Brady v. National Football League
779 F. Supp. 2d 992
D. Minnesota2011Background
- Brady Plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction to stop the NFL's lockout, alleging Sherman Act antitrust violations and contract/tort claims.
- The dispute traces a long history of labor exemptions and decertification events, including Mackey v. NFL and Powell v. NFL; the NFLPA decertified and restructured multiple times.
- The NFLPA disclaimed representation on March 11, 2011, ending the formal collective bargaining relationship, with the NFL continuing the lockout thereafter.
- The SSA/CBA history and the 1993 White SSA led to re-certification and a renewed CBA, but the 2008-2011 period saw opt-outs and renewed negotiation failures.
- The Court must decide whether Norris-LaGuardia Act and primary-jurisdiction principles bar or permit injunctive relief, and whether the disclaimer is valid and effective.
- The court ultimately granted the Brady Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, mooting the Eller Plaintiffs’ motion, and enjoined the lockout.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does NL Lii Norris-LaGuardia Act preclude injunctions here? | Brady argues NL Lii Act does not strip jurisdiction or bar relief. | NFL contends NL Lii Act precludes injunctions and requires NLRB involvement. | NL LaGuardia does not preclude; injunction affirmed. |
| Is the NFLPA disclaimer valid and effective to end the labor exemption? | Brady contends disclaimer ended labor-law framework and enabled antitrust relief. | NFL argues disclaimer is sham/bad faith; not effective to end exemption. | The disclaimer is unequivocal and effective; labor framework terminated for purposes here. |
| Should the court refer the disclaimer issue to the NLRB under primary jurisdiction? | Court should reserve the issue for the Board's expertise. | Referral is appropriate and delay is justified. | Court declines referral; exercises its own jurisdiction and decides the issue. |
| Is a preliminary injunction appropriate to prevent irreparable harm from the lockout? | Players face irreparable harm due to short careers and loss of playing time. | Damages or other relief could suffice; injury not irreparable. | Yes; irreparable harm shown and balance favors grant of injunction. |
| Does the public interest support enjoining the lockout? | Antitrust enforcement and fans’ interest support relief. | Labor policy favors collective bargaining; injunction would undermine it. | Public interest favors enjoining the lockout. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. Pro Football, Inc., 518 U.S. 231 (1996) (exemption does not end at mere impasse in bargaining)
- Powell v. Nat'l Football League, 930 F.2d 1293 (8th Cir. 1989) (nonstatutory labor exemption may be invoked after impasse; not endless)
- McNeil v. Nat'l Football League, 764 F. Supp. 1351 (D. Minn. 1991) (union disclaimer can end labor relationship; decertification unnecessary)
- Jewel Tea, Local 189 Amalgamated Meat Cutters, 381 U.S. 676 (1965) (exemption depends on terms/conditions bargained under labor policy)
- Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Carpenters, 436 U.S. 180 (1978) (primary jurisdiction concept and agency expertise considerations)
- Duplex Printing Press Co. v. Deering, 254 U.S. 443 (1921) (early NLRA-related limits on injunctive relief for labor disputes)