Tom Brady, NFLPA Granted 14-Day Extension To File Motion For Rehearing By Second Circuit Court

PatsFanSince74 said:

For every lawyer billing over $1,000 an hour, there are dozens chasing ambulances or trying to get enough wills and mortgage closings to make ends meet or completely unemployed.

Click to expand...

+1. It's not a lucrative job for a great many of the people who practice. Long hours and in many cases job insecurity.

OK legal people....now that we know for sure he's filing...is there a time frame for them to respond?

Olson gives a SCOTUS case that directly contradicts the rationale provided by the judges who sided with the majority in the NFL's 2-1 decision.


It concluded that “[n]othing in [the CBA] limits the authority of the arbitrator to . . . reassess the factual basis for a suspension.” Slip op. 20. That holding conflicts with Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds International Corp., 559 U.S. 662, 684 (2010), which holds that an arbitrator’s authority depends on an affirmative grant of authority by the parties—not, as the panel majority held, the agreement’s “silence” or an absence of express limits on the arbitrator’s power.

Olson also does something I don't think we've really seen.... he does a good job explaining the far-reaching consequences of this decisions. As much as we ridicule the idea of this being in federal court (and potentially the Supreme Court), it is a very important case. From the brief:



The panel decision will harm not just NFL players, but all unionized workers who have bargained for appeal rights as a protection—not as an opportunity for management to salvage a deficient disciplinary action by conjuring up new grounds for the punishment.
The panel decision will also harm management by freeing labor arbitrators from collectively-bargained limitations on their authority, enabling them to dole out their own brand of industrial justice.

Rusty Griswold said:

May I ask what exactly what the difference is?

Click to expand...

one you hand over something to change their opinion.. the other you have there back no matter what

XLIX said:

Olson gives a SCOTUS case that directly contradicts the rationale provided by the judges who sided with the majority in the NFL's 2-1 decision.


It concluded that “[n]othing in [the CBA] limits the authority of the arbitrator to . . . reassess the factual basis for a suspension.” Slip op. 20. That holding conflicts with Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds International Corp., 559 U.S. 662, 684 (2010), which holds that an arbitrator’s authority depends on an affirmative grant of authority by the parties—not, as the panel majority held, the agreement’s “silence” or an absence of express limits on the arbitrator’s power.

Click to expand...

Can anyone who speaks Lawyer translate that into English for us common folk?

I've read through this. I'm not a legal expert so I don't know how strong the language is compared to usual filings. But essentially -- Olson's filing does everything short of calling Parker and Chin idiots.

As XLIX quotes above, their appeal is based on 2 items that they believe Parker and Chin misinterpreted:

1) the ability of Goodell to change the basis of discipline as time went on. That's the Supreme Court decision that XLIX quotes above, and is extremely compelling to this layman.

2) the fact that Parker and Chin themselves decided that the Schedule of Equipment violations is inapplicable. They cite the 8th Circuit, which explicitly says that if a schedule like this exists, the arbitrator must at least acknowledge why it doesn't apply and that it's the arbitrator's decision to decide if it applies or not. The 8th Circuit overturned a decision explicitly because the arbitrator failed to acknowledge that the alternative didn't apply; and the 8th Circuit said that if the arbitrator did that, the Circuit would had to have upheld even if they disagreed on the arbitrator's rationale. And this means the Court themselves cannot interpret it. This is a different Circuit so this argument isn't as fundamentally solid as the 1st one, but is extremely compelling to me.

ivanvamp said:

Can anyone who speaks Lawyer translate that into English for us common folk?

Click to expand...

He is saying goondell can't change the basis for his own ruling

ivanvamp said:

Can anyone who speaks Lawyer translate that into English for us common folk?

Click to expand...

Parker and Chin said that the CBA doesn't forbid the arbitrator from expanding on the rationale for discipline, so therefore it's allowable. The Supreme Court above says that if the contract doesn't permit it, the arbitrator isn't allowed to expand on the rationale for discipline.

Olson is pretty much telling the majority opinion judges how wrong they were, and he certainly doesn't mince words! (Emphasis mine)

The majority noted that the CBA allows a “hearing” before an arbitrator, and stated that it would be “incoherent” to “insist that no new findings or conclusions” could be based on the expanded hearing record. Slip op. 20. This is an egregious misstatement of labor law.

I don't understand any of this legal mumbo jumbo but this makes it sound like there's a plan going forward :

Dan Werly ‏@WerlySportsLaw 4m4 minutes ago Augusta, GA
Brady argues that 2nd Circuit conflicts w/ the Supreme Ct & 8th Cir, which would also be basis for SCOTUS petition:

I think Olson's strongest argument is how far Goodell, as arbitrator, deviated from the Collectively Bargained penalty schedule for offenses. He mentioned the penalty schedule for equipment violations and the penalty schedule for steroids.

Under the panel majority’s misguided approach, an arbitrator is now free to ignore critical provisions of a CBA reflecting collectively-bargained penalties. This holding will create great uncertainty in labor arbitrations, as employers and employees alike reasonably assume and anticipate that an arbitrator will use a collectively bargained penalty schedule in determining the appropriate sanction in a particular case—or at least explain why he believes the penalty schedule is inapplicable.

ivanvamp said:

Can anyone who speaks Lawyer translate that into English for us common folk?

Click to expand...

Olson is saying:

"The 2 judges concluded that Goodell the arbitrator can change the basis for punishment because there is nothing in the CBA that says he can't, but that's a load of crap because this here court ruling says he can only do that if the CBA specifically says he can."

Put another way....

Basically the 2 judges said "Goodell, as arbitrator, can do anything he wants unless the CBA specifically says he can't." Olson responds: "According to such and such case precedent, the CBA has to specifically give permission for an arbitrator to do what Goodell did."

ANGR89 said:

OK legal people....now that we know for sure he's filing...is there a time frame for them to respond?

Click to expand...

I've heard, but am not certain, that it typically takes 4--6 weeks to decide whether to grant the review.

AtomicDawg said:

Click to expand...

What I still have never had an answer on :

If the 2nd circuit rejects this and they file to the USSC - assume the USSC rejects hearing it, how long does it take for that rejection to take ? Assuming the suspension would be stayed while they decide, would that get us through this season ?

It's really scary that a no nothing jackass like Goodell could set precedent for the entire country to be under threat of being rail roaded at any time.

ivanvamp said:

Can anyone who speaks Lawyer translate that into English for us common folk?

Click to expand...

It means Garoppolo starts week one.

Hammer of Thor said:

I've read through this. I'm not a legal expert so I don't know how strong the language is compared to usual filings. But essentially -- Olson's filing does everything short of calling Parker and Chin idiots.

Click to expand...

LOL!

IANAL so it is not like I have tons of experience reading federal appeals court briefs, but I was taken aback by how strongly worded some of it was.

Hammer of Thor said:

Apparently the appeal is out there -- someone got a hold of a draft copy (or it's been actually filed). Can find it through here:
Brady appeals Second Circuit court's ruling that reinstated his suspension

Click to expand...

Well, once it's filed it is a public document and anyone with a PACER account get get a copy. (BTW, anyone can get a PACER account -- you don't need to be a lawyer or media or anything).