AFL-CIO files amicus brief in support of Tom Brady

[XLIX]

Great point by Feinberg, one which I haven't seen discussed much.

 

[Danger Zone]

The Supreme Court has made clear that "elementary requirements of impartiality taken for granted in every judicial proceeding" are not "suspended when parties agree to resolve a dispute through arbitration."

The legal layman in me says: Wow

 

[Deus Irae]

"raises fundamental questions bearing on legitimacy of arbitration as a means of alternative dispute resolution"

Now we're getting to points I made way back during this process. As he notes:

If the restrictions on arbitrators acting outside the scope of their authority, imposing their own industrial justice, or acting with bias are weakened so greatly as to permit the enforcement of the Commissioner’s award, it will fundamentally erode the public’s trust and confidence in arbitration.

http://thesportsesquires.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Feinberg-Amicus-Brief.pdf

 

[XLIX]

In his brief, Feinberg describes himself as:

"an experienced arbitrator ... His high profile arbitrations include valuing the Zapruder film and Holocaust Slave Labor attorneys' fees, among many others."

And now he writes about PSI.

 

[XLIX]

Much like the AFL-CIO filing, Feinberg reinforces what we've all been saying: Commissioner acted outside the scope of his authority.

"Commish used the guise of arbitration to dramatically alter many of the long-standing features of the parties' course of dealing."

 

[JDot]

So this is a pretty big deal?

 

[Tony2046]

So is that 5 or 6 now? Anyone but me notice the complete LACK of amicus briefs supporting the NFL??

Lester Munson should file one after his monthly binge.

 

[SVN]

I think this and the pats brief are coming from olson. Iam sure he is asking them to take a look and file a brief .

 

[XLIX]

So this is a pretty big deal?

Yes. Let's just say that it sure seems like Ted Olson is calling in some favors.

He probably promised a lot of people that Tom would be a guest at their kids' birthday parties if they would write a couple words.....

 

[QuantumMechanic]

Wallach says he now feels it's up to a 50% chance that rehearing will be granted.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

Incoming amicus briefs from the Colts and the Ravens..

It's not faaaaiiirrrrr!!!!!

is there a different page limit for amicus briefs in pop-up format?

 

[QuantumMechanic]

What I like about Feinberg's brief is that he is really trying to frame things broadly and show why this case matters outside the narrow confines of Brady and the NFL.

 

[primetime]

I mentioned this when the ruling came down, but the visibility of the case makes it the perfect vehicle for labor to strike a major blow at arbitration agreements. It's going to the Supreme Court.

That said, unless Clinton is elected and gets a justice through, it will just end up 4-4 and the lower court ruling will stand. And even if she does get a justice through (or if the Senate approves Garland in the lame duck session), there's no guarantee the justice will be sufficiently pro-labor and Clinton's never been much of a supporter of the working class; there's also no guarantee Garland would land on the labor side, either.

 

[luuked]

Yes. Let's just say that it sure seems like Ted Olson is calling in some favors.

He probably promised a lot of people that Tom would be a guest at their kids' birthday parties if they would write a couple words.....

I am not a legal expert but there is also the element of protecting your self-interest at stake here. Any court decision that rubber stamps this kind of fundamentally unfair reasoning by an arbitrator is a potential threat to labor law and unions. So while I am sure Olson called a few people I am not sure if it required a lot of favors...

 

[Gumby]

Great that the AFL-CIO stepped in, but I am a little disappointed that their amicus is a one-trick pony. Its a good trick mind you, but it doesnt seem to go anywhere close to the amicus page limits and doesnt Double-tap any of those other issues like prior notice or that the punishments greatly exceed established precedents/published max punishments.

Also it quotes text from gotohell or the wells report in a way that lends the reader to believe the AFL-CIO thinks the 2Dinks were guilty (See Quote below). .... whereas it could have but doesnt take advantage of the opportunity: in passing to artfully throw in the fact that IGL and uncertainty/uncontrolled measurement data make it ludicrous to attribute deflation to anything other than natural causes.

The initial discipline was based on the Commissioner’s finding that Brady was “at least generally aware of the actions of the Patriots’ employees involved in the deflation of the footballs and that it was unlikely that their actions were done without [Brady’s] knowledge.” JA329. In its appeal, the Association, therefore, contested whether the evidence relied upon by the Commissioner constituted “a legally []adequate basis upon which to impose this . . . discipline,” JA 1119, i.e., whether “general[] aware[ness]” of the wrongful actions of others is a sufficient basis for discipline under the CBA.

 

[DaBruinz]

Here is the link to the AFL-CIO Amicus Brief (15 pages)

https://cbsboston.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/brady-doc.pdf

 

[Danger Zone]

Daniel Wallach @WALLACHLEGAL
Key argument by Kenneth Feinberg: pic.twitter.com/GF1H2AZHMG

 

[QuantumMechanic]

I am not a legal expert but there is also the element of protecting your self-interest at stake here. Any court decision that rubber stamps this kind of fundamentally unfair reasoning by an arbitrator is a potential threat to labor law and unions. So while I am sure Olson called a few people I am not sure if it required a lot of favors...

Well, Feinberg says that very thing in his brief: "[Enforcement of Goodell's award] will fundamentally erode the public’s trust and confidence in arbitration"

 

[luuked]

I mentioned this when the ruling came down, but the visibility of the case makes it the perfect vehicle for labor to strike a major blow at arbitration agreements. It's going to the Supreme Court.

That said, unless Clinton is elected and gets a justice through, it will just end up 4-4 and the lower court ruling will stand. And even if she does get a justice through (or if the Senate approves Garland in the lame duck session), there's no guarantee the justice will be sufficiently pro-labor and Clinton's never been much of a supporter of the working class; there's also no guarantee Garland would land on the labor side, either.

Quite honestly if this case ends up at the Supreme Court I think it will depend on the exact language in the filings more than on who nominated which judge. If the NFLPA/Labor side of the argument won't get too greedy and try to overplay its hand and keeps it about "fundamental fairness" I think they have a reasonably good chance at winning this even there.

 

[Gumby]

I mentioned this when the ruling came down, but the visibility of the case makes it the perfect vehicle for labor to strike a major blow at arbitration agreements. It's going to the Supreme Court.

That said, unless Clinton is elected and gets a justice through, it will just end up 4-4 and the lower court ruling will stand. And even if she does get a justice through (or if the Senate approves Garland in the lame duck session), there's no guarantee the justice will be sufficiently pro-labor and Clinton's never been much of a supporter of the working class; there's also no guarantee Garland would land on the labor side, either.

It only goes to the supremes if brady loses en banc. Logically i cant see en banc being refused or brady losing. But courts dont always follow my 1+1=2 type thought process.