OT: Supreme Court says Flores vs. NFL should be heard in court, not by arbitrator

[upstater1]

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/48881804/supreme-court-intervene-brian-flores-suit-vs-nfl

This just reaffirms that the New York appellate court that overturned the judge in the Brady vs. NFL case, a court that did not bother to even read the lawsuit, was wrong.

The NFL cannot act as its own judge and jury.

 

[Mike the Brit]

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/48881804/supreme-court-intervene-brian-flores-suit-vs-nfl

This just reaffirms that the New York appellate court that overturned the judge in the Brady vs. NFL case, a court that did not bother to even read the lawsuit, was wrong.

The NFL cannot act as its own judge and jury.

No, I don't think so.

As I recall, the jurisprudence that allowed Goodell to do what he wanted, however unjust, is pretty robustly anchored in U.S. law (for instance, in Garvey vs MLB Players Association).

The crucial point in the Second Circuit’s eventual ruling against Brady was essentially: Roger Goodell had almost unlimited discretion as arbitrator under the CBA. The Second Circuit emphasized that courts cannot “second-guess” the arbitrator on the merits. The question was only whether the arbitration process crossed the minimal legal thresholds required under federal labor law.

In this case, the courts decided that some of Flores' dispute, as a coach, was not covered by an arbitration agreement with the NFL, unlike Brady's as a player. So it could be taken to court.

 

[Thelonious]

I haven't followed this matter because I despise lawsuits and, as a rule, the lawyers perpetrate them. What in summary does Flores assert to be the basis of his suit, or is the basis mere avarice or some sort of ideologically-ratified hustle?

 

[upstater1]

No, I don't think so.

As I recall, the jurisprudence that allowed Goodell to do what he wanted, however unjust, is pretty robustly anchored in U.S. law (for instance, in Garvey vs MLB Players Association).

The crucial point in the Second Circuit’s eventual ruling against Brady was essentially: Roger Goodell had almost unlimited discretion as arbitrator under the CBA. The Second Circuit emphasized that courts cannot “second-guess” the arbitrator on the merits. The question was only whether the arbitration process crossed the minimal legal thresholds required under federal labor law.

In this case, the courts decided that some of Flores' dispute, as a coach, was not covered by an arbitration agreement with the NFL, unlike Brady's as a player. So it could be taken to court.

It wasn't so cut and dry.

We read lots of articles in the ensuing days as to why the Appellate court was in error.

 

[XLIX]

The initial ruling, as upheld by the appeals court, basically states that any arbitration presided over by Roger Goodell is no arbitration at all. Sure seems to me that the same logic applies to the Brady case. Fact is 4 federal judges ruled on Brady's case; 2 for Brady and 2 for the NFL. Brady losing that decision was as much the luck of the draw as anything else.

Excerpt from the Flores ruling below:

The Second Circuit concluded that Flores’ agreement to submit his claims to the discretion of the designated arbitrator, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, provides for arbitration in name only and, accordingly, lacks the protection of the FAA. Second Cir. Op. The agreement is, therefore, unenforceable because it fails to guarantee that Flores can “vindicate [his] statutory cause of action in [an] arbitral forum.”
The NFL’s unilateral control over the dispute resolution process is the fatal flaw.

 

[BTTA]

It wasn't so cut and dry.

We read lots of articles in the ensuing days as to why the Appellate court was in error.

Yes there were many articles. Most of them were uninformed speculative echo chamber drivel. The weren't a measure of the cost cases.

 

[UGAPatsfan]

Part of me hopes Flores buries the owners. Waaaay too much unilateral power that few other industries enjoy

 

[upstater1]

Yes there were many articles. Most of them were uninformed speculative echo chamber drivel. The weren't a measure of the cost cases.

No. Wrong. One of them was by someone who frequently advocates in front of the Supreme Court. Specifically, I'm talking about the ramifications for labor law where companies in the past tried to install the very same thing the NFL had and they applied it in bad faith. The I can remember from back then specifically cited the NFL case as one that pushed against settled cases in labor law and which would have a very negative impact on collective bargaining in the future.

 

[BTTA]

No. Wrong. One of them was by someone who frequently advocates in front of the Supreme Court. Specifically, I'm talking about the ramifications for labor law where companies in the past tried to install the very same thing the NFL had and they applied it in bad faith. The I can remember from back then specifically cited the NFL case as one that pushed against settled cases in labor law and which would have a very negative impact on collective bargaining in the future.

When you say "one of them" in response to "most of them" you make the case for me. And when you start with "no" and "wrong" you make if clear you've no interest in a worthwhile conversation.

In all that the point you make about the virtue in a narrative penned by a single lawyer gets lost.