NFLPA Files Collusion Lawsuit Against NFL, Owners

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Okay - I think it comes down to a balancing of two legal concepts: (1) settlements are settlements; versus (2) bad faith can't triumph.

The procedural background: In the early 90's Reggie White and the NFLPA sue the NFL and the 32 clubs (the "Defendants") in order to become a free agent. Long story short, in 1993, the Defendants settle the suit and, as part of that settlement agreement, agrees to institute a free agency system through negotiations with the NFLPA. As a result, each CBA agreement is incorporated into the terms of the 1993 Settlement and is considered an amendment of that Settlement.

Each Sides Arguments: The NFLPA is now asserting that the owners actions in 2010 were collusive and constituted a breach of the 1993 Settlement as it was amended by the 2006 CBA. As such, they are asking the Court that presided over the 1993 settlement to reopen the case for the specific purpose of determining awarding damages for the alleged breach.

Based on the NFL's attorney's statements, the NFL will counter that the 1993 Settlement was amended again in 2011 and, as part of that amendment and as a precondition for it, the NFLPA specifically waived any claims for collusion - whether known or unknown to the NFLPA. As such, even if collusion occurred in breach of the 2006 Amendment, the NFLPA waived their rights to sue for such breaches in the 2011 Amendment.

My Off The Cuff, Free Of Charge To Fellow Warpathers Analysis: As I said at the beginning, two legal concepts appear to be in conflict. On one hand you have the principle that "settlement are meant to settle" versus the age old "liars never prosper".

The phrase "forego all claims known or unknown" is common in settlements and is meant to prohibit folks from coming back and nitpicking a settlement. People enter into settlements in order to resolve their differences and finally put an end to matters. One of the benefits of a settlement is that it is just what its name implies - a settlement so that parties can move on and not worry about old issues being constantly trotted out over and over again. Accordingly, courts tend to put the burden on those trying to reopen settlements and, usually, saying "gosh jeepers, I didnt realize all of the results" is not justification for reopening an agreed upon settlement. If you didn't do your due diligence or didn't fully realize the ramifications of your actions, well, too bad, so sad for you - should've thunk of that before signing your John Hancock.

ON THE OTHER HAND - and believe it or not - the law does not like liars. Operating in bad faith and working to deprive a party of facts and knowledge generally has ramifications. Settlements are contract negotions and, implicit in all such negotions, is the duty of good faith. Contracts entered into in bad faith will not be enforceable by the party exercising bad faith.

IN THIS CASE - the question to me seems to be, when settling collusion claims shouldn't you expect that the alleged collusion involved secrecy and, as such, by giving up your rights to allege collusion aren't you giving up your right to assert that the collusive parties acted secretly? Or is the underlying lie in this case beyond the pale of reasonable expectations and, as such, something the NFLPA could not be deemed to reasonably have waived.

I really don't know how the court will read the waiver - it is dependent on the governing law and the specific facts. I have no doubt that is where the lawyers who make the big bucks will be generating their fees.

Disclaimer: All of the above is stream of conscience written analysis based on reading the complaint, no legal research, working only from memory, about 10 minutes of analytical thought and minimalist editing.

Thanks for this - interesting reading. That seems to be the first hurdle. The second is whether they have any reasonable proof to show there was a secret number of $123m. The third is whether blog posts after the fact constitute valid evidence of an illegal conspiracy.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

Thanks for this - interesting reading. That seems to be the first hurdle. The second is whether they have any reasonable proof to show there was a secret number of $123m. The third is whether blog posts after the fact constitute valid evidence of an illegal conspiracy.

If the NFLPA gets past this first hurdle, they get to dig for the necessary proof. At this stage, the players do not need to prove the specific number. Also, despite the additional fluff from the bloggers, the quotes from Mara, Goodell and McCaskey show an agreement of some type existed during the uncapped year and that it was intended to limit player contracts in some fashion.

Again, unless the waiver is applicable, the NFLPA is going to get ask Mr. Mara all about the "one-year loop hole" and ask Mr. Goodell to fully explain what rules he was talking about when he said “[T]he rules were articulated. . . . [T]he rules were quite clear.”

I, for one, hope the NFL loses the waiver argument. I would love to be a fly on the wall for Mr. Mara's deposition.

[Dirtbag59]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

If the NFLPA gets past this first hurdle, they get to dig for the necessary proof. At this stage, the players do not need to prove the specific number. Also, despite the additional fluff from the bloggers, the quotes from Mara, Goodell and McCaskey show an agreement of some type existed during the uncapped year and that it was intended to limit player contracts in some fashion.

Again, unless the waiver is applicable, the NFLPA is going to get ask Mr. Mara all about the "one-year loop hole" and ask Mr. Goodell to fully explain what rules he was talking about when he said “[T]he rules were articulated. . . . [T]he rules were quite clear.”

I, for one, hope the NFL loses the waiver argument. I would love to be a fly on the wall for Mr. Mara's deposition.

If an agreement is illegal (as would be the case with collusion) wouldn't any agreement meant to prevent the NFLPA from suing be irrelevant?

For example in this case:

NFL spokesman Greg Aiello responded to the players' claims with a comment: "The filing of these claims is prohibited by the collective bargaining agreement and separately by an agreement signed by the players' attorneys last August.

IE would the clause in the CBA preventing the NFLPA from filing suit be irrelevant in the case of the NFL Owners breaking the law as it's my limited understanding that the law is above any such clause

[JoeRedskin]

@ Dirtbag - The NFLPA is not alleging that the collusion is criminal or prohibited by some statute (at least not in their complaint) and, thus, illegal. Rather they are saying the collusion violated the terms of the Settlement Agreement between the NFL and the NFLPA and the implied covenant of good faith. I don't know if there is a statutory prohibition but, since it's a very, very strong legal position, I would have expected to see it in the complaint if it existed.

While the collusion may have been in violation of the 2006 Agreement, I don't see anything to indicate it was in violation of a statute.

@SBXVII - The quote you cite seems to be pretty strong indication that Judge Doty did not accept a stipulation about "unknown claims". If so, he may have been recognizing the principle that courts won't sanction through adoption a party's bad faith dealings. Do you have a cite to the article from which you got it? In addition to the stipulation, however, there is supposedly a separate waiver by the NFLPA. I suspect, however, if the judge doesn't recognize one waiver, he won't recognize another.

[Giantone]

Just a question for Joe or Hoop,I thought the NFLPA waived their right to sue in the recent CBA?

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Giantone

Just a question for Joe or Hoop,I thought the NFLPA waived their right to sue in the recent CBA?

Well, that is the crux of the issue - did they or didn't they. See my earlier post or read the article cited by SS which <ahem> says essentially what my earlier post does.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Well, that is the crux of the issue - did they or didn't they. See my earlier post or read the article cited by SS which <ahem> says essentially what my earlier post does.

I'll defer to JoeRedskin on this one. His input is clearly more valuable than any guesses I could offer here.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

@ Dirtbag - The NFLPA is not alleging that the collusion is criminal or prohibited by some statute (at least not in their complaint) and, thus, illegal. Rather they are saying the collusion violated the terms of the Settlement Agreement between the NFL and the NFLPA and the implied covenant of good faith. I don't know if there is a statutory prohibition but, since it's a very, very strong legal position, I would have expected to see it in the complaint if it existed.

While the collusion may have been in violation of the 2006 Agreement, I don't see anything to indicate it was in violation of a statute.

@SBXVII - The quote you cite seems to be pretty strong indication that Judge Doty did not accept a stipulation about "unknown claims". If so, he may have been recognizing the principle that courts won't sanction through adoptio
n a party's bad faith dealings. Do you have a cite to the article from which you got it? In addition to the stipulation, however, there is supposedly a separate waiver by the NFLPA. I suspect, however, if the judge doesn't recognize one waiver, he won't recognize another.

Basically I went to the NFL.com's site and found it finally there. I can't post the link right now it can later.