731 F.3d 752
8th Cir.2013Background
- NFL players and retired players sued the NFL and teams in MN federal court over antitrust and related claims after a 2011 lockout and bargaining impasse.
- Active players settled Brady suit and reconstituted the NFLPA as their bargaining agent, leading to a new CBA with about $900 million in increased benefits for retirees.
- Retired players (Eller I/II) alleged the NFLPA and Brady plaintiffs improperly negotiated retiree benefits and excluded retirees from negotiations.
- Eller I plaintiffs dismissed their claims; Eller II brought Minnesota-law claims for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage.
- District court dismissed Eller II claims; this court reviews de novo and affirms dismissal based on lack of plausible interference and lack of reasonable expectation.
- Panel holds that retirees could not independently secure a better contractual deal; the Brady settlement and 2011 CBA were protected by the nonstatutory labor/antitrust exemption and retirees lacked standing to bargain as a separate unit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether retirees had a reasonable expectation of a separate contractual relation with the NFL. | Eller II alleges retirees would have negotiated directly for greater retiree benefits. | NFLPA and Brady settlement were protected by the labor exemption; retirees lacked standing to bargain separately. | No plausible reasonable expectation; retirees could not secure independent contractual relief. |
| Whether defendants improperly interfered with retirees’ prospective economic advantage. | Defendants negotiated retiree benefits without authorization to favor active players. | Active players bargained under the permissible competitor’s privilege; retirees are not protected as a bargaining unit. | No improper interference; privilege and labor exemption foreclose claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. Pro Football, Inc., 518 U.S. 231 (1996) (nonstatutory exemption applies to collective bargaining among employers to implement last-best offer)
- Connell Constr. Co. v. Plumbers & Steamfitters Local Union No. 100, 421 U.S. 616 (1975) (nonstatutory exemption favors bona fide bargaining agreements)
- Mackey v. NFL, 543 F.2d 606 (8th Cir.1976) (exemption limited to bona fide arm's-length bargaining on mandatory subjects)
- Allied Chem. & Alkali Workers v. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co., 404 U.S. 157 (1971) (labor exemptions, negotiating over pension/retiree rights recognized)
- White v. NFL, 836 F.Supp. 1458 (D.Minn.1993) (district court acknowledged NFLPA’s lawful role in financing and settlement)
- Brady v. NFL, 644 F.3d 661 (8th Cir.2011) (summary of labor/antitrust exemption history in Brady context)
- United Wild Rice, Inc. v. Nelson, 313 N.W.2d 628 (Minn.1982) (explicit discussion of Restatement § 768 privilege for competitors)
- Holschen v. Int’l Union of Painters & Allied Trades/Painters Dist. Council #2, 598 F.3d 454 (8th Cir.2010) (reasonableness standard for prospective economic advantage)