Brady v. National Football League
644 F.3d 661
8th Cir.2011Background
- Nine NFL players and a prospective player sued the NFL and its clubs alleging a planned lockout would violate antitrust law and other claims after the NFLPA disclaimed its representation on the eve of contract expiry.
- The NFL sought to implement a lockout starting March 12, 2011; Players sought a preliminary injunction arguing the lockout was an unlawful group boycott and price-fixing under Sherman Act §1.
- The district court granted a preliminary injunction, determining Norris-LaGuardia Act did not apply and that the NLRA nonstatutory labor exemption did not immunize the League.
- The NFL appealed, asserting NLGA constraints, lack of primary jurisdiction, and that the injunction violated §4 of NLGA by prohibiting a lockout.
- The Eighth Circuit vacated the district court’s injunction, concluding it did not conform to NLGA requirements and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does NLGA deprive jurisdiction to issue a lockout injunction? | League: NLGA bars injunctions in labor disputes against lockouts. | Players: NLGA text/intent did not bar injunctions here; dispute existed. | Yes; NLGA §4(a) bars injunctions prohibiting a lockout. |
| Does NLGA §4(a) apply to employers, restricting injunctions against lockouts? | League: §4(a) prohibits injunctions against the lockout. | Players: §4(a) does not apply to employer actions or is misread. | §4(a) shields employers from injunctions prohibiting lockouts, as applied to this case. |
| Is the injunction valid as to non-employer actors (free agents/rookies) under NLGA §4? | League: injunction against dealing with non-employees falls under §4; must comply with §7. | Players: §4(a) waiver does not apply to non-employees; §7 compliance required. | Injunction as to non-employees cannot stand without §7 compliance; overall injunction vacated. |
| Should the case proceed under NLGA §7 procedures or otherwise? | Court granted broad relief without §7 procedural safeguards. | Proper §7 process required; hearing and evidence testing needed. | Requires §7 compliance; the district court’s order vacated pending proper proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Radovich v. NFL, 352 U.S. 445 (1957) (antitrust status of football under Sherman Act)
- Brown v. Pro Football, Inc., 518 U.S. 231 (1996) (nonstatutory labor exemption scope after bargaining)
- Duplex Printing Press Co. v. Deering, 254 U.S. 443 (1921) (Clayton Act §20 interpretation limitations)
- New Negro Alliance v. Sanitary Grocery Co., 303 U.S. 552 (1938) (NLGA labor dispute definition includes non-union entities)
- NLRB v. Washington Aluminum Co., 370 U.S. 9 (1962) (unorganized employees can trigger labor dispute under NLGA)
- Jacksonville Bulk Terminals, Inc. v. Int'l Longshoremen's Ass'n, 457 U.S. 702 (1982) (NLGA §13(c) broad labor dispute definition)
- Buffalo Forge Co. v. United Steelworkers, 428 U.S. 397 (1976) (strike cannot be enjoined; multiple NLGA principles cited)
- Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, 61 F.3d 1352 (8th Cir. 1995) (NLGA protections apply to employers in some contexts)
- H.A. Artists & Associates v. Actors' Equity Ass'n, 451 U.S. 704 (1981) (NLGA policy protecting union activity)