the destruction of Brady’s old cellphone." Kessler: "It’s just grasping at straws to try to divert attention from their complete lack of evidence or legal process to justify what’s happened here." Pelissero notes the NFLPA hoped the case would go before Judge David Doty, who previously has ruled in favor of players. The lawsuit states that Goodell’s decision "should also be vacated because it fails to draw its essence" from the CBA; Goodell "denied Brady access to evidence and witnesses; and Goodell was an evidently partial arbitrator" (USA TODAY, 7/30).
|
NFLPA'S GROUNDS FOR BRADY LAWSUIT
|
- There was no direct evidence in the Wells Report so the discipline was based on a made up "general awareness" standard to justify such absurd and unprecedented punishment.
|
- Goodell delegated his disciplinary authority to NFL Exec VP/Football Operations Troy Vincent, violating the CBA, and then as the "arbitrator," he ruled on his own improper delegation, botching basic arbitration law and fundamental fairness.
|
- A collectively bargained policy already exists regarding tampering with equipment that provides only for fines, not suspensions. Vincent ignored this policy when he issued his initial discipline. The policy that Vincent did apply to Brady only covers teams and team executives, not players. The NFL once again violated players’ right to advance notice of discipline to try to justify unprecedented punishment.
|
- No player in NFL history has served a suspension for "non-cooperation" or "obstruction." And, in this case, the evidence is paper-thin.
|
- The appeals hearing held on June 23 defied any concept of fundamental fairness and violated the principles of our CBA (NFLPA).
|
WHAT'S UP, DOCS? CBSSPORTS.com's Will Brinson noted the NFLPA in its lawsuit revealed that it filed the "full transcript from the June 23 arbitration" before Goodell. It has "been sealed because of confidentiality reasons, but the transcript is out there, which is very interesting." Meanwhile, the NFLPA's attorneys allege that NFL Exec VP & General Counsel Jeff Pash "was 'editing a supposedly independent investigative report' by providing Ted Wells with commentary and feedback on a draft of his original report" (
CBSSPORTS.com, 7/29).
WHO HAS THE EDGE? In N.Y., Tom Harvey writes the federal court case is "too close to call right now" (N.Y. DAILY NEWS, 7/30). ESPN BOSTON's Mike Reiss wrote the dispute has "now turned into a battle of integrity of the game vs. integrity of the league office" (ESPNBOSTON.com, 7/29). CBSSPORTS.com's Jason La Canfora noted Brady's agent Don Yee "provided more context and clarity on his client's actions regarding his cell phone in relation to the NFL's allegations" (CBSSPORTS.com, 7/29).
