Professional Documents
Culture Documents
v.
National Football League and
National Football League
Management Council,
Respondents.
BACKGROUND
This arbitration dispute arises out of the discipline imposed
by NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell on Minnesota Vikings running back
Adrian Peterson following Petersons corporal punishment of his son
in May 2014.
I.
parties
relationship
is
governed
by
the
Collective
NFLPA Ex. 1.
46
allows
disciplinary
decision
Commissioner.
player
to
to
appeal
hearing
the
officer
appointed
by
the
revised
periodically,
sets
forth
constitutes
conduct
See id.
Ex. 2.
what
offense,
including
domestic
violence.
Id.
at
1.
Consistent with the Player Contract, the Policy also stated that
discipline may include fines, suspension, or banishment from the
league.
Id. at 2.
Id.
Id. Ex. 3.
Id. at 3; see
Schmitt Decl.
Id.
The
NFL acknowledged Petersons plea and advised him that the matter
warrants review for potential disciplinary action under the Personal
Conduct Policy.
Id. Ex. 5, at 1.
Id.
Id. at 2.
questions regarding the agenda and process for the proposed hearing.
See id. Ex. 7.
Id.
Id.
Id. at
Id.
The NFL
A number of those
the remainder of the 2014 season, fined him six weeks pay,
inclusive of any amounts forfeited during the suspension, and
ordered him to participate in a counseling and treatment program,
the results of which would dictate when and if Peterson would be
permitted to return to the league.
Id. at 3.
chosen
therapist.
Id.
at
2-3.
The
Commissioner
Id. at 4.
Id.
Peterson that he would remain on the Exempt List with pay pending
any appeal.
Id.
Id. at 1.
The Arbitration
The NFLPA immediately appealed the discipline, triggering the
The
occurring
before
its
implementation,
as
well
as
the
Peterson
from
participating
7
in
pre-disciplinary
As to the issue of
that
the
New
Policy
was
consistent
with
its
prior
iterations and that the discipline imposed fits either or both, and
one need not pick one or the other to conclude it was entirely fair
and consistent.
Id. at 5.
discipline imposed was greater than in previous cases under the old
Policy, but reasoned that the egregious facts justified harsher
punishment.
Id.
Id. at 5-6.
In rejecting the argument that Peterson was denied a fair predisciplinary process, Henderson determined that Peterson did not
have a right to be heard before the Commissioner imposed discipline,
despite such prior practice.
Id. at 6.
Id. at 8.
Id.
other than to say that the Commissioner has the discretion to order
counseling
or
other
treatment
deemed
appropriate
by
health
professionals.
Id. at 5.
DISCUSSION
I.
Standard of Review
For purposes of this case, the standard of review under the
Commcn Conference, Intl Bhd. Of Teamsters & Local Union No. 77-P,
729 F.3d 839, 841 (8th Cir. 2013).
v. Intl Bhd. of Elec. Workers, Local No. 53, 751 F.3d 898, 901 (8th
Cir. 2014).
10
essence from the agreement, such that the arbitrator imposed his
own brand of industrial justice.
901.
Petition to Vacate
The NFLPA argues that vacatur is warranted because (1) the
award violates the essence of the CBA; (2) Henderson exceeded his
authority by deciding the matter based on the hypothetical question
of whether Petersons punishment was permissible under the old
Policy; (3) the award was fundamentally unfair given the retroactive
application of the New Policy and the procedural irregularities in
the pre-discipline process; and (4) Henderson was an evidently
partial arbitrator.
A.
Bureau of Engraving,
Inc. v. Graphic Commcns Intl Union, Local 1B, 164 F.3d 427, 429
(8th Cir. 1999).
its express provisions, but also from the industrial common law.
Id.
industry and the shop, i.e., the law of the shop, and the parties
negotiating history and other extrinsic evidence of intent.
Id.;
that Henderson, after a careful review of the Policy and the New
Policy, correctly determined that
12
It is also
101:12-13,
two
99:21-100:15.
Yet,
just
weeks
later,
the
Henderson
fails to draw its essence from the CBA and vacatur is warranted.
See Trailways Lines, Inc. v. Trailways, Inc. Joint Council, 807 F.2d
1416, 1423 (8th Cir. 1986) (finding that failure to consider the law
of the shop can be the sole basis to vacate an arbitration award).5
B.
Exceeded Authority
the
hypothetical
question
of
whether
Petersons
The NFL
The
the pure legal issue of whether the New Policy could be applied
retroactively.
4.
And thats
why we came out last month and said: were going to make changes to
our policies.
Local 238
of
the
issue
to
the
arbitrator
to
determine
his
Food & Commercial Workers, 913 F.2d 544, 561 (8th Cir. 1990)
(internal quotation and citation omitted).
15
his authority.
well.
Because the court finds that the arbitration award must be
vacated on the grounds set forth above, it need not decide whether
Henderson was evidently partial or whether the award violates
fundamental fairness.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.
granted; and
2.
The
case
is
remanded
for
such
further
proceedings
16