National Football League Management Council v. National Football League Players Ass'n
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 7404
| 2d Cir. | 2016Background
- During the 2015 AFC Championship Game multiple Patriots game balls were measured below the allowed inflation range; an independent Paul, Weiss investigation (the Wells Report) concluded it was "more probable than not" that equipment personnel deflated Patriots balls and that Brady was at least "generally aware."
- NFL Commissioner Goodell (acting under Article 46 of the CBA) suspended Tom Brady for four games for "conduct detrimental" and for willfully obstructing the investigation after evidence emerged that Brady had destroyed a relevant cell phone.
- Brady (through the NFLPA) appealed under Article 46; Goodell served as the arbitrator, held a hearing with testimony and exhibits, and issued a written decision affirming the four-game suspension and drawing an adverse inference from the phone destruction.
- The NFL sought confirmation of the award; the NFLPA sought vacatur. The district court vacated the award, finding lack of notice (punishment inconsistent with Player Policies) and fundamental unfairness (denial of certain testimony and investigative notes).
- The Second Circuit majority reversed, applying highly deferential LMRA arbitration review: it held the Commissioner acted within his broad Article 46 authority, Brady had adequate notice, and procedural rulings did not violate fundamental fairness.
- Chief Judge Katzmann dissented, arguing Goodell exceeded his Article 46 role by changing the factual basis of discipline post-hearing, failing to consider a closer comparator penalty (stickum), and effectively dispensing his own brand of industrial justice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether arbitrator exceeded authority by imposing suspension under Article 46 despite Player Policies that prescribe fines for equipment violations | NFLPA: Player Policies limited notice to fines; Commissioner could not escalate to suspension | NFL: Article 46 broadly authorizes discipline for "conduct detrimental," and Schedule of Fines lists minimums and allows other discipline including suspension | Held for NFL: Article 46 plausibly authorizes suspension; Player Policies do not preclude suspension and fines are minimums |
| Whether Commissioner deprived Brady of adequate notice by relying on findings beyond the Wells Report (e.g., inducements/rewards) | NFLPA: Commissioner shifted factual basis post-hearing—finding of "participation" and inducements exceeded Wells Report and denied notice | NFL: Commissioner could reassess during the Article 46 hearing; Wells Report did not limit the scope of evidence the arbitrator could consider | Held for NFL: Commissioner’s reassessment was within discretion and Brady had notice of the factual predicates; no improper surprise |
| Whether the exclusion of testimony (Jeff Pash) and denial of Paul, Weiss internal notes violated fundamental fairness and warrants vacatur | NFLPA: Denial of potentially material testimony and investigative files prevented a fair hearing | NFL: Procedural evidentiary rulings are within arbitrator’s discretion; Commissioner received substantial testimony and the CBA does not require work-product production | Held for NFL: No fundamental unfairness; exclusion was within arbitral discretion and did not require vacatur |
| Whether evident partiality or improper delegation (Commissioner sitting as arbitrator in contest of his own discipline) required recusal or vacatur | NFLPA: Commissioner should not adjudicate the propriety of his own conduct or delegation to Vincent; decision was tainted | NFL: Parties bargained for Commissioner to serve as arbitrator under Article 46; known stake does not equal disqualifying partiality | Held for NFL: No clear-and-convincing evidence of evident partiality; parties agreed Commissioner could preside |
Key Cases Cited
- United Paperworkers Int’l Union v. Misco, 484 U.S. 29 (arbitrator must be "even arguably" construing the contract)
- United Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., 363 U.S. 574 (collective bargaining agreements as codes and arbitration policy)
- Major League Baseball Players Ass’n v. Garvey, 532 U.S. 504 (very limited judicial review of labor arbitration awards)
- Oxford Health Plans LLC v. Sutter, 569 U.S. 564 (courts should not review the merits of an arbitrator’s statutory or contractual interpretation)
- United Steelworkers v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp., 363 U.S. 593 (award must draw its essence from the agreement; not an arbitrator’s own brand of justice)
- Volt Information Sciences, Inc. v. Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior Univ., 489 U.S. 468 (arbitrators' procedural discretion and limited evidentiary rules)
- Wackenhut Corp. v. Amalgamated Local 515, 126 F.3d 29 (2d Cir.) (arbitrator acting within scope of authority survives judicial challenge)