National Football League Management Council v. National Football League Players Ass'n
820 F.3d 527, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 7404, 206 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3102 (2016)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Labor Management Relations Act, a federal court's review of a labor arbitration award is highly deferential and limited to determining whether the arbitrator was arguably construing the collective bargaining agreement and acting within the scope of their authority, even if the arbitrator makes factual or legal errors.
Facts:
- During the AFC Championship Game on January 18, 2015, an Indianapolis Colts player intercepted a football thrown by New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady and suspected it was underinflated.
- League officials tested the Patriots' game balls at halftime and discovered all eleven were inflated below the minimum permissible pressure of 12.5 pounds per square inch (psi).
- An independent investigation reviewed text messages between Patriots equipment officials Jim McNally and John Jastremski, in which they discussed Brady's preference for less-inflated footballs, McNally referred to himself as 'the deflator,' and they mentioned McNally receiving memorabilia autographed by Brady.
- The investigation concluded that McNally had taken the game balls into a bathroom for approximately one minute and forty seconds before bringing them to the field.
- After the investigation was publicly announced, Brady and Jastremski engaged in an uncharacteristic pattern of frequent phone calls and text messages.
- On March 6, 2015, the same day he was scheduled to be interviewed by investigators, Brady instructed his assistant to destroy the cellphone he had been using during the period of the AFC Championship Game and subsequent investigation.
Procedural Posture:
- The NFL suspended Tom Brady for four games following an investigation into the deflation of footballs.
- Brady, represented by the NFL Players Association (NFLPA), appealed the suspension.
- NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, serving as the arbitrator pursuant to the Collective Bargaining Agreement, conducted a hearing and issued a final award upholding the suspension.
- The NFL Management Council filed an action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York seeking confirmation of the award.
- The NFLPA filed a parallel action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota to vacate the award; this case was subsequently transferred to the Southern District of New York.
- The U.S. District Court (trial court) granted the NFLPA's motion, vacating the arbitration award.
- The NFL Management Council (as appellant) appealed the district court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the NFL Commissioner, acting as an arbitrator pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement, exceed his authority or deprive a player of fundamental fairness when he upheld a four-game suspension for conduct detrimental to the integrity of professional football?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Barrington D. Parker
No. The NFL Commissioner acted within the broad authority granted to him by the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) and did not deprive the player of fundamental fairness. The court's review of a labor arbitration award is among the most deferential in the law, and its role is limited to ensuring the arbitrator was 'even arguably construing or applying the contract.' The CBA explicitly grants the Commissioner authority to discipline players for 'conduct detrimental to the integrity of... the game of professional football,' which put Brady on notice that a suspension was possible. The Commissioner's procedural rulings, such as denying certain witness testimony and access to investigative notes, were within his broad discretion to manage the hearing and did not amount to fundamental unfairness. Furthermore, the Commissioner was entitled to draw an adverse inference from Brady's deliberate destruction of his cellphone, as this action supported the conclusion that he had participated in the scheme and obstructed the investigation. The parties bargained for this specific arbitration process, including the Commissioner's role as arbitrator, and the court must uphold the resulting award.
Dissenting - Chief Judge Katzmann
Yes. The Commissioner exceeded his authority under the CBA and delivered his 'own brand of industrial justice.' The arbitrator improperly changed the factual basis for the discipline after the appeal hearing, depriving Brady of notice and an opportunity to defend himself. The initial discipline was based on the Wells Report's finding that Brady was 'at least generally aware' of the scheme, but the Commissioner's final decision found that Brady 'provided inducements and rewards' for it—a more culpable finding that was not made in the initial report. Additionally, the unprecedented four-game suspension was arbitrary because the Commissioner ignored highly analogous, lesser penalties for conduct aimed at gaining a competitive advantage (like using 'stickum') and instead relied on a flawed and inapt comparison to the league's steroid policy without sufficient explanation.
Analysis:
This decision strongly reinforces the principle of judicial deference to labor arbitration awards under the Labor Management Relations Act. It establishes that as long as an arbitrator's decision 'draws its essence' from the collective bargaining agreement, courts will not vacate it, even if the underlying process appears procedurally flawed or the punishment seems harsh. The ruling confirms that parties are bound by the dispute resolution mechanisms they negotiate, including those that grant broad, seemingly conflicted authority to one party. This precedent makes it exceedingly difficult for players to successfully challenge disciplinary actions imposed and arbitrated by the NFL Commissioner in federal court, solidifying the Commissioner's power under the CBA.
