Brown v. National Football League
2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4399, 169 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2972, 219 F. Supp. 2d 372 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state-law tort claim brought by a union employee is not preempted by § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA) if the claim is based on a legal duty that exists independently of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and is owed to the general public, even if the CBA must be consulted as evidence.
Facts:
- Orlando Brown was a professional football player for the Cleveland Browns.
- On December 19, 1999, during a game, NFL referee Jeff Triplette threw a penalty flag that was weighted with 'BB' pellets.
- The flag flew through an opening in Brown's protective helmet and struck him in the eye.
- Brown sustained serious eye injuries which ended his professional football career.
- Brown alleged that the NFL was negligent for improperly hiring and training the referee.
- Brown also alleged the NFL was vicariously liable for the referee's negligent act of throwing the weighted flag.
Procedural Posture:
- Orlando and Mira Brown (Plaintiffs) filed a personal injury lawsuit against the National Football League (NFL) in New York Supreme Court, Bronx County (a state trial court).
- The NFL (Defendant) removed the action to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, asserting federal question jurisdiction.
- In the federal district court, the NFL moved to dismiss the complaint and compel arbitration, arguing the claims were preempted by § 301 of the LMRA.
- The Browns opposed the NFL's motion and filed a cross-motion to remand the case back to the New York state court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act preempt a state-law negligence claim brought by a professional football player against the league for an injury caused by a referee, where the claim is based on an independent duty of care owed to the general public and does not require interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement?
Opinions:
Majority - Lynch, District Judge
No. Section 301 of the LMRA does not preempt the state-law negligence claim because the duties the NFL allegedly breached are owed to the general public and exist independently of the collective bargaining agreement. Preemption under § 301 occurs only when a state-law claim is 'inextricably intertwined with consideration of the terms of the labor contract.' A claim is independent of the CBA if it alleges a violation of a duty 'owed to every person in society,' not just to employees covered by the agreement. Here, the NFL's duty to hire and supervise competent employees and the referee's duty to avoid negligently throwing a weighted object are general tort duties that would apply equally to a fan, a member of the press, or any other bystander injured in the same manner. While Plaintiffs cite NFL rules and manuals as evidence of the standard of care, this reference does not require interpretation of the CBA itself, because these documents are not incorporated into the CBA. Therefore, since the resolution of the tort claim depends on ordinary state-law principles of negligence and assumption of risk rather than an interpretation of the CBA, the claim is not preempted and should be remanded to state court.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the boundary of § 301 preemption for tort claims arising in a unionized workplace. It reinforces the principle that preemption is not triggered merely because a dispute occurs at work or because a collective bargaining agreement is consulted as evidence. The critical distinction is whether the state-law right is created by the CBA or exists independently. This case establishes that general duties of care, such as the duty to avoid negligence that could harm any member of the public, are considered independent state-law rights, allowing union employees to pursue such tort claims in state court rather than being confined to the grievance procedures of their CBA.
