On July 14, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit denied Tom Brady’s petition for a rehearing en banc. Originally, two of three judges at the Second Circuit
reinstated Brady’s four-game suspension. Brady was seeking a rehearing on the
matter. This decision marks a victory for what might one of the final legal
milestones for Deflategate. The decision by the Second Circuit is not
surprising. The Federal Court of Appeals rarely grants rehearings save for
particularly far-reaching and serious cases that implicate Constitutional
rights.
Over the past year, New Englanders became extremely
knowledgeable in the ideal gas law, the NFL’s Collective Bargain Agreement
(“CBA”), and the role of a Commissioner in pro sports. While the Deflategate
controversy is a personal subject for many of us, possibly impinging on our
personal moral principles of right and wrong, the legal issue is relatively
narrow. In simple terms, this is a dispute of the agreement the NFL players
made with the team owners. Article 46 of the CBA allows Commissioner Roger
Goodell to serve as fact-finder, judge, and arbitrator. Agree with it or not,
this is what the players agreed to several years ago. Making matters worse is
that facts determined in arbitration are beyond the scope of judicial review.
As such, most legal arguments following arbitration must be related to the
fairness of the process of arbitration, not the facts that led to case
presented for arbitration.
Therefore, Brady’s legal argument focused on Goodell
and the League’s inability to be consistent with the application of their own
rules and inadequate notice of particular rules. To prove the Commissioner is
guilty of legal wrongdoing, the party petitioning for relief must prove that
the Commission behaved arbitrarily and capriciously. Despite how Patriots fans
may feel, this legal standard is quite difficult to prove. After the finding
denying the en banc hearing, the only
legal recourse that Brady possesses is to petition the Supreme Court.
The likelihood of success here is similarly slim.
Brady will be looking for a stay of his suspension as well as a writ of
certiorari. Stays granted by the Supreme Court are rare and the average time a
decision is reached on a stay is random, taking days or months. Justice Ginsberg is the circuit justice for
the Second Circuit. Therefore, she will be the judge ruling on whether or not
Brady receives a stay. Like writs of certiorari, legal stays from the United
States Supreme Court are exceedingly rare. Brady will have to convince Justice
Ginsberg that the case deserves to be heard by the Court as a legal matter and
that he will suffer irreparable harm.
The legal road for Brady ahead is a tough one, but
not impossible. Still, it seems like Jimmy Garoppolo will be the Patriots
starting quarterback on September 11, 2016.
It is interesting to note that lawsuits relating to rule-based
consistency frequently happen in the NFL, but not other sports leagues. Unlike
the rest of the commissioners of the “Big Four” major sports leagues, Roger
Goodell is not a lawyer. In this day and age, one can wonder how much longer
the NFL can feasibly continue to run their business without an individual with
legal training and the ability to comprehend laws, rules and statutes in order
to maintain regular consistency.
Many other state agencies and private employers
operate under their own sets of rules and regulations similar to the NFL.
Insurance agencies have equally complex coding and procedures. The rules and
regulations developed by these entities can often be written in legalese that
is hard to comprehend. The lawyers at Parnell, Michels & McKay
will help guide you through whatever legal issue that you may be having. If you
are interested in any of our legal services or have questions and concerns
about issues you may have in your life, please contact us
to learn more.
No comments:
Post a Comment