Tag: Deflategate

Deflategate: A Critique of Judge Berman's Decision

By now, almost everyone is familiar with Judge Berman‘s decision vacating Commissioner Roger Goodell’s award upholding a four-game suspension of New England quarterback Tom Brady in connection with the tampering of air levels in footballs during the 2015 AFC Championship game. Judge Berman found that Commissioner Goodell’s award was deficient in the following respects:

(1) that Brady had no notice that the conduct for which he was suspended — being generally aware of the misconduct of an equipment assistant and locker room attendant who deflated the balls and then refusing to cooperate with the subsequent investigation — was prohibited conduct for which he could be disciplined;

(2) that Brady was denied the opportunity to examine one of the two lead investigators who authored the investigative report upon which Commissioner Goodell relied, namely NFL Executive Vice President and General Counsel Jeff Pash; and

(3) that Brady was denied equal access to investigative files, including witness interview notes.

Judge Berman did not remand to correct these errors, but simply vacated the award.

Did Judge Berman Properly Follow the Standard for Review? How sound was Judge Berman’s decision? 

From an analysis of his opinion and well-established Supreme Court authority he was supposed to follow, it may have been the Judge himself who overstepped his bounds. It is important to remember that Commissioner Goodell’s role was that of arbitrator; the collective bargaining agreement permitted him to assume that role if he so chose and he did so choose. The level of deference that courts must give an arbitrator is extreme: in essence, as long as the arbitrator is arguably construing or applying the contract, and acting within the scope of his authority, a court cannot overturn his decision. While Judge Berman superficially acknowledged this standard, it does not appear that he actually followed it. Instead, he appeared to apply some type of “common law of the workplace” to find that Brady’s treatment was fundamentally unfair.

The first sign that Judge Berman was straying from his role was his failure to cite or acknowledge any of the leading U.S. Supreme Court cases establishing the basic principles regarding judicial review of labor arbitration awards in the collective bargaining context. The Supreme Court repeatedly has emphasized that a court is not authorized to reconsider the merits of a labor arbitration award even though the parties may allege the award was decided on errors of fact or on a misinterpretation of the contract. The Supreme Court has explained this extreme deference as emanating from the federal policy inherent in Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA) favoring the settlement of labor disputes by arbitration. In essence, the parties contracted for the settlement of their dispute by an arbitrator of their choice; if dissatisfied with his decision, they are free to select a different arbitrator in the future.

The Supreme Court’s Garvey Decision

In particular, Judge Berman did not cite or deal with the Supreme Court’s decision in Major League Baseball Players Ass’n v. Garvey. This was striking, as that case, like Brady’s, arose in the context of the review of an arbitrator’s award under the collective bargaining agreement of a professional players association. The facts and decision the Garvey case are worth reviewing, as they demonstrate just how deferential the Supreme Court expects courts to be:

Steve Garvey, an All-Star first baseman, alleged that his contract with the San Diego Padres had not been extended in the 1988 and 1989 baseball seasons as part of the owners’ collusion in the market for free agents that an arbitrator had found to have taken place. He sought damages under a framework that had been set up to determine and evaluate individual player’s claims for damages due to that finding of collusion. Garvey’s main piece of evidence was a letter from the Padres’ President, Ballard Smith, admitted to the non-extension of the contract due to the collusion. However, the arbitrator rejected Garvey’s grievance by discrediting the letter because it contradicted the President’s testimony in the earlier arbitration in which the collusion had been found to exist. Bizarrely, however, in that earlier proceeding the same arbitrator specifically had found that testimony to be non-truthful in concluding there had been collusion.

Finding the arbitrator’s decision “completely inexplicable and border[ing] on the irrational,” the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated the award, finding the only justification for the arbitrator’s decision was “his desire to dispense his own brand of industrial justice.” Reversing, however, the Supreme Court claimed to be “baffled” by what the Court of Appeals did in light of the clearly expressed deferential standard for reviewing labor arbitration awards under Section 301. The Supreme Court acknowledged that the arbitrator’s ruling may have appeared to the Court of Appeals as “improvident or even silly,” but even so that did “not provide a basis for a court to refuse to enforce the award.” According to the Supreme Court, even when a federal judge considering the arbitration award is “convinced that the arbitrator committed serious error, it does not suffice to overturn [the arbitrator’s] decision.” This is also true when an arbitrator’s “procedural aberrations rise to the level of affirmative misconduct,” for a federal court may not “interfere with an arbitrator’s decision that the parties [players and owners] bargained for.”

Judge Berman Relied More on the Federal Arbitration Act Than Cases Under Section 301

Had Judge Berman paid closer heed to decisions such as Garvey, he might have been less inclined to wade into the weeds of assessing Commissioner Goodell’s claimed procedural aberrations. Judge Berman instead appeared to rely more heavily on cases applying the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), which establishes four limited statutory grounds for vacating an arbitration award. Judge Berman zeroed in on the FAA’s exceptions allowing vacatur where the arbitrator is “guilty of misconduct . . . in refusing to hear evidence pertinent and material to the controversy” or in “exceeding his powers.”

The problem with relying on the FAA, however, is that the FAA has been held not to apply to labor disputes, although to be sure federal courts have often looked to the FAA for guidance in labor arbitration cases. Section 301, which does apply, does not provide statutory grounds for vacating a labor arbitration award, although, as seen, the Supreme Court has made clear what a court may not do. As the body of case law applying Section 301 has developed, the main reasons a court may vacate a labor arbitration award appear to be if (i) the award does not “draw its essence” from the labor agreement, meaning it conflicts with the express terms of the agreement, imposes additional requirements not expressly provided for in the agreement, or is based on “general considerations of fairness and equity” instead of the exact terms of the agreement; or (ii) it violates a well-settled and prevailing public policy.

The Problems With Judge Berman’s Findings

Judge Berman first found fault in Commissioner Goodell’s award because the Judge found that Brady did not have notice that he could receive a four game suspension for general awareness of a scheme to deflate footballs, or for non-cooperation with the NFL’s investigation. He also attacked Commissioner Goodell’s reasoning in looking to penalties for violations of the league’s steroid policy as a justification for upholding a four game suspension. He further found that Brady had no notice he could be suspended rather than fined. Citing decisions by other arbitrators involving NFL players, Judge Berman concluded that Commissioner Goodell violated the “law of the shop” by failing to find there was inadequately notice of prohibited conduct and potential discipline.

In all of this, however, Judge Berman was doing what the Supreme Court has stated a judge should not do: second-guessing the arbitrator. For example, the so-called “law of the shop” is not something akin to the common law that a court must follow. Rather, it is up to the labor arbitrator alone to interpret precedent by other arbitrators or, as the Supreme Court has put it, to simply to conclude “that he was not bound by” a prior arbitrator’s decision. Judge Berman relied heavily on decisions by other arbitrators in other high-profile NFL cases — such as “Bounty-Gate” and the Ray Rice and Reggie Langhorne cases — to find that Brady was entitled to the type of notice that Judge Berman thought he was entitled to. But that simply was not Judge Berman’s role to say.

Moreover, Brady’s notice contentions were acknowledged and rejected by Commissioner Goodell in his post-hearing detailed award that was also based on his assessment of the evidence — including Brady’s credibility and the exhaustive Wells investigative report upon which he relied. There can be no question that in so doing the Commissioner was “arguably construing or applying the contract,” which is all it took to require enforcement of his award. In short, the Commissioner was entitled to disbelieve that two equipment employees would take it on their own to deflate the footballs without the knowledge or involvement of the quarterback of the team, and to conclude that Brady’s awareness was conduct detrimental to public confidence in the integrity of the game. He also was entitled to believe that Brady deserved to be penalized for refusing to cooperate with the investigation and then destroying his cell phone rather than turn it over to the investigators, even if there was no specific rule that said he could not do this.

Judge Berman was on similarly weak footing in attacking the punishment meted out (suspension versus fine) because he thought it was error for Commissioner Goodell to uphold the penalty by borrowing from the schedule of penalties for violations of the league’s steroid policy. Again, such judgment calls are quintessentially for the arbitrator, and the suspension penalty echoed the penalty that the Patriots themselves had issued to its equipment employees for their roles.

Relying on the FAA, Judge Berman further justified his decision to vacate Commissioner Goodell’s award based on the latter’s refusal to allow Jeff Pash to testify at the arbitration hearing. Judge Berman found this to be “fundamentally unfair,” because Pash was the co-lead investigator of the investigation, known as the Wells Report. Commissioner Goodell had excluded Pash because Pash had not in fact played substantive role in the investigation, his role having been limited to comments on the draft of the report. Commissioner Goodell moreover regarded any testimony by Pash  as cumulative, as Wells, the report’s architect, was allowed to testify. But Judge Berman determined that Pash would have had valuable insight into the course and outcome of the investigation and into the drafting and content of the Wells Report. Therefore, he found that Brady was prejudiced because he could not explore how truly independent the report was.

Again, Judge Berman appeared to have simply second-guessed Commissioner Goodell, given that Commissioner Goodell had substantial discretion to admit or exclude evidence without having to “follow all the niceties observed by the federal courts.”  Commissioner Goodell had at least a colorable basis for excluding Pash’s testimony. Indeed, his rationale for excluding that testimony was that which a court might have applied. Further, Judge Berman’s conclusion as to how Brady was prejudiced appeared speculative as to whatever additional value Pash’s testimony would have supplied.

Judge Berman came closest to presenting a valid basis for vacating the award in his determination that Commissioner Goodell had improperly denied Brady equal access to Wells’ investigative files and interview notes. Commissioner Goodell had justified his denial of access to those files, including interview notes, because they had played no role in the disciplinary decisions, which were based on the Wells Report itself. But as Judge Berman observed, the Wells Report was based on those notes. Furthermore, compounding the prejudice to Brady was that Wells’ law firm, Paul, Weiss, acted as both independent counsel and as retained counsel to the NFL during the arbitration hearing. NFL counsel therefore had access to the investigate file for direct and cross examination while Brady had no such access.

These observations have some merit. After all, it does not seem fair that Brady had no access to the notes and interviews upon which the report was based, especially when the same law firm that produced the report also represented the NFL at the arbitration hearing. But Article 46 of the collective bargaining agreement expressly limited discovery to the exchange of exhibits upon which the parties intended to rely at the hearing. The Commissioner’s decision to deny additional discovery was based on his interpretation of that provision, such that it at least arguably “drew its essence” from the collective bargaining agreement. Furthermore, as stated, Commissioner Goodell asserted that the investigation notes played no role in his decision on appeal, and other notes had been provided, such as the interview notes from the NFL’s own investigators.

Judge Berman Should Have Remanded

The final error in Judge Berman’s decision is that he did not remand the case. The procedural and due process errors appeared to be correctable. For example, Judge Berman could have instructed Commissioner Goodell to reconvene the hearing to allow Brady to access the Wells investigative files and to call Pash as a witness. In the Garvey case, the Supreme Court expressly criticized the Ninth Circuit for not remanding, because by not remanding the court in essence was deciding the case. Here, too, Judge Berman in essence was resolving the dispute, and without even making any judgment as to whether Brady did or did not have a role in the tampering that took place.

Immediately after Judge Berman issued his decision, the NFL announced it was appealing. Based on Judge Berman’s apparent failure to properly follow the applicable highly deferential standard, the NFL’s chances for success on appeal appear to be good.

Article By Irving M. Geslewitz of Much Shelist, P.C.
© 2015 Much Shelist, P.C.

Deflategate: A Critique of Judge Berman’s Decision

By now, almost everyone is familiar with Judge Berman‘s decision vacating Commissioner Roger Goodell’s award upholding a four-game suspension of New England quarterback Tom Brady in connection with the tampering of air levels in footballs during the 2015 AFC Championship game. Judge Berman found that Commissioner Goodell’s award was deficient in the following respects:

(1) that Brady had no notice that the conduct for which he was suspended — being generally aware of the misconduct of an equipment assistant and locker room attendant who deflated the balls and then refusing to cooperate with the subsequent investigation — was prohibited conduct for which he could be disciplined;

(2) that Brady was denied the opportunity to examine one of the two lead investigators who authored the investigative report upon which Commissioner Goodell relied, namely NFL Executive Vice President and General Counsel Jeff Pash; and

(3) that Brady was denied equal access to investigative files, including witness interview notes.

Judge Berman did not remand to correct these errors, but simply vacated the award.

Did Judge Berman Properly Follow the Standard for Review? How sound was Judge Berman’s decision? 

From an analysis of his opinion and well-established Supreme Court authority he was supposed to follow, it may have been the Judge himself who overstepped his bounds. It is important to remember that Commissioner Goodell’s role was that of arbitrator; the collective bargaining agreement permitted him to assume that role if he so chose and he did so choose. The level of deference that courts must give an arbitrator is extreme: in essence, as long as the arbitrator is arguably construing or applying the contract, and acting within the scope of his authority, a court cannot overturn his decision. While Judge Berman superficially acknowledged this standard, it does not appear that he actually followed it. Instead, he appeared to apply some type of “common law of the workplace” to find that Brady’s treatment was fundamentally unfair.

The first sign that Judge Berman was straying from his role was his failure to cite or acknowledge any of the leading U.S. Supreme Court cases establishing the basic principles regarding judicial review of labor arbitration awards in the collective bargaining context. The Supreme Court repeatedly has emphasized that a court is not authorized to reconsider the merits of a labor arbitration award even though the parties may allege the award was decided on errors of fact or on a misinterpretation of the contract. The Supreme Court has explained this extreme deference as emanating from the federal policy inherent in Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA) favoring the settlement of labor disputes by arbitration. In essence, the parties contracted for the settlement of their dispute by an arbitrator of their choice; if dissatisfied with his decision, they are free to select a different arbitrator in the future.

The Supreme Court’s Garvey Decision

In particular, Judge Berman did not cite or deal with the Supreme Court’s decision in Major League Baseball Players Ass’n v. Garvey. This was striking, as that case, like Brady’s, arose in the context of the review of an arbitrator’s award under the collective bargaining agreement of a professional players association. The facts and decision the Garvey case are worth reviewing, as they demonstrate just how deferential the Supreme Court expects courts to be:

Steve Garvey, an All-Star first baseman, alleged that his contract with the San Diego Padres had not been extended in the 1988 and 1989 baseball seasons as part of the owners’ collusion in the market for free agents that an arbitrator had found to have taken place. He sought damages under a framework that had been set up to determine and evaluate individual player’s claims for damages due to that finding of collusion. Garvey’s main piece of evidence was a letter from the Padres’ President, Ballard Smith, admitted to the non-extension of the contract due to the collusion. However, the arbitrator rejected Garvey’s grievance by discrediting the letter because it contradicted the President’s testimony in the earlier arbitration in which the collusion had been found to exist. Bizarrely, however, in that earlier proceeding the same arbitrator specifically had found that testimony to be non-truthful in concluding there had been collusion.

Finding the arbitrator’s decision “completely inexplicable and border[ing] on the irrational,” the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated the award, finding the only justification for the arbitrator’s decision was “his desire to dispense his own brand of industrial justice.” Reversing, however, the Supreme Court claimed to be “baffled” by what the Court of Appeals did in light of the clearly expressed deferential standard for reviewing labor arbitration awards under Section 301. The Supreme Court acknowledged that the arbitrator’s ruling may have appeared to the Court of Appeals as “improvident or even silly,” but even so that did “not provide a basis for a court to refuse to enforce the award.” According to the Supreme Court, even when a federal judge considering the arbitration award is “convinced that the arbitrator committed serious error, it does not suffice to overturn [the arbitrator’s] decision.” This is also true when an arbitrator’s “procedural aberrations rise to the level of affirmative misconduct,” for a federal court may not “interfere with an arbitrator’s decision that the parties [players and owners] bargained for.”

Judge Berman Relied More on the Federal Arbitration Act Than Cases Under Section 301

Had Judge Berman paid closer heed to decisions such as Garvey, he might have been less inclined to wade into the weeds of assessing Commissioner Goodell’s claimed procedural aberrations. Judge Berman instead appeared to rely more heavily on cases applying the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), which establishes four limited statutory grounds for vacating an arbitration award. Judge Berman zeroed in on the FAA’s exceptions allowing vacatur where the arbitrator is “guilty of misconduct . . . in refusing to hear evidence pertinent and material to the controversy” or in “exceeding his powers.”

The problem with relying on the FAA, however, is that the FAA has been held not to apply to labor disputes, although to be sure federal courts have often looked to the FAA for guidance in labor arbitration cases. Section 301, which does apply, does not provide statutory grounds for vacating a labor arbitration award, although, as seen, the Supreme Court has made clear what a court may not do. As the body of case law applying Section 301 has developed, the main reasons a court may vacate a labor arbitration award appear to be if (i) the award does not “draw its essence” from the labor agreement, meaning it conflicts with the express terms of the agreement, imposes additional requirements not expressly provided for in the agreement, or is based on “general considerations of fairness and equity” instead of the exact terms of the agreement; or (ii) it violates a well-settled and prevailing public policy.

The Problems With Judge Berman’s Findings

Judge Berman first found fault in Commissioner Goodell’s award because the Judge found that Brady did not have notice that he could receive a four game suspension for general awareness of a scheme to deflate footballs, or for non-cooperation with the NFL’s investigation. He also attacked Commissioner Goodell’s reasoning in looking to penalties for violations of the league’s steroid policy as a justification for upholding a four game suspension. He further found that Brady had no notice he could be suspended rather than fined. Citing decisions by other arbitrators involving NFL players, Judge Berman concluded that Commissioner Goodell violated the “law of the shop” by failing to find there was inadequately notice of prohibited conduct and potential discipline.

In all of this, however, Judge Berman was doing what the Supreme Court has stated a judge should not do: second-guessing the arbitrator. For example, the so-called “law of the shop” is not something akin to the common law that a court must follow. Rather, it is up to the labor arbitrator alone to interpret precedent by other arbitrators or, as the Supreme Court has put it, to simply to conclude “that he was not bound by” a prior arbitrator’s decision. Judge Berman relied heavily on decisions by other arbitrators in other high-profile NFL cases — such as “Bounty-Gate” and the Ray Rice and Reggie Langhorne cases — to find that Brady was entitled to the type of notice that Judge Berman thought he was entitled to. But that simply was not Judge Berman’s role to say.

Moreover, Brady’s notice contentions were acknowledged and rejected by Commissioner Goodell in his post-hearing detailed award that was also based on his assessment of the evidence — including Brady’s credibility and the exhaustive Wells investigative report upon which he relied. There can be no question that in so doing the Commissioner was “arguably construing or applying the contract,” which is all it took to require enforcement of his award. In short, the Commissioner was entitled to disbelieve that two equipment employees would take it on their own to deflate the footballs without the knowledge or involvement of the quarterback of the team, and to conclude that Brady’s awareness was conduct detrimental to public confidence in the integrity of the game. He also was entitled to believe that Brady deserved to be penalized for refusing to cooperate with the investigation and then destroying his cell phone rather than turn it over to the investigators, even if there was no specific rule that said he could not do this.

Judge Berman was on similarly weak footing in attacking the punishment meted out (suspension versus fine) because he thought it was error for Commissioner Goodell to uphold the penalty by borrowing from the schedule of penalties for violations of the league’s steroid policy. Again, such judgment calls are quintessentially for the arbitrator, and the suspension penalty echoed the penalty that the Patriots themselves had issued to its equipment employees for their roles.

Relying on the FAA, Judge Berman further justified his decision to vacate Commissioner Goodell’s award based on the latter’s refusal to allow Jeff Pash to testify at the arbitration hearing. Judge Berman found this to be “fundamentally unfair,” because Pash was the co-lead investigator of the investigation, known as the Wells Report. Commissioner Goodell had excluded Pash because Pash had not in fact played substantive role in the investigation, his role having been limited to comments on the draft of the report. Commissioner Goodell moreover regarded any testimony by Pash  as cumulative, as Wells, the report’s architect, was allowed to testify. But Judge Berman determined that Pash would have had valuable insight into the course and outcome of the investigation and into the drafting and content of the Wells Report. Therefore, he found that Brady was prejudiced because he could not explore how truly independent the report was.

Again, Judge Berman appeared to have simply second-guessed Commissioner Goodell, given that Commissioner Goodell had substantial discretion to admit or exclude evidence without having to “follow all the niceties observed by the federal courts.”  Commissioner Goodell had at least a colorable basis for excluding Pash’s testimony. Indeed, his rationale for excluding that testimony was that which a court might have applied. Further, Judge Berman’s conclusion as to how Brady was prejudiced appeared speculative as to whatever additional value Pash’s testimony would have supplied.

Judge Berman came closest to presenting a valid basis for vacating the award in his determination that Commissioner Goodell had improperly denied Brady equal access to Wells’ investigative files and interview notes. Commissioner Goodell had justified his denial of access to those files, including interview notes, because they had played no role in the disciplinary decisions, which were based on the Wells Report itself. But as Judge Berman observed, the Wells Report was based on those notes. Furthermore, compounding the prejudice to Brady was that Wells’ law firm, Paul, Weiss, acted as both independent counsel and as retained counsel to the NFL during the arbitration hearing. NFL counsel therefore had access to the investigate file for direct and cross examination while Brady had no such access.

These observations have some merit. After all, it does not seem fair that Brady had no access to the notes and interviews upon which the report was based, especially when the same law firm that produced the report also represented the NFL at the arbitration hearing. But Article 46 of the collective bargaining agreement expressly limited discovery to the exchange of exhibits upon which the parties intended to rely at the hearing. The Commissioner’s decision to deny additional discovery was based on his interpretation of that provision, such that it at least arguably “drew its essence” from the collective bargaining agreement. Furthermore, as stated, Commissioner Goodell asserted that the investigation notes played no role in his decision on appeal, and other notes had been provided, such as the interview notes from the NFL’s own investigators.

Judge Berman Should Have Remanded

The final error in Judge Berman’s decision is that he did not remand the case. The procedural and due process errors appeared to be correctable. For example, Judge Berman could have instructed Commissioner Goodell to reconvene the hearing to allow Brady to access the Wells investigative files and to call Pash as a witness. In the Garvey case, the Supreme Court expressly criticized the Ninth Circuit for not remanding, because by not remanding the court in essence was deciding the case. Here, too, Judge Berman in essence was resolving the dispute, and without even making any judgment as to whether Brady did or did not have a role in the tampering that took place.

Immediately after Judge Berman issued his decision, the NFL announced it was appealing. Based on Judge Berman’s apparent failure to properly follow the applicable highly deferential standard, the NFL’s chances for success on appeal appear to be good.

Article By Irving M. Geslewitz of Much Shelist, P.C.
© 2015 Much Shelist, P.C.

How Deflategate May Affect Your Business

In a closely watched case, federal judge Richard M. Berman of the Southern District of New York vacated the four-game suspension handed down to New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady by NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell. Relying on Section 10 of the Federal Arbitration Act, Judge Berman’s decision focuses in large part on the discovery aspects of the arbitration proceeding which originally confirmed Brady’s suspension. In vacating the suspension, Judge Berman strikes a blow to those who view arbitration as a low-cost alternative to the traditional expense and burden of discovery, and provides an arrow in the quiver of parties looking to employ discovery costs as leverage in their disputes.

The suspension was originally imposed after the NFL commissioned an independent investigation into whether the New England Patriots, and Brady, tampered with game-used footballs during last season’s AFC Championship Game. Brady’s appeal was initially heard through the arbitration proceedings provided for under the NFL’s Collective Bargaining Agreement, and Commissioner Goodell served as the sole arbitrator. During the proceeding, Commissioner Goodell denied Brady’s request for the files gathered and created during the independent investigation, and also denied Brady’s request to compel testimony from Jeff Pash, general counsel for the NFL. Commissioner Goodell ultimately issued an award upholding the suspension and the NFL sought confirmation of that award from Judge Berman.

In a 40- page written opinion vacating the suspension, Judge Berman not only focused on what he deemed “fundamentally unfair” discovery rulings made by Commissioner Goodell, he also relied in part on the contention that Commissioner Goodell did not provide adequate justification for those rulings, particularly with respect to his decision to preclude the testimony of Pash. By digging into the nuts and bolts of the discovery process, Judge Berman deviated from what is often viewed as the “rubber stamp” process of confirming an arbitration award. Further, by pointing to the reasoning (or lack thereof) behind the arbitrator’s individual discovery rulings, Judge Berman arguably expands the burden on arbitrators to incorporate more formality into their decisions and, in essence, second-guessed the judgment of the Commissioner in his role as Arbitrator. Parties looking to protect future arbitration awards may also now feel the need to demand more formality in the discovery process, and from their arbitrators.

At one time, arbitration was seen as a more informal, yet sophisticated, way for businesses to settle disputes and conserve resources. With the increase in filing fees, the self-expansion of powers (and processes) by the organizations who conduct arbitrations, and now rulings like Judge Berman’s, it may be time to re-evaluate that view.

The NFL already has announced its intention to appeal. This case may go into overtime.

Article By Thomas Haskins of Barnes & Thornburg LLP

© 2015 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP

NFL vs. Brady: NFL Wins Initial Venue Battle

Round One of Deflategate has concluded…it’s now time for Round Two.

The initial battle over judicial forums between the National Football League and the National Football League Players Association (NFLPA) to find the most favorable venue to support their legal position has ended with U.S. District Court Judge Richard Kyle ordering the NFLPA’s Petition To Vacate The Arbitration Award rendered by Commissioner Roger Goodell(Goodell) to be transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Within hours after Goodell upheld the four-game suspension of New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady, the League’s Management Council had launched a preemptive strike against the NFLPA by filing a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, where the NFL is headquartered, seeking to confirm Goodell’s “Final Decision on Article 46 Appeal of Tom Brady.” (Article 46 of the NFL-NFLPA collective bargaining contract allows discipline of a player for conduct “detrimental to the integrity of, or public confidence in, the game of professional football.”) . The case has been assigned to Judge Richard Berman and he already has ordered the NFLPA to respond to the NFL’s filing by August 13th, well before the standard period to answer a complaint.

Brady and the NFLPA attempted an end run around the New York action in the historically player-friendly federal district court in Minnesota. They filed a Petition To Vacate Goodell’s Arbitration Award. Relying on a history of success in this venue, Brady and the NFLPA sought to vacate Goodell’s award. They were blocked, however, on July 30th when the Minnesota court said the Brady and his union must do battle with the NFL in New York in light of the league’s earlier, first-filed suit.

Absent any change in the NFPLA’s litigation, Brady and the NFLPA may be expected to respond to the NFL action directly, contending (as they attempted to do in Minnesota) that Goodell:

  • disregarded the “law of the shop” which requires NFL players to have advance notice of potential discipline,

  • disregarded the “law of the shop” that conduct detrimental discipline be fair and consistent,

  • denied Brady access to evidence and witnesses central to his appeal and his rights to a fundamentally fair hearing, and

  • was incapable of serving as an impartial arbitrator as a result of his handling Brady’s initial discipline and appeal.

Specifically, the NFLPA asserts that there was no direct evidence of Brady’s culpability cited in the report prepared by NFL-appointed investigator, attorney Ted Wells, and his investigative team, and that Goodell’s discipline was based on a “general awareness” standard created by the Commissioner to justify an “absurd and unprecedented punishment”. The NFLPA also asserts that no NFL player has ever served a suspension for “non-cooperation” or “obstruction,” as Goodell has imposed upon Brady.

The NFLPA had hoped that its action would be heard before U.S. District Judge David S. Doty, in Minneapolis. In February, Judge Doty vacated an award in the Adrian Peterson child abuse disciplinary matter when he determined that the discipline issued to Peterson was inappropriate for lack of notice and that the discipline imposed was based upon a policy that didn’t exist at the time of the Peterson’s alleged rule violation. But Brady’s case was assigned to Judge Richard Kyle, instead, who “perceive[d] no reason for this action to proceed in Minnesota.”

Here, based on its previous Minnesota claims, the NFLPA had hoped to reprise a similar argument on behalf of Brady. Now the union will be forced to assert those arguments in the NFL’s selected venue. The union will assert similar arguments to U.S. District Court Judge Richard Berman and allege that Brady was never informed he could be punished for his refusal to turn over his cellphone to Wells and his team. It may also ask the New York court to vacate the Goodell arbitration decision before the Patriots’ regular-season opener against the Pittsburgh Steelers — or issue an injunction that allows Brady to play.

The dual filings of the NFL and NFLPA presented an interesting legal issue: which lawsuit has priority? Typically, when federal judges are faced with the issue of deciding which of twocompetinglawsuits filed in separate federal jurisdictions has priority, they usually invoke the first-to-file rule. While this rule is not codified, the rule is generally considered an appropriate case management mechanism within the federal system. In general, the first-to-file rule gives priority to the first action filed over the subsequent action. The general judicial interpretation of the rule gives the decision making authority of the precedence of the first filed action to the district court judge assigned to that suit.

Federal courts have applied exceptions to the first-to-file rule if its application would create an injustice upon the party that filed the second action. One such exception that presents a strong argument against giving the first filed suit priority is the “anticipatory suit” exception. The purpose of this exception is to discourage procedurally unfair suits filed to frustrate settlement discussions, or to engage in brinkmanship, or to transform a party from defendant to plaintiff not to pursue a claim or right.

One specific rationale that supports the application of “anticipatory suit” exception is the court’s pursuit of procedural fairness. This specific rationale reflects the general judicial concern that a plaintiff should not lose its choice of the forum because the defendant anticipated the impending suit and preemptively struck by filing suit first in a different court.

Here, Judge Kyle specifically acknowledged that the NFL’s filing of the New York action “triggered application of the first-filed rule.” Judge Kyle acknowledged that the rule recognizes “comity between coequal federal courts and promotes the efficient use of judicial resources by authorizing a later-filed, substantially similar action’s transfer, stay or dismissal in deference to an earlier case”.

Judge Kyle concluded that the actions filed in Minnesota by the NFLPA and the NFL’s action filed in New York were almost duplicative and that the two cases and the issues presented in both were “flip-sides of the same coin.” In conclusion, Judge Kyle stated that the “cases are part and parcel of the same whole and should be heard together in the most appropriate forum: the Southern District of New York, where the arbitration occurred, the Award issued, and the first action concerning the Award was commenced.”

While acknowledging the order that the case should be heard in New York, NFLPA attorney Jeffrey Kessler stated, “We are happy in any federal court, which unlike the arbitration before Goodell provides a neutral forum, and we will now seek our injunction in the New York court.”

ARTICLE BY Gregg E. Clifton of Jackson Lewis P.C.

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2015