Arn't these Suspensions a Violation of Due Process?

[JuanGuzman]

The current NFL conduct policy (here) seems inadequate; hence the need for a new one. A reading of the current NFLPA conduct policy suggests nothing more than generalities with no specifics with regards to convictions vs. allegations, no clear mandate for standards of punishment. The lack of specifics has allowed Commisioner Goodell to interpret them it any way he wants to and similarly apply those standards on an ad-hoc basis (Jones, Henry).

 

Essentially there is no precedent for who gets suspended and for how long. What about Tank Johnson and his numerous run-ins with the law? Or we could extend it Terrance Kiel for his possession of a controlled substance. Why not take it one step further and suspend Cardinals coach Richie Anderson for soliciting prostitution or Bill Belichick for breaking up that dudes marriage, or Jerry Jones for violating NFL Properties with the sponsorship contracts he illegally signed.

 

My point is that there is a reason the NFL needed a new conduct policy - - because the old one was ineffective and lacked the specifics to do anything. In my oppinion its irresponible of the NFL to enforce these punishments under the old conduct policy when its a violation of due process (lack of precedence and on ad-hoc basis).

 

Does anyone have any links about the suspensions and due process? or are there any lawyers out there who agree/disagree with what I am saying. I will admit im pretty much a neophyte when it comes to laws/legality but it seems to me the suspensions of Chris Henry and Adam Jones represent a fundamental violation of due process. The commisoner cannot arbitrarily decide who gets suspended and who doesn't, and for how long.

[Flbillsfan#1]

Playing in the NFL is a privlege not a right ( kind of like driving a car ). Therefore no due process is nessary ( kind of how a driver is forced to take a breath test or risk suspension of license even if he wasn't proven to be over the limit).

[JuanGuzman]

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution says:

"No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...."

 

The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution says:

"No State shall ... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...."

 

I would consider his 1 year ban to be deprivation of property: his job and salary. Look im not defending his actions but I will note that while he has been charged on 5 seperate occaisions he has yet to be found guilty in any of them. My criticism is of the NFL arbitrary interpretation of ineffective policy.

[ndirish1978]

Fills is correct. The NFL is a choice. Players sign agreements to submit to the league's discipline. Due process does not come into play here period. I just studied this in sports law. I could give you a longwinded explanation but bottom line, no.

[eball]

There is no fundamental right to play in the NFL, and the NFL is a private employer. If they decide that a certain level of conduct will be punished, so be it. The only thing the NFL has to do is make sure the policy is applied even-handedly across the board.

[Observer]

Due process applies to state and federal governmental actors. The NFL is neither.

 

He might make some other (dubious) claim but never a violation of due process.

[Beerball]

You are sort of right.

 

1) There is no constitutional-type claim, as you seem to suggest, because the NFL likely is not considered a state actor (not, as some poster suggested, because there is some privilege/right distinction to playing in the NFL. The privilege/right distinction has largely been eviscerated by the Supreme Court because it is such an unmanageable standard).

 

2) However, the union will likely challenge the suspensions on contract-based grounds (probably sounding in due process)--i.e., the original policy did not contemplate such draconian punishments and thus Goodell was unauthorized to issue these suspensions. He can't simply retoractively apply a new harsher standard to these guys.

 

I actually think the union will win; there's no way it will let two star players sit out a season without pay.

I would think that the unions main argument would be that the suspensions may affect decisions made by juries/judges in upcoming legal procedings. Does the fact that the NFL has doled out punishment imply guilt thereby inhibiting due process and their right to a fair trial?

[bartshan-83]

I would think that the unions main argument would be that the suspensions may affect decisions made by juries/judges in upcoming legal procedings. Does the fact that the NFL has doled out punishment imply guilt thereby inhibiting due process and their right to a fair trial?

I see where you are coming from, but I would disagree. If last night you were arrested on for DUI but you planned to fight the charge, I don't think your employer firing you (or suspending you) today would affect a jury's decision come trial time.

[GG]

Players have taken NFL to court on various labor issues, and lost nearly all of them, except for free agency. The deprivation of property argument is similar to the case Clarett took to the courts to challenge the league's minimum age requirement. He lost.

[Beerball]

I see where you are coming from, but I would disagree. If last night you were arrested on for DUI but you planned to fight the charge, I don't think your employer firing you (or suspending you) today would affect a jury's decision come trial time.

No legal eagle here, but how likely would it be that 'my' jury would know that I got fired? Would that be admissable? Meanwhile everyone who remotely is interested in sports is aware of the suspensions, so not a level playing field.

 

Just playing devil's advocate here. I think that Goodell did the right thing. He has drawn the line in the sand and it was past time to do so.

[bartshan-83]

The NFL suspensions would definitely affect the jury's determination--which is why Pac Man's lawyers need to make sure it's excluded.

 

But I wonder if there's a provision in the CBA or the league policies on waiting until criminal charges have been settled before levying a suspension (for this reason). I'm trying to recall what the NFL did with Jamal Lewis, Rae Caruth, or Ray Lewis (if they did anything).

OK, fair enough. But are you saying that this has universal application then? Anytime a person who is charged with a crime is disciplined by his employer as a result, his lawyer needs to get that excluded?

[bartshan-83]

No legal eagle here, but how likely would it be that 'my' jury would know that I got fired? Would that be admissable? Meanwhile everyone who remotely is interested in sports is aware of the suspensions, so not a level playing field.

 

Just playing devil's advocate here. I think that Goodell did the right thing. He has drawn the line in the sand and it was past time to do so.

No I wasn't really arguing...just positing. I assumed that it would be brought up by the prosecution, but not taken into account very much. I would think/hope that a jury member would not use a pre-guilt disciplinary action by a private entity as proof of true guilt. To me, that would be like a jury member of the Duke LAX rape scandal (if it had gone to trial) using the school's decision to suspend them from the LAX team as proof that they did in fact rape the girl. Kind of circular reasoning.

 

I agree with you about Goodell...excellent, strong move. Way past time...

[JuanGuzman]

Players have taken NFL to court on various labor issues, and lost nearly all of them, except for free agency. The deprivation of property argument is similar to the case Clarett took to the courts to challenge the league's minimum age requirement. He lost.

 

Im pretty sure Clarret's case was grounded in anti-trust laws eg. collusion between NFLPA and The NFL to restrict player access to the league. Oh and he won the original hearing but lost on appeal.

[jri111]

One thing everyone is forgetting is the the NFL, along with every other major sports in America is the the NFL has special agreements with Congress concerning antitrust exemptions. The antitrust excemptions deal with leage/union issues and i'm sure the answer you're looking for comes from somewhere deep inside that legislation. The antitrust exemptions essentailly allow teams to "cut" players without the fear of litigation although they are under a valid contract. My guess is that the League has more relaxed rights when it comes to disicpline of its players then a normal business entity would because of these special exemptions. Just a guess though... would be interesting to reasearch if I had the time...

[jri111]

Im pretty sure Clarret's case was grounded in anti-trust laws eg. collusion between NFLPA and The NFL to restrict player access to the league. Oh and he won the original hearing but lost on appeal.

 

 

Yeah you're exactly right about Clarett. His matter dealt directly with antitrust issue. here's a link to an article about the antiturst and clarett situation: http://www.allbusiness.com/government/empl.../1041671-1.html

 

"Recently, in Clarett v. National Football League,6 the second Circuit greatly expanded the nonstatutory exemption, protecting a National Football League ("NFL") eligibility rule requiring that rookies be three seasons removed from their high school graduation, even though this provision was only incorporated by reference in the collective bargaining agreement between the NFL and the NFL Players' Association ("NFLPA")."

[jri111]

sorry don't me to highjack the thread with Antitrust stuff, but when i was looking it up online just now I came across this article from the Business First of Buffalo of all places concerning the Bills, Senator Schumer and TV broadcasting/anti-trust legilsation. It's from this Februrary and has absolutely nothing to do with the original issue of this thread but I'd figure i'd throw it out there for those who are interested: http://masshightech.bizjournals.com/masshi...66000%5E1421359

 

sorry again!

[Fezmid]

No legal eagle here, but how likely would it be that 'my' jury would know that I got fired? Would that be admissable? Meanwhile everyone who remotely is interested in sports is aware of the suspensions, so not a level playing field.

 

Just playing devil's advocate here. I think that Goodell did the right thing. He has drawn the line in the sand and it was past time to do so.

Which is why the defense will ask, "Are you a football fan?" and if you say yes, you won't be a juror on this case. Non-football fans will have no idea about the suspension.

[GG]

Im pretty sure Clarret's case was grounded in anti-trust laws eg. collusion between NFLPA and The NFL to restrict player access to the league. Oh and he won the original hearing but lost on appeal.

 

Losing on appeal is... losing a case (especially when Supremes decide not to hear the case). Clarett's case very much focused on deprivation of a livelihood, since the case centered on NFL being the only option for him to make a good living doing what he does best.

 

As others opined due process goes out the window, because due process is at the eye of the PRIVATE employer.

To sue for deprivation of wages does not hold up, because each contract includes a personal conduct provision, which is also enforced by the NFL's personal conduct policy.

 

Now, you nor Pacman may not like the arbitrariness of Goodell's decision. Then, you can line Pacman up for another job that will give him much better due process protections.

[dollars 2 donuts]

Due process applies to state and federal governmental actors. The NFL is neither.

 

He might make some other (dubious) claim but never a violation of due process.

 

 

 

 

This is no offense to some well thought out posts that followed, but the above is true and the debate on the subject really does start and finish with Quaker's comments.

[JuanGuzman]

Losing on appeal is... losing a case (especially when Supremes decide not to hear the case). Clarett's case very much focused on deprivation of a livelihood, since the case centered on NFL being the only option for him to make a good living doing what he does best.

 

The focus was on anti trust laws not deprivation of livelihood.

 

I. INTRODUCTION

Maurice Clarett’s goal is to play in the National Football League next

year. The only thing preventing him from achieving that goal is the League’s rule

limiting eligibility to players three seasons removed from their high school

graduation. The question before the Court is whether this Rule violates the

antitrust laws.

Clarett, a star freshman football player attending The Ohio State

University, now in his sophomore year, challenges the Rule, claiming that he is

ready, willing and able to play in the NFL and that his exclusion violates the

antitrust laws.

Maurice Clarett, plaintif against NFL, Defendant