In the dying days of the 2011 NFL lockout, on the verge of an agreement between the league and union to return players to their teams, the NFL suddenly demanded the NFL Players Association agree to drop all rights to bring any collusion claims for past acts, including any that were not known at the time.
That charge, made in court filings last week, is at the center of a new push by the NFLPA to get a federal judge to allow the union to move forward on a lawsuit in which it contends the league allegedly deployed a secret salary cap in 2010 when the labor pact in force at that time disallowed one. The union could conceivably collect billions of dollars in damages if it were to win its case against the league.
The NFLPA has contended since the lawsuit was initially filed in 2012 that the league deceived the players into giving up their rights to bring collusion claims as part of the end of the 130-day lockout, and so a court should allow the lawsuit to proceed. The new court filings include the contention that the NFL raised the indemnification of collusion charges only at the last moment, after months of mediation, leaving the players with the apparent choice of walking away from the deal or agreeing to the new condition.
“In effect, the NFL held a gun to the players’ head to force them to agree to a term the true import of which they actively concealed,” the NFLPA argues in its motion. “Had the players not been deceived about the existence of the NFL’s secret 2010 salary cap, the players would not have agreed to [dismiss their rights to bring collusion claims] even if it meant continuing the lockout.”
A lower court previously dismissed the union claim, saying the NFLPA had agreed to dismiss all claims, known and unknown, as part of the 2011, 10-year labor deal and dismissal of the antitrust lawsuit settlement that had governed labor relations in football since 1993. An appeals court overturned that decision, ruling that the union should at least have a chance to argue it had been duped into agreeing to drop its right to sue over collusion.
Earlier this year, a new district court judge ruled against allowing discovery in the case. The NFLPA in its motion last week asked that the court reconsider its discovery ruling given the newly presented charge.
Asked for comment on the NFLPA’s filing, the NFL, in a statement, noted its assertion that the union agreed not to sue as part of the 2011 labor deal.
“We remain confident that the court will hold the union to those agreements and deny the claim,” the NFL said in the prepared comment. “Chief Judge Davis ruled on Feb. 5 that ‘the NFLPA has not demonstrated a colorable claim that the NFL improperly forced it to settle, or misled it as to the legal effect of the settlement.’ Nothing in the union’s latest attempt at revisionist history alters that finding.”
The NFLPA made one other new charge in last week’s filings, a document that was heavily redacted because much of it derives from the 2011 mediation between the players and league that is still protected by court-ordered confidentiality provisions. The NFL, the union contends, also dragged its feet during discovery on what the NFLPA called a “narrow” collusion case at the time because it knew that the evidence showing the 2010 secret cap would emerge.
“The documents … would very likely have revealed the NFL owners’ far broader secret salary cap in the 2010 league year,” NFLPA outside counsel David Feher testified in a declaration filed with the union’s motion.
NFLPA Executive Director DeMaurice Smith also filed a declaration saying the NFL at the last moment made the collusion demand, leaving the players little choice.
The NFL has argued that in 2010 there was no secret salary cap but an effort to ensure that teams did not dump salary into that year in an effort to avoid expected future caps. The league punished the Washington Redskins and Dallas Cowboys for doing so, and it was that 2012 action that led to the NFLPA lawsuit.
