The Court Made it's Ruling this Morning

[Casey D]

Agreed.

 

 

 

Even though the NFLPA has decertified and takes the legal position that it is no longer a union? The 8th Circuit left open the possibility that the DC could entertain a renewed motion for a preliminary injunction (of much more limited scope) by free agents and rookies, neither of whom are employees, either. Any such injunction would not end the lockout, but it could require the NFL to open contract negotiations with rookies and free agents. Not sure if you would consider that to be "intereference" with "how the NFLPA is doing business."

 

 

 

I agree that there will be no injunction that prevents the owners from locking out players already under contract. There could be a more limited injunction that results in the opening of free agency and the negotiation of rookie contracts, but even that is probably unlikely. As I pointed out above, the NFLPA's lawyers have pretty limited incentives to seek an injunction of such limited scope, even if they are legally free to try.

 

 

 

I agree that media reports indicate that this is the main thing they want, but at least in the past it is not the only thing they have asked for.

 

 

 

I have a very hard time seeing how they have standing, but haven't read any of their legal briefs, so I'm a little hesitant to jump to the conclusion that they can't persuade Judge Nelson that they have standing. If you put a gun to Fred Jackson's head and said convince Judge Nelson that the retired players have standing or I'll shoot Freddy, I would try to fashion an argument that the NFL's current practices will harm the retired players by reducing the $ used to fund retired player benefits - - but I think Spiller might wind up starting the first game.

 

As for the retired players not wanting to end the lockout - - if that's true, it probably represents a change in their original position on the matter. Footnote 2, at the bottom of page 10 of yesterday's 8th Circuit opinion, states:

 

"2Several retired professional football players brought a similar but separate

action on March 28, 2011, also seeking a preliminary injunction. The district court

consolidated the two actions, and denied the retired players’ motion for a preliminary

injunction as moot after issuing an injunction in the previously filed action."

 

Then again, I'm not sure exactly what type of preliminary injunction the retired players originally asked for. I suppose it could have been of severely limited scope - - and made moot by the more comprehensive injunction that Judge Nelson actually granted.

in favor of th

 

 

Because I haven't read any of their court filings, I don't know exactly what the retired players are claiming. I tend to distrust second hand media reports about such things. I suspect that you are probably right about how weak their legal theory is, but I'll reserve judgment on the matter for now. If they are no longer challenging the lockout, it's probably a change from their original position.

 

Your thoughts?

I don't think the lockout impacts retired players one way or the other. The negotiations impact retired players, but not a lockout--they are not being prevented from working. Draft picks are being prevented from becoming employees by the concerted action of the owners, and NGL(per the 8th circuit) allows them to lockout employees withour court interference but not non-employees, thus the possibility of an injunction to force the owners to deal with draft picks. Of course if they sign a K then they become an employee and can be locked out, as the court observed. If any kind of injunction is pursued or granted, it would be with respect to the draft picks. I mean what would an injunction in favor of retired players force the owners to do vis a lockout-- I mean there is no remedy. That being the case, I don't know what relief the DC could order vis retired players--which sort of proves the standing issue.

[UticaBill]

I have been trying to follow the legal wranglings of all this but I am having trouble understanding something.... Are the Players employees or private (sub-)contractors? My view is that they are each privately contracted under a global set of rules (CBA).... but does having the CBA make them employees?

Wouldn't the distinction make a large difference in determining the outcome of any ruling on anti-trust???

Also, if the NFL takes its ball and goes home, would that be a violation of anti-trust laws?? ( I don't believe it is, but I've heard it might be...)

 

Thanks for the opinions, Thanks for sharing!

[ICanSleepWhenI'mDead]

I don't think the lockout impacts retired players one way or the other. The negotiations impact retired players, but not a lockout--they are not being prevented from working. Draft picks are being prevented from becoming employees by the concerted action of the owners, and NGL(per the 8th circuit) allows them to lockout employees withour court interference but not non-employees, thus the possibility of an injunction to force the owners to deal with draft picks. Of course if they sign a K then they become an employee and can be locked out, as the court observed. If any kind of injunction is pursued or granted, it would be with respect to the draft picks. I mean what would an injunction in favor of retired players force the owners to do vis a lockout-- I mean there is no remedy. That being the case, I don't know what relief the DC could order vis retired players--which sort of proves the standing issue.

Here's a copy of the court complaint that the retired players originally filed on or about March 28, 2011:

 

http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/minnesota/mndce/0:2011cv00748/119327/1/

 

Not sure that I want to take the time to read all of it, but if you skip to the very end (but before the attachments), there is a section entitled "Prayer For Relief" that summarizes what they are asking the court to do. Here's what it says:

======================================================================================================================

 

"PRAYER FOR RELIEF

 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment with respect to their Complaint

as follows:

 

1. Certifying the class proposed in this Complaint pursuant to Fed. R.

Civ. P. 23(b)(1) and 23(b)(2);

 

2. Declaring that the lockout violates Section 1 of the Sherman Act,

and enjoining it;

 

3. Declaring that the NFL Defendants’ future imposition of the

anticompetitive Draft with an EPP violates Section 1 of the Sherman Act, and enjoining

any implementation of the 2011 College Draft until the issues related to the antitrust

violations are resolved;

 

4. Enjoining the NFL Defendants from agreeing to deprive the players

of the ability to work as professional football players or negotiate the terms of that

employment in a competitive market.

 

5. Enjoining the NFL Defendants from agreeing to withhold

contractually-owed amounts to players (including health and retirement benefits)

currently under contract for the 2011 NFL season and beyond.

6. Declaring that, pursuant to the SSA over which this Court has

exclusive jurisdiction, the NFL Defendants have waived any right to assert any antitrust

labor exemption defense based upon any claim that the termination of the NFLPA’s

status as the players’ collective bargaining representative is a sham, pretext, ineffective,

required additional steps, or has not in fact occurred.

 

7. Enjoining NFL Defendants from taking any punitive or

discriminatory actions against the Plaintiffs or class members;

 

8. Placing all disputed sums at issue in this litigation in escrow until a

judgment or settlement is reached in this matter;

 

9. Enjoining the NFL Defendants or their designees from terminating

the Plan;

10. Awarding Plaintiffs their costs and disbursements in this action,

including reasonable attorneys’ fees;

 

11. Granting Plaintiffs and class members such other and further relief

as may be appropriate."

=======================================================================================================================

Items 2, 4, 5, 7 and 9 all include a request for some type of injunctive relief - - but that says nothing about which of those items were the subject of the retired players' later request for a preliminary injunction (as opposed to a permanent injunction entered after an eventual full blown trial on the merits). The website where I found the retired players' complaint doesn't have any of the retired players' court papers that they must have also filed in connection with their request for a preliminary injunction.

 

I'm not suggesting that the retired players actually have been harmed in some way that would give them standing to actually get any of the relief they are requesting from the trial court - - I'm just saying it shows you what they are asking for. You would need to read the complaint to better evaluate if the lockout is actually harming the retired players in some legally actionable way. In any event, the 8th Circuit already decided that they won't be getting any kind of injunction to end the lockout of players now under contract.

[ICanSleepWhenI'mDead]

I have been trying to follow the legal wranglings of all this but I am having trouble understanding something.... Are the Players employees or private (sub-)contractors? My view is that they are each privately contracted under a global set of rules (CBA).... but does having the CBA make them employees?

Wouldn't the distinction make a large difference in determining the outcome of any ruling on anti-trust???

Also, if the NFL takes its ball and goes home, would that be a violation of anti-trust laws?? ( I don't believe it is, but I've heard it might be...)

 

Thanks for the opinions, Thanks for sharing!

This doesn't address all of your questions, but it's pretty clear that the 8th Circuit considers the players under contract to be employees. As indicated above, one sentence in the 8th Circuit opinion reads:

 

"The district court enjoined not only the League’s lockout of employees, i.e., players under contract, but

also the League’s refusal to deal with non-employees, i.e., free agents and prospective players or 'rookies.'”

Edited July 10, 2011 by ICanSleepWhenI'mDead

[ICanSleepWhenI'mDead]

Turns out the retired players have amended their complaint a couple times, so the version of the retired players' complaint I posted above in this thread is now obsolete. Just found a link to the "Second Amended Class Action Complaint And Crossclaims" that the retired players filed on 7/4/11:

 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/59501850/Filed-Second-Amended-Retired-Football-Players-Complaint

 

The retired players have now sued not only the NFL and its member teams - - they have also filed suit against (1) each of the named plaintiffs in the "Brady" suit, and (2) DeMaurice Smith and the NFLPA.

 

BTW, Joe DeLamielleure is one of the retired players now specifically named as a retired player plaintiff.

 

The "Prayer For Relief" has changed. I can't cut and paste it into this post, but you can read it at page 60 of the Second Amended Class Action Complaint And Crossclaims.

Edited July 10, 2011 by ICanSleepWhenI'mDead

[Hplarrm]

I don't think the lockout impacts retired players one way or the other. The negotiations impact retired players, but not a lockout--they are not being prevented from working. Draft picks are being prevented from becoming employees by the concerted action of the owners, and NGL(per the 8th circuit) allows them to lockout employees withour court interference but not non-employees, thus the possibility of an injunction to force the owners to deal with draft picks. Of course if they sign a K then they become an employee and can be locked out, as the court observed. If any kind of injunction is pursued or granted, it would be with respect to the draft picks. I mean what would an injunction in favor of retired players force the owners to do vis a lockout-- I mean there is no remedy. That being the case, I don't know what relief the DC could order vis retired players--which sort of proves the standing issue.

I think this gets to the point that the truly harmed aggrieved parties in all of this is the mewly drafted players.

 

The newly drafted players are being treated differently in the somewhat free market of NFL activity than NFLPA members because the owners and the NFLPA have colluded to contractually allow a lock-out of players. The newly drafted players have not had nor do not have a vote in trading away their ability to sign contracts in exchange for the ability to sue (which Brady et al have exercised).

 

There is a pretty blatant history of the NFL and the NFLPA colluding to take actions such as restricting adults from signing contracts until people born the same year as them turn 21. Their joint collusion to allow retired players to engage in activity which seems to at least coincidentally line up with later dementia is yet another example of their collusion which harms individuals.

 

The courts seemingly have allowed this anti-free market, anti-individual ability and yes anti-American activity to go on as within this construct a game is provided.

 

However, as contradictory activities such as the appeals court finding which reversed a lower court finding stack up (fundamentally it found in favor of a few rich guys over individual rights as the real goal of the courts seemed to be they wanted to find for the owners over the union. Individual rights are once again mere collateral damage in this battle between billionaires and millionaires.

 

In general our courts have done their job which is to protect the rights and abilities of individuals. The courts however have told individual players in this case to go suck eggs as individuals because the players gave voted democratically to cede their rights to the MDLPA to negotiate on their behalf.

[Casey D]

I have been trying to follow the legal wranglings of all this but I am having trouble understanding something.... Are the Players employees or private (sub-)contractors? My view is that they are each privately contracted under a global set of rules (CBA).... but does having the CBA make them employees?

Wouldn't the distinction make a large difference in determining the outcome of any ruling on anti-trust???

Also, if the NFL takes its ball and goes home, would that be a violation of anti-trust laws?? ( I don't believe it is, but I've heard it might be...)

 

Thanks for the opinions, Thanks for sharing!

They are employees--they just have an express written contract rather than the at-will employment contract most folks have and typically is not in writing.

 

If the NFL wanted to go out of business--no antitrust violation. Stupid, but legal.

 

Here's a copy of the court complaint that the retired players originally filed on or about March 28, 2011:

 

http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/minnesota/mndce/0:2011cv00748/119327/1/

 

Not sure that I want to take the time to read all of it, but if you skip to the very end (but before the attachments), there is a section entitled "Prayer For Relief" that summarizes what they are asking the court to do. Here's what it says:

======================================================================================================================

 

"PRAYER FOR RELIEF

 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment with respect to their Complaint

as follows:

 

1. Certifying the class proposed in this Complaint pursuant to Fed. R.

Civ. P. 23(b)(1) and 23(b)(2);

 

2. Declaring that the lockout violates Section 1 of the Sherman Act,

and enjoining it;

 

3. Declaring that the NFL Defendants’ future imposition of the

anticompetitive Draft with an EPP violates Section 1 of the Sherman Act, and enjoining

any implementation of the 2011 College Draft until the issues related to the antitrust

violations are resolved;

 

4. Enjoining the NFL Defendants from agreeing to deprive the players

of the ability to work as professional football players or negotiate the terms of that

employment in a competitive market.

 

5. Enjoining the NFL Defendants from agreeing to withhold

contractually-owed amounts to players (including health and retirement benefits)

currently under contract for the 2011 NFL season and beyond.

6. Declaring that, pursuant to the SSA over which this Court has

exclusive jurisdiction, the NFL Defendants have waived any right to assert any antitrust

labor exemption defense based upon any claim that the termination of the NFLPA’s

status as the players’ collective bargaining representative is a sham, pretext, ineffective,

required additional steps, or has not in fact occurred.

 

7. Enjoining NFL Defendants from taking any punitive or

discriminatory actions against the Plaintiffs or class members;

 

8. Placing all disputed sums at issue in this litigation in escrow until a

judgment or settlement is reached in this matter;

 

9. Enjoining the NFL Defendants or their designees from terminating

the Plan;

10. Awarding Plaintiffs their costs and disbursements in this action,

including reasonable attorneys’ fees;

 

11. Granting Plaintiffs and class members such other and further relief

as may be appropriate."

=======================================================================================================================

Items 2, 4, 5, 7 and 9 all include a request for some type of injunctive relief - - but that says nothing about which of those items were the subject of the retired players' later request for a preliminary injunction (as opposed to a permanent injunction entered after an eventual full blown trial on the merits). The website where I found the retired players' complaint doesn't have any of the retired players' court papers that they must have also filed in connection with their request for a preliminary injunction.

 

I'm not suggesting that the retired players actually have been harmed in some way that would give them standing to actually get any of the relief they are requesting from the trial court - - I'm just saying it shows you what they are asking for. You would need to read the complaint to better evaluate if the lockout is actually harming the retired players in some legally actionable way. In any event, the 8th Circuit already decided that they won't be getting any kind of injunction to end the lockout of players now under contract.

I don't doubt they asked for the relief--but that does not mean it makes any sense. Plaintiffs' lawyers do that all the time. I doubt there is anything is the complaint to explain why they are entitled to such relief.

[Casey D]

Turns out the retired players have amended their complaint a couple times, so the version of the retired players' complaint I posted above in this thread is now obsolete. Just found a link to the "Second Amended Class Action Complaint And Crossclaims" that the retired players filed on 7/4/11:

 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/59501850/Filed-Second-Amended-Retired-Football-Players-Complaint

 

The retired players have now sued not only the NFL and its member teams - - they have also filed suit against (1) each of the named plaintiffs in the "Brady" suit, and (2) DeMaurice Smith and the NFLPA.

 

BTW, Joe DeLamielleure is one of the retired players now specifically named as a retired player plaintiff.

 

The "Prayer For Relief" has changed. I can't cut and paste it into this post, but you can read it at page 60 of the Second Amended Class Action Complaint And Crossclaims.

Indeed, they seem to have dropped any request for relief related to the lockout. Their only factual allegations is that the lockout hurts retired players because there are no games and thus no money for them. It is a completely derivative argument, so if the courts can't end the lockout via injunction for active players, then they have no basis to seek the exact same injunction to get active players back to work so there is money for the reitired players. Their lawyers figured the lockout thing for the active players was not going to work in light of the 6/3 hearing, and rebooted.

Edited July 10, 2011 by Casey D

[BillsfaninFl]

Help me out here. I don't understand why retired players or (potential) rookies have any say in this matter.

 

The benefits for retired players that may be altered in a new CBA would only apply to those players who have not yet retired, or it would be an illegal "ex post facto" policy. My understanding is that once you are retired in the U.S., retirees have no right to legally force their former employer to give them more benefits. If that is not the case, I would be hiring a lawyer a.s.a.p.

 

Drafted players are not yet employees and there is no guarantee that they will be signed by the team that chose them. That's why they have an agent who negotiates a contract for them and every year there are holdouts. Once a contract is signed, they are employees. But until then, they have no rights - and no responsibilities to the NFL or its teams. These "rookies" can seek employment elsewhere (Canadian League, USFL, etc.) and therefore have no claim to be made.

 

Free agents might be a different situation.

Edited July 13, 2011 by BillsfaninFl