Brown v. Pro Football, Inc.
1996 U.S. LEXIS 4047, 518 U.S. 231, 135 L. Ed. 2d 521 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The nonstatutory labor exemption from antitrust laws applies to an agreement among employers, reached after a collective-bargaining impasse, to implement the terms of their last best good-faith wage offer, provided such conduct is unobjectionable under labor law.
Facts:
- In 1987, a collective-bargaining agreement between the National Football League (NFL), a group of football clubs, and the NFL Players Association, a labor union, expired.
- The NFL and the Players Association began to negotiate a new contract.
- In March 1989, during the negotiations, the NFL adopted Resolution G-2, a plan to permit each club to establish a “developmental squad” of up to six rookie or “first-year” players.
- Resolution G-2 provided that the club owners would pay all squad members the same weekly salary, with the NFL proposing $1,000 per week.
- The Players Association disagreed with the proposed uniform salary, insisting that individual squad members should be free to negotiate their own salaries and receive benefits similar to regular players.
- In June 1989, negotiations on the issue of developmental squad salaries reached an impasse, at which point the NFL unilaterally implemented the program, distributing a uniform contract embodying Resolution G-2 and the $1,000 proposed weekly salary, warning clubs of disciplinary action for deviations.
Procedural Posture:
- In May 1990, 235 developmental squad players brought an antitrust suit against the NFL and its member clubs in Federal District Court, claiming the agreement to pay a $1,000 weekly salary violated the Sherman Act.
- The District Court denied the employers' claim of exemption from antitrust laws and permitted the case to reach a jury.
- The District Court subsequently entered judgment on a jury treble-damages award exceeding $30 million in favor of the players.
- The NFL and its member clubs (appellants) appealed the District Court's decision to the Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals (by a split 2-to-1 vote) reversed the District Court's judgment, holding that the club owners were immune from antitrust liability (appellees).
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the Court of Appeals' determination.
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 the nonstatutory labor exemption from antitrust laws apply to an agreement among multiple employers, bargaining together, to implement after impasse the terms of their last best good-faith wage offer?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Breyer
Yes, the nonstatutory labor exemption from antitrust laws applies to an agreement among multiple employers, bargaining together, to implement after impasse the terms of their last best good-faith wage offer. This Court has recognized an implicit antitrust exemption within federal labor laws, necessary to make the collective-bargaining process work effectively, as Congress intended. This exemption substitutes legislative and administrative labor-related determinations for judicial antitrust-related ones, recognizing that some competition-restricting agreements are inherent to meaningful collective bargaining. Labor law itself, through the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), extensively regulates post-impasse behavior, allowing employers to unilaterally implement proposed terms under specific conditions (e.g., must be reasonably comprehended within prior proposals and bargaining conducted in good faith). Multiemployer bargaining, a well-established and important practice, often involves the joint implementation of terms after impasse. Subjecting such practice to antitrust scrutiny would introduce instability and uncertainty by forcing antitrust courts, rather than the expert NLRB, to decide complex labor policy questions. The Court rejects arguments that the exemption should be limited to actual labor-management agreements, or terminate at impasse, or differentiate between bargaining tactics and substantive terms, as these distinctions are impractical and undermine labor policy. Professional sports are not unique in this context to warrant a different application of labor law's antitrust exemption.
Dissenting - Justice Stevens
No, the nonstatutory labor exemption should not apply to protect employers acting jointly to impose noncompetitive wage terms that conflict with a pre-existing principle of individual salary negotiation, particularly when the restraint was initiated by employers to depress wages below a free-market level after only “so-called” bargaining. This decision clashes with the fundamental goals of both antitrust and labor laws. Antitrust laws promote free competition for optimal prices, while labor laws encourage collective action to raise wages. The limited nonstatutory exemption accommodates these by protecting union-employer agreements that facilitate collective bargaining. However, it should not extend to collective action initiated by employers to unilaterally depress wages on issues not genuinely negotiated or demanded by labor. This case presents unique circumstances: (1) players historically negotiated individual salaries and preferred competitive wages; (2) employers imposed the wage restraint to enforce roster limits, not to resolve stalled bargaining; and (3) the “bargaining” was merely the employers notifying the union of a unilateral decision to impose uniform wages. There is no strong labor policy favoring employer association to eliminate competitive wage negotiation methods that labor wishes to preserve. The majority's holding is an unprecedented expansion of a limited exemption, effectively adopting Justice Goldberg’s previously rejected expansive view from Jewel Tea, and contradicting the detailed, motive-based inquiry required by Pennington to determine the exemption's applicability. Extending antitrust immunity to unilateral, anticompetitive employer action, especially for a scheme that predated collective bargaining, is inappropriate.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies and broadens the scope of the nonstatutory labor exemption, particularly in multiemployer bargaining contexts. It reinforces the Supreme Court's commitment to prioritizing the National Labor Relations Board's authority in regulating collective bargaining over intervention by antitrust courts, even when employer conduct appears anticompetitive. The decision provides greater certainty for employer groups to implement their final offers after a bargaining impasse without immediate fear of antitrust liability, thereby streamlining the bargaining process. However, it potentially limits the avenues for employees to challenge employer actions that, absent the exemption, might constitute illegal restraints of trade. Future litigation may focus on defining the 'extreme outer boundaries' of this exemption—how long or how disconnected from the bargaining process an employer agreement must be before antitrust intervention becomes permissible.
