I know I just posted about the NFL but they keep doing things that are instructive to those of us with an interest in employment law. During last week’s games, an unusual number of players were injured by blows to the head. As a result, some fines were levied, including one to a Steelers player named James Harrison. As reported by ESPN:
Harrison was fined $75,000 for his hard, helmet-to-helmet hit on Browns wide receiver Mohamed Massaquoi, one of several devastating blows on an unusually violent Sunday of head-high collisions around the NFL. Harrison's hit on Massaquoi — and one that knocked out Browns Pro Bowler Josh Cribbs on a running play — helped prompt commissioner Roger Goodell to crack down and impose significant fines and suspensions for players for hits to the head and neck.
After being fined, Harrison was incensed and threatened to retire. After he cooled off, he realized that was not a good idea, apologized and indicated that he will continue to play football. The NFL has changed its policy without a warning, and will fine and/or suspend players for flagrant hits, especially helmet to helmet hits.
Unless you happen to be a fan of a team impacted by last weekend’s injuries, why should you care? The way this was handled by the NFL created issues that I have seen repeatedly in my practice. In essence, the NFL has changed its rules to the detriment of certain players. More significantly, the change comes in the middle of the season rather than before or after. Employers who change the rules applicable to their employees, particularly if the timing or other aspects of the change is perceived as unfair, risk several negative consequences. Among them are employee turnover, litigation and opening the door to unions.
But regular employers don’t do that you say? Yes they do — here are some hypothetical examples:
- That new commission program that was rolled out turned out to be too generous so the employer modifies it, effective immediately;
- A new manager decides that unlike his predecessor he is going to enforce the attendance policy to the letter;
- To save maintenance expenses, the company decides that employees will no longer be allowed to drive company vehicles home at night.
I am not suggesting that an employer cannot do any of the above at its sole discretion, at least in non-union environments. My point is that if you change the rules, you need to be sensitive to the reactions of the employees or you are asking for trouble. What is necessary is adequate planning before a change and consideration of how best to present the changes. Here are some thoughts:
- Do not make sweeping changes based on isolated incidents. Some have suggested that the NFL is making a broad policy change based on one unusually bad weekend instead of carefully studying and considering the issue before acting;
- Consider and plan for the employees’ reaction to the changes. This is all about fairness. Arguably, the NFL should have maintained its current policy for the remainder of the season and advised players of changes in policy before next season. They would have been able to levy fines as in the past but would have avoided the perception that they are unfairly changing the rules. If they really felt the problem was escalating, fines could have been increased; the introduction of possible suspensions is what seems to have blindsided players;
- Consider the “optics,” i.e. how it makes the employer look. As several commentators have noted, the NFL has been selling the violence of professional football for years while also paying lip service to concerns over player safety. You can buy videos of “greatest” (most violent) hits from the NFL. As a result, they do not exactly have the high ground of this issue.
A lot of people have mocked Harrison for his reaction to the NFL policy change but it is understandable on some levels. Regardless, lesson learned for the rest of us. Do not change the rules without a carefully thought out plan.
Last NFL post for a while — I promise.
Questions or comments? You'll find a link to my email address at the CONTACT line below.
Topics/Tags
Select- Labor & Employment Law
- Employment Law
- Department of Labor
- Labor Law
- Wage & Hour
- FMLA
- NLRB
- EEOC
- Arbitration
- National Labor Relations Board
- FLSA
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- Holiday Policies
- Discrimination
- Sexual Harassment
- Reasonable Accommodation
- Sixth Circuit
- Coronavirus
- Social Media
- Title VII
- Employer Policies
- Transgender Issues
- Religion Discrimination
- Employment Litigation
- Diversity
- Employer Rules
- Overtime Pay
- Workplace Violence
- Non-Compete Agreements
- Pregnancy Discrimination
- OSHA
- Artificial Intelligence
- Independent Contractor
- Joint Employer
- Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation
- Telework
- Privacy
- Department of Justice
- Paid Leave Laws
- NLRA
- Compliance
- Tax Credit
- Supreme Court
- Employee Tips
- One Big Beautiful Bill
- Workplace Accommodations
- Federal Trade Commission
- Worker Classification
- Litigation
- Harassment
- IRS
- Performance Improvement Plans
- Department of Homeland Security
- Foreign Nationals
- Immigration and Customs Enforcement
- Immigration and Nationality Act
- Disability Discrimination
- Medical Marijuana
- Inclusion
- LGBTQ+
- Retirement
- National Labor Relations Act
- Accommodation
- Sexual Orientation Discrimination
- Employer Handbook
- Race Discrimination
- ERISA
- ADAAA
- Unions
- ACA
- Affordable Car Act
- Technology
- Federal Arbitration Act
- Medical Cannabis Dispensaries
- Whistleblower
- Disability
- United States Supreme Court
- 401(k)
- Employment Settlement Agreements
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
- Fair Labor Standards Act
- Benefits
- Class Action Litigation
- Disability Law
- Gender Identity Discrimination
- Posting Requirements
- E-Discovery
- Evidence
- Paycheck Protection Program
- Family and Medical Leave Act
- Environmental Law
- Securities Law
- Privacy Laws
- Preventive Care Benefits
- Health Savings Account
- SECURE Act
- US Department of Labor Employee Benefits Security Administration
- Healthcare Reform
- Representative Election Regulations
- Older Workers' Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA)
- Telecommuting
- Affirmative Action
- Compensable Time
- Electronically Stored Information
- Equal Opportunity Clause
- Security Screening
- E-Discovery Case Law
- Electronic Data Discovery
- ESI
- Occupational Safety and Health Administration
- Unemployment Insurance Integrity Act
- American Medical Association
- Attendance Policy
- Classification
- Confidentiality
- Disability Leave
- Equal Pay
- Fair Minimum Wage
- Federal Minimum Wage
- Genetic Information Discrimination
- Media Policy
- Misclassification
- National Origin Discrimination
- Retaliation
- Return to Work
- Seniority Rights
- Social Media Content
- State Minimum Wage
- Wage Increase
- Antitrust
- Employment Incentives
- HIRE Act
- Social Security Tax
- Taxation
Recent Posts
- Beyond Paid Time Off: The Legal Side of Holiday Policies
- EEO-1 Reporting on the Chopping Block: What Employers Need to Know
- DOL Proposes New Joint Employer Rule: What Employers Need to Know
- Arbitration Agreements Take a Hit: What the Sixth Circuit's EFAA Decision Means for Your Workplace Agreements
- Bourbon, Ballots, and Bargaining Orders: Sixth Circuit Rejects NLRB’s Cemex Framework
- Independent Contractor and Joint Employer Rules: Looking to the Past for Future Compliance
- New Requirements for Employers in California
- Back to the Office: The EEOC Clarifies the Limits of Telework Under the ADA
- EEOC Rescinds Anti-Harassment Guidance Addressing Transgender Protections
- The EEOC’s Renewed Focus on Employer DEI Programs in 2026