- Joined
- Oct 10, 2006
- Messages
- 76,883
- Reaction score
- 66,866
The defense makes 3 arguments:
- Preemption under LMRA
- Barred by CBA (this is the personal/professional divide)
- Inadequate pleadings
"Vilma’s claims for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress have to be evaluated through the lens of what the CBA allows Goodell to do. Reece, 79 F.3d at 487‐88.
A defamation claim cannot survive a motion to dismiss when it arises out of an arbitration involving discipline. Bagby v. General Motors Corp., 976 F.2d 919, 921 (5th Cir. 1992); Weber v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 2001 WL 274518, at *7 (E.D. La. 2001) (noting that defamation claims are typically preempted when the claim is about the employee’s conduct in a disciplinary action under a collective bargaining agreement or when the alleged conduct occurred in the context of an arbitration proceeding)..."
"... Here, even according to the plaintiff’s own Complaint, the defamation claims are directly related to Goodellʹs decision to suspend, that is, discipline Vilma, pursuant to the CBA arbitration procedure. Moreover, the defamation claims and the claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress would require interpretation of multiple portions of the CBA, not just the non‐suit provision in CBA Art. 3, section 2, as Vilma contends. As set forth hereinabove, for example, the CBA authorizes Goodell to suspenda player for what he considers ʺconduct detrimentalʺ and also authorizes him to investigate actions that he suspects constitute ʺconduct detrimental.ʺ Vilma’s argument that the statements were made in Goodellʹs individual capacity is unpersuasive as Goodell was sued as Commissioner of the NFL and all of the statements attributed to Goodell were made in connection with the NFLʹs investigation of the pay-per‐performance/bounty allegations. Therefore, Vilma’s claims are preempted and must be dismissed."
Last edited:
