Man sues NFL for $50 million for discrimination against non-Seattle fans

[SB39]

I think this is a verrrrrrrrrrrry interesting case. The Seattle Seahawks wanted a home-town crowd for the NFCCG so they essentially wouldn't sell to people outside their home market. They are not the first team to do such a thing, but now someone is taking them (and the league) to court.

I don't think his damages are worth $50 million, but it's clear that discrimination took place. "Discrimination" is such a evil word in today's society, so it is worth noting that they weren't discriminating against him based on gender or ethnicity or religion. They were essentially discriminating against people who lived outside a certain region.

I honestly don't know what the law says or if you can discriminate against people based on the region of the country in which they live. Although, according to the article, he is claiming he had "$40 million in real damages" so I would like to see how he calculated that.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/1...sues-nfl-50m-seattle-seahawks-playoff-tickets

 

[Kontradiction]

You sure can discriminate against people that live in a certain region. Look at some of the **** people in the south get. I've seen people in the political forum basically infer that they wouldn't mind if Florida broke off of the U.S. and fell into the Atlantic. Same with California.

 

[jah]

You sure can discriminate against people that live in a certain region. Look at some of the **** people in the south get. I've seen people in the political forum basically infer that they wouldn't mind if Florida broke off of the U.S. and fell into the Atlantic. Same with California.

Inflammatory forum posts aren't quite the same thing as refusing to exchange goods and services with someone.

 

[dales804]

Didn't Denver restrict sales to the AFCCG to Colorado residents or typical Denver fan locations as well? I believe Massachusetts residents were excluded from purchasing tickets, if I remember correctly.

 

[Kontradiction]

Inflammatory forum posts aren't quite the same thing as refusing to exchange goods and services with someone.

Not at all. And I never made that case. Just showing a way you can discriminate against a group of people based on the region they reside in.

 

[37Harrison]

Seems like another frivoulous case as with the Jest fan against NE back in 2007.

They are not discriminating against any type of person, rather simply restricting their sales to a certain region of the country. Now if they wouldn't sell to an admitted Denver fan who lived in Seattle, that would be a different matter altogether.

 

[SB39]

Didn't Denver restrict sales to the AFCCG to Colorado residents or typical Denver fan locations as well? I believe Massachusetts residents were excluded from purchasing tickets, if I remember correctly.

I think you're correct. I know I've seen this before from other teams besides Seattle.

 

[IcyPatriot]

Here's the case:

http://media.bonnint.net/seattle/12/1225/122591.pdf

specifically From page 5 of the suit #29 ...

RCW 19.86 et. seq. and public accommodation which refers to a public enterprise that opens its doors to the public, is paid for with public taxes, but is precluding others in the public from 'trading' - spending money to purchase a ticket.

I'm no lawyer ... and researching 19.86 seems to be a time consuming endeavor so perhaps we have some lawyers here who can weigh in ... the public stadium part does seem to make the suit interesting. I think his damage amounts far exceed what is allowed under 19.86 ... but then again ... I'm not investing more time in this as i am sure a lawyer can do it better.

Personally ... it does not seem right to restrict ticket sales for a public facility.
Bob Kraft could do it ... he owns the joint.

 

[Mike the Brit]

I'm not a lawyer or a U.S. citizen, but, as I understand it, the Civil Rights legislation was introduced to override the rights of individuals to engage in economic exchanges with whom they wanted (which was how segregation was effectively maintained). The Civil Rights Act forbade discrimination on the specific grounds of "race, color, religion, sex, or national origin" in the specific cases of employment and housing. I can't see how that could possibly be extended to not selling a ticket to someone from a particular geographical location. (Asking for legal information -- not wanting to start a political discussion.)

 

[CelticPatriot]

Sueing is stupid, but they shouldn't be allowed to do what they do, "away" fans should be given tickets, restrict the amount they got, but they should still be allowed to go

 

[patchick]

If you think about it, you constantly see offers of products and services limited by geographic area. E.g. "offer not valid in..." statements based on how favorable local laws are, or simply "Home delivery available within a 25 mile radius only." Or how about the special events at Gillette that are open to Foxboro residents?

 

[Gwedd]

I'm not a lawyer or a U.S. citizen, but, as I understand it, the Civil Rights legislation was introduced to override the rights of individuals to engage in economic exchanges with whom they wanted (which was how segregation was effectively maintained). The Civil Rights Act forbade discrimination on the specific grounds of "race, color, religion, sex, or national origin" in the specific cases of employment and housing. I can't see how that could possibly be extended to not selling a ticket to someone from a particular geographical location. (Asking for legal information -- not wanting to start a political discussion.)

This is essentially correct. I'm not a lawyer, nor am I giving legal advice. I am only stating my own opinion(s). having said that, and having owned and ran my own businesses as well as a couple 501c3 non-profit corporations, You are correct in the main. The Civil Rights Act was intended to preclude discrimination based upon those things over which a person has no control (such as ethnicity, gender) or which are recognized as protected expressions/acts under the Constitution, such as religion, political affiliation, etc.

However, courts have routinely accepted the defense of many businesses that they have the right to refuse service to anyone. In this case, I believe that the court will side with Seattle and against the plaintiff (though one can never be certain in our current bizzaro world) since the Seahawks based their discrimination on a self-selected class of individuals (IE: non-Seahawks fans) who ultimately were not precluded from viewing the game in other forums/formats. Besides, possession of a ticket did not guarantee actually viewing the game, as any number of events might still preclude attendance. Flights could be delayed, hotels full, transportation be unavailable, etc.

Personally, I think it was a stupid idea to NOT sell to opponent's fans, and probably equally stupid (if not more so) to file a lawsuit like this.

In reality, (a place I try hard not to spend too much time in) this guy is probably trolling for a big win in the redneck lottery. That's where you sue someone and make a big fuss about it in the papers, on TV, etc, in the hopes of gaining an out-of-court settlement by the team. Of course, his lawyer will end up getting a big piece of that, taxes will eat up more, and in any event the Seahawks would be stupid to settle as that sets precedent and could open the door for other actions.

 

[Mike the Brit]

In reality, (a place I try hard not to spend too much time in)

That was the bit of your post I enjoyed most! Yes, why else would we be discussing this on a Sunday evening?

I had a quick look at what IcyPatriot refers to (I think s/he added it when the post was edited). The line seems to be that the Seahawks fall within a particular definition of "public" and that they are therefore disqualified from placing any kind of restrictions on consumers. Both parts sound pretty precarious to me.

 

[Gwedd]

That was the bit of your post I enjoyed most! Yes, why else would we be discussing this on a Sunday evening?

Yeah. Outside of a pub I have no life. Sigh.

But Yeah. I wish i was over to old Blightey. I miss the real pubs, and the regulars therein. But I'll get back there soon enough.

 

[PatsDeb]

Here's the case:

http://media.bonnint.net/seattle/12/1225/122591.pdf

specifically From page 5 of the suit #29 ...



I'm no lawyer ... and researching 19.86 seems to be a time consuming endeavor so perhaps we have some lawyers here who can weigh in ... the public stadium part does seem to make the suit interesting. I think his damage amounts far exceed what is allowed under 19.86 ... but then again ... I'm not investing more time in this as i am sure a lawyer can do it better.

Personally ... it does not seem right to restrict ticket sales for a public facility.
Bob Kraft could do it ... he owns the joint.

I'm a lawyer. I predict the suit will be dismissed the first chance a judge gets. That's because the team will probably come in with some stats showing that you could buy tickets with a little ingenuity, like going on stubhub, so there was no actual harm. Courts hate wastes of time like this...

 

[PatsDeb]

I'm not a lawyer or a U.S. citizen, but, as I understand it, the Civil Rights legislation was introduced to override the rights of individuals to engage in economic exchanges with whom they wanted (which was how segregation was effectively maintained). The Civil Rights Act forbade discrimination on the specific grounds of "race, color, religion, sex, or national origin" in the specific cases of employment and housing. I can't see how that could possibly be extended to not selling a ticket to someone from a particular geographical location. (Asking for legal information -- not wanting to start a political discussion.)

Correct. Joe Shmoe from San Francisco is not a member of a protected class, so if the suit is based on a violation of someone's civil rights, it is going nowhere.

 

[Joker]

well....no one better violate MY uncivil rights or there....could....be...trouble

 

[Mike the Brit]

Yeah. Outside of a pub I have no life. Sigh.

But Yeah. I wish i was over to old Blightey. I miss the real pubs, and the regulars therein. But I'll get back there soon enough.

OT:

Seriously, come on over! I'm going to be in the UK from July for (probably) a year and a bit (back to following football over the internet ). I'd be very happy to buy you a pint. There are still some great pubs with excellent beer, although the old "regulars" have mostly dropped away, at least in the cities and in the south of England.

 

[RelocatedPatFan]

It would seem if the building is paid for with taxes, then the people of that region (who support said taxes) should potentially have the right of first refusal for the tickets. That being said, how could you not sell out a home playoff game? Heck even Jacksonville could sell out for a home playoff game.

Common Sense should take over when the laws are so convoluted to support frivolous claims.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

OT:

Seriously, come on over! I'm going to be in the UK from July for (probably) a year and a bit (back to following football over the internet ). I'd be very happy to buy you a pint. There are still some great pubs with excellent beer, although the old "regulars" have mostly dropped away, at least in the cities and in the south of England.

Gwedd is under drinking age. The FBI would like to speak with you for soliciting young men.