Johnson was suspended 10 games during the '16 season for violating the NFL's policy on PEDsgetty images
A New York federal court judge denied Eagles OT Lane Johnson's request to vacate an NFL arbitrator's award confirming his 10-game suspension and dismissed all but one of Johnson's claims against the NFLPA. Johnson was suspended during the '16 season for violating the collectively bargained '15 NFL policy on performance-enhancing substances and filed a lawsuit against the NFL and NFLPA in '17. Johnson sought to overturn the arbitration award upholding the suspension on a number of grounds, including alleging a lack of fairness in the process and bias of the arbitrator. Johnson also alleged that the NFLPA breached its duty of fair representation to him and violated the Labor-Management Reporting & Disclosure Act (LMRDA) by failing to provide him with documents he requested. "Johnson is obviously dissatisfied with the Arbitrator's ruling and unhappy with the performance of his union," U.S. District Court Judge Richard Sullivan wrote in a decision issued Wednesday. "And like a Monday morning quarterback, he has scoured every inch of the record in search of imperfections, anomalies, and errors in the judgement to justify overturning the result. However, the law is clear that arbitration awards are not to be lightly overturned, and that tactical errors, mistakes of fact or law, and even negligence are not enough to warrant vacatur," Sullivan wrote.
SPLITTING HIS DECISION: Sullivan found in favor of the NFLPA in dismissing three claims Johnson asserted against the union, including that it violated its duty of fair representation under the National Labor Relations Act. However, Sullivan found in favor of Johnson on his claim that the NFLPA had violated the LMRDA by failing to provide him with side letters to the collectively bargained PES policy that he had requested. In his decision, Sullivan noted that the NFLPA had argued, among other things, that the side agreements did not "directly affect" Johnson. But Sullivan disagreed. "Because the NFLPA altered the contours of its relationship with its members via the side agreements in question, Johnson's rights were directly affected by them, and Johnson was entitled to them," Sullivan wrote. “The Court finds that Johnson has stated a plausible claim for relief based on a violation of the LMRDA,” Sullivan wrote. The NFLPA declined to comment. Sullivan has ordered Johnson and the NFLPA to jointly submit a letter by Oct. 18 "regarding the proposed next steps" in regards to his claim against the union under the LMRDA.
