US District Judge Vacates NFL’s 4 Game Suspension of Patriot’s Quarterback Tom Brady

Yesterday, a US District Court Judge vacated the NFL’s 4 game suspension of New England Patriot’s quarterback Tom Brady and in so doing repudiated the decision of NFL Commissioner Rodger Goddell who many believe is the most powerful individual in all of professional sports.

In vacating Brady’s 4 game suspension, the Court ruled that Brady’s suspension was “premised upon several significant legal deficiencies” noting that an arbitrator’s factual findings are generally not open to judicial challenge.

The Court found that Brady had no notice he could receive a four-game suspension for general awareness of ball deflation by others or participation in any scheme to deflate footballs and for not cooperating with the NFL investigation.  The Court held:

“During the August 19, 2015 oral argument, it became apparent that no specific determination was made either in the Vincent’s Disciplinary Decision Letter or the Goodell Award as to what portion of Brady’s discipline was attributable to alleged ball tampering and what discipline was attributable to non-cooperation (and, for that matter, what discipline was attributable to the destruction of Brady’s phone) …

The Court finds that Brady had no notice that he could receive a four-game suspension for general awareness of ball deflation by others or participation in any scheme to deflate footballs, and non-cooperation with the ensuing Investigation. Brady also had no notice that his discipline would be the equivalent of the discipline imposed upon a player who used performance enhancing drugs”.

As for what the NFL called Brady’s “general awareness” of any misconduct, the District Judge held:

“With respect to “general awareness” of others’ misconduct — which is the principal finding in both the Wells Report and the Vincent Letter — Brady had no notice that such conduct was prohibited, or any reasonable certainty of potential discipline stemming from such conduct. The Court concludes that, as a matter of law, no NFL policy or precedent notifies players that they may be disciplined (much less suspended) for general awareness of misconduct by others. And, it does not appear that the NFL has ever, prior to this case, sought to punish players for such an alleged violation”.

The league’s use of the “conduct detrimental” standard for punishing players also came under scrutiny by the District Court which found that there was no specific finding of such conduct in the NFL’s investigation as there had been in two prior instances.

“Goodell’s reliance on notice of broad CBA “conduct detrimental” policy- as opposed to specific Player Policies regarding equipment violations- to impose discipline upon Brady is legally misplaced. In both the Ray Rice case and the Adrian Peterson case, the players could, perhaps, be said to appreciate that acts of domestic violence might be deemed “conduct detrimental.” And yet, in both of these cases, the players were disciplined only after findings were made under the specific domestic violence policy . . .”

Finally, the Court also observed that Brady was also denied substantive due process including the right to confront and cross examine witnesses in that he and his legal team were refused equal access to the NFL’s investigative files, witness interview notes and that Brady didn’t have an opportunity to examine one of two lead investigators.

The decision demonstrates the well settled legal principle that there are limits on the power and authority of arbitrators even in collective bargaining agreements and upholds the right of employees to due process and the imposes on all parties a duty of good faith.  It remains to be seen whether other players recently subjected to discipline by the NFL will use the decision as grounds for appealing their own cases but in the view of this writer the owners, who believed they were accountable to no one, now know that they are at a minimum accountable to the rule of law – and a Federal District Court Judge.  By 3 p.m. the NFL made good on its promise to appeal the District Court’s decision despite the consensus of legal opinion being that an appeal by the NFL to the Second Circuit has little or no chance of success on the merits.

Read the full text of the Court’s opinion here:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2329817-national-football-league-management-counsel-.v.html