The Second Circuit’s decision to reinstate the NFL’s four game suspension of Tom Brady has been in the news this week. To those of us who handle arbitration on a regular basis, it came as no surprise. However, employers who arbitrate cases pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement, or who have or are considering arbitration programs, should not be overly concerned.
First, it is important to remember that this ruling has absolutely nothing to do with the underlying facts of the case. I have written about the flaws in the case against Brady elsewhere but they are no longer legally relevant. The only issue before the court was whether Roger Goodell had the authority under the NFL Collective Bargaining Agreement to impose the penalty that he did, a four game suspension. Reversing the lower court, the Second Circuit ruled that he did have the authority. The Court held:
Our review of the records yields the firm conclusion that the Commissioner properly exercised his broad discretion to resolve an intramural controversy between the League and a player. Accordingly, we REVERSE the judgment of the district court and REMAND with instructions to confirm the award.
The key to this case is the extraordinary power given to Goodell by the NFL’s collective bargaining agreement:
The Commissioner was authorized to impose discipline for, among other things, "conduct detrimental to the integrity of, or public confidence, in the game of professional football." In their collective bargaining agreement, the players and the League mutually decided many years ago that the Commissioner should investigate possible rule violations, should impose appropriate sanctions, and may preside at arbitrations challenging his discipline. Although this tripartite regime may appear somewhat unorthodox, it is the regime bargained for and agreed upon by the parties, which we can only presume they determined was mutually satisfactory.
As a result of this broad authority, the Commissioner does not need proof of wrongdoing by Brady, only his subjective conclusion that his conduct was “detrimental.” To those who might call for a flag, the Court responded: “Had the parties wished to restrict the Commissioner's authority, they could have fashioned a different agreement.”
All of this is perfectly consistent with the oft cited rule regarding the deference given by Courts to an arbitrator’s decision: “the sole question for us is whether the arbitrator (even arguably) interpreted the parties’ contract, not whether he got its meaning right or wrong.” Oxford Health Plans LLC v. Sutter (U.S. S.Ct. 2013). In other words, the parties bargaining for an arbitrator’s decision and they got what they bargained for; that the decision might be wrong is a risk the parties must accept.
There are a couple of reasons why none of this should keep employers who arbitrate awake at night. First, Brady and the NFL Players Association lost this case not in arbitration or the courts but at the bargaining table. The provision empowering Goodell would be the equivalent of allowing the CEO of a company the absolute authority to decide all grievances involving issues of discipline and discharge. In other words, it would never happen in the real (non-sports) world. The same holds true for non-union employers with arbitration programs. Typically, those programs are administered by a third party organization, e.g. JAMS or the American Arbitration Association, and are subject to rules that guarantee a minimum level of fairness to avoid claims of unconscionability. As a result, the arbitrator will be a neutral third party expected to apply applicable law rather than his or her subjective views.
Arbitration continues to have tremendous benefits for employers and the NFL’s drama over “deflategate” should not discourage those considering it.
- Partner
Mark Chumley has experience representing management in all aspects of labor and employment law. He has handled numerous cases before state and federal courts and state and federal civil rights agencies, including claims ...
Topics/Tags
Select- Labor & Employment Law
- Arbitration
- Coronavirus
- Employment Law
- Labor Law
- Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation
- Discrimination
- Disability Discrimination
- Race Discrimination
- IRS
- OSHA
- Department of Labor
- NLRB
- Employer Policies
- Sexual Orientation Discrimination
- Litigation
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- Retirement
- Social Media
- Accommodation
- ERISA
- National Labor Relations Act
- National Labor Relations Board
- Employer Handbook
- Employment Litigation
- Reasonable Accommodation
- ACA
- Affordable Car Act
- Wage & Hour
- NLRA
- EEOC
- ADAAA
- Title VII
- Federal Arbitration Act
- Unions
- Employer Rules
- Sexual Harassment
- 401(k)
- Technology
- Transgender Issues
- Workplace Accommodations
- Privacy
- FMLA
- Employment Settlement Agreements
- Disability
- Workplace Violence
- Paycheck Protection Program
- Sixth Circuit
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
- Fair Labor Standards Act
- Securities Law
- Preventive Care Benefits
- Health Savings Account
- SECURE Act
- US Department of Labor Employee Benefits Security Administration
- Religion Discrimination
- Gender Identity Discrimination
- Posting Requirements
- Class Action Litigation
- Disability Law
- E-Discovery
- Evidence
- Benefits
- Overtime Pay
- Representative Election Regulations
- Family and Medical Leave Act
- Environmental Law
- Department of Justice
- Privacy Laws
- Healthcare Reform
- Older Workers' Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA)
- Telecommuting
- Electronically Stored Information
- Affirmative Action
- Compensable Time
- Equal Opportunity Clause
- Pregnancy Discrimination
- Security Screening
- Supreme Court
- Occupational Safety and Health Administration
- E-Discovery Case Law
- Electronic Data Discovery
- ESI
- Unemployment Insurance Integrity Act
- American Medical Association
- Attendance Policy
- Return to Work
- Seniority Rights
- Classification
- Confidentiality
- Disability Leave
- Equal Pay
- Fair Minimum Wage
- Federal Minimum Wage
- Genetic Information Discrimination
- Media Policy
- Misclassification
- National Origin Discrimination
- Retaliation
- Social Media Content
- State Minimum Wage
- Wage Increase
- Employment Incentives
- HIRE Act
- Social Security Tax
- Taxation
- Antitrust
Recent Posts
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: The Future of Arbitration
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: The Gig Economy
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: Labor & Employment Law Update Week of 3/7/2022
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: Labor & Employment Law Update Week of 2/7/2022
- Supreme Court Re-Implements Stay of Vaccine Mandate for Employers, Upholds CMS Mandate
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: Twelve Thoughts About Vaccine Mandates
- Update on Status of Federal Contractor Mandate and OSHA’s ETS
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: Employment Law Advice from Ebenezer Scrooge
- Update on Status of All Federal Vaccine Mandates
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: Federal Vaccine Mandate(s) Update