Goodell's filing deadline in the Vilma defamation suit is July 5 {EDIT: Reportedly, motion to dismiss filed}
I'll keep an eye out for it tomorrow. I believe the intake desk at the clerk's office closes at 5pm for hand deliveries, but most filings are done electronically on the ECF system, which allows until midnight for timely filing. Some judges even allow for filing anytime before the chambers open for business the following morning. So we could see it anytime tomorrow or even until early Friday.
We are expecting that Goodell will file a motion to dismiss Vilma's complaint pursuant to federal civil procedure rules 12(b)(1) for lack of jurisdiction and 12(b)(6) for failure to state a case on which relief may be granted.
Basically the argument Goodell will make is that federal labor law (mainly the National Labor Relations Act or NLRA) preempts the application of state tort law (e.g. defamation) in a dispute between a member of a labor unit and management that arises in the employment context, particularly when there is a CBA in place. Accordingly, there is no jurisdiction for the Court to entertain a state law defamation suit - and likewise, there is no proper claim stated.
And based on the federal labor law system, when a CBA has been agreed to by labor and management, and that CBA provides for a "no suit clause", exclusive remedies, and dispute resolution procedures, the NLRA and Supreme Court interpretations of it require that litigation be dismissed in favor of the controlling language in the CBA. In other words, allowing a defamation case arising from facts that arose in the context of employment covered by the CBA and the processes provided for in the CBA, would contradict the express terms in the CBA agreed to by the parties that there can no suit and that the procedures and remedies in the CBA are exclusive.
So it's basically a dual faceted argument: no jurisdiction for a state law claim (and hence no cognizable state law claim) and in any event, the CBA must control and it provides for no suit and exclusive remedies. All of this means that the Court must dismiss the state law action for defamation, or so the argument goes.
Of course, Vilma has counterarguments to all of this. Perhaps the most compelling is that there is nothing in the CBA that provides for or even authorizes the league to conduct a public campaign of allegations against players - and if the league chooses to do that for its own reasons (e.g. public opinion of the commitment to player safety, or a public record of supposed commitment to player safety to be used in future litigation), the league does so at its own risk of possible tort liability under state law if those allegations are made recklessly or when known to be false.
So because the defamatory action was outside of the bargained for relationship, the state's interest in protecting it's citizens from tortious actions is strong and not preempted by federal labor law and the principles that support the preemption doctrine. (It would be interesting to see if the state files an amicus brief on this very point).
But in any event, it will be interesting to see how it shakes out. Unfortunately, I think the rule is that the "tie goes to the CBA". But I think there are three possible results:
(1) no preemption because the public information campaign was outside of the CBA and therefore the case can go forward;
(2) preemption and coverage by the CBA so case must be dismissed and Vilma's sole remedies are those in the CBA; or
(3) the case could be sent by the judge to the CBA arbitrator to determine whether these activities fall within the coverage of the CBA sufficient to preclude a state law tort action (because under federal law, interpretation of the scope of a CBA is left to the CBA arbitrator when an arbitration system is in place). This could mean that if the arbitrator finds that the alleged defamation is not within the CBA's coverage, the case could return to court to continue thereafter.
After Vilma's opposition, Goodell will get a chance to file a reply - so this briefing schedule will carry through the end of the month and even further if extensions are granted. Another interesting component to all of this is that with the two cases now consolidated, Vilma's attorneys are going to push for the injunction hearing soon after service on the league. That issue will raise many of these same arguments and the injunction briefing schedule is typically much speedier.
Goodell/league could ask to roll it all into one briefing schedule after service of the suit against the NFL, but Vilma would likely respond that with the season approaching, the injunction question needs to be resolved in the next several weeks (because an injunction would allow Vilma to report to camp).
(3) the case could be sent by the judge to the CBA arbitrator to determine whether these activities fall within the coverage of the CBA sufficient to preclude a state law tort action (because under federal law, interpretation of the scope of a CBA is left to the CBA arbitrator when an arbitration system is in place). This could mean that if the arbitrator finds that the alleged defamation is not within the CBA's coverage, the case could return to court to continue thereafter.
Thanks for the breakdown. So being unbiased as possible, which result do you find most likely to happen?
It's hard to say because I think Vilma has a decent argument to make. If I had to bet, I'd bet on either outright dismissal or remand to the arbitrator for determination (options 2 and 3 above). But I really don't know, I think Vilma's position is the weaker one - but that's just an academic observation, I'm certainly no expert on this stuff, and if it were a clear case one way or the other, there wouldn't be all different results on these cases in the various decisions over the years.
It really depends on the facts/context and it's hard to predict how the judge will interpret these facts as they apply to the law.
From a strictly moral and righteous, POV - and I realize the gulf that most often exists between what is right and what is legal - I can't conceive of someone being able to drag another person's name through the mud without being called upon to prove those accusations, CBA or not. Just doesn't seem right. The onus should be on Goodell, not Vilma.
I hope that Vilma prevails if for no other reason than that.
And many thanks, once again, to superchuck500 for his info and analysis. This site is very lucky to have him here to help us understand what is going on in this very complex situation. Thanks, man.
thank you very much -
can you offer your opinion to **** vis a vis it's relative realness
a) just got
b) about to get
c) not enough evidence to ascertain relative realness
--
but really whatever happened to 'all this stuff allegedly happened before the new CBA, and thus should not be investigated/penalized?'
__________________
A: "Who doesn't watch Drew Brees break records? I watch football. You can't watch football without watching the New Orleans Saints."
Akiem Hicks
if those allegations are make recklessly or when known to be false.
This is where we non-attorneys have trouble with the law. If Goodell's comments about Vilma are false and/or were made recklessly, it is difficult to understand how a CBA supersedes basic rights not to slander or defame another person. Edit: What kooldak said.
Not only that. if I recall correctly, there is a section within the CBA that essentially prevents suits to be brought by the NFL or the NFLPA against each other. That's understandable, I suppose.
I hope it's correct that the combination of the two suits will not result in the more feasible suit to get dragged down by the less feasible suit. I don't know where we go if the suit is dismissed. If that happens, it would be a miscarriage of justice piled on top of another miscarriage of "justice" (in quotes because Goodell's actions do not constitute justice in my view).
What we want here is justice. As a union member, I don't want to see CBA's violated. But as a person, I don't want to see conditions within a CBA to trample on the right not to be defamed.
__________________
Pigs have flown. Hell has frozen over. Rickey Jackson and William Roaf made the Hall of Fame. The Saints have won the Superbowl.
From a strictly moral and righteous, POV - and I realize the gulf that most often exists between what is right and what is legal - I can't conceive of someone being able to drag another person's name through the mud without being called upon to prove those accusations, CBA or not. Just doesn't seem right. The onus should be on Goodell, not Vilma.
I hope that Vilma prevails if for no other reason than that.
And many thanks, once again, to superchuck500 for his info and analysis. This site is very lucky to have him here to help us understand what is going on in this very complex situation. Thanks, man.
Where I think some are getting crossed up is we have two different issues rolled up here. Defamation and an illegal suspension are not one and the same, though they do travel closely. The suspension is a CBA issue likely. What roger did on tv is less of a CBA issue.... Now it gets a bit messy on how to deal with them... No?
if those allegations are make recklessly or when known to be false.
This is where we non-attorneys have trouble with the law. If Goodell's comments about Vilma are false and/or were made recklessly, it is difficult to understand how a CBA supersedes basic rights not to slander or defame another person. Edit: What kooldak said.
Not only that. if I recall correctly, there is a section within the CBA that essentially prevents suits to be brought by the NFL or the NFLPA against each other. That's understandable, I suppose.
I hope it's correct that the combination of the two suits will not result in the more feasible suit to get dragged down by the less feasible suit. I don't know where we go if the suit is dismissed. If that happens, it would be a miscarriage of justice piled on top of another miscarriage of "justice" (in quotes because Goodell's actions do not constitute justice in my view).
What we want here is justice. As a union member, I don't want to see CBA's violated. But as a person, I don't want to see conditions within a CBA to trample on the right not to be defamed.
I think the best way to understand it is that it isn't that the CBA permits management to defame labor without consequence. It's that there's a whole different regime of dispute resolution for disputes that arise in the course and scope of the labor relationship when covered by a CBA with exclusive remedies that are the product of "sophisticated bargaining" - including alleged defamation. In other words, there's grievance and arbitration procedures in the CBA that are available to cover the dispute and because the parties agreed that those procedures are exclusive (i.e. "no suit"), then the court isn't going to undermine that agreed upon process where it is applicable.
Otherwise, labor (or management even) could use state tort law as a backdoor into judicial review of matters that are supposed to be exclusively within the ambit of the CBA and its "no suit" and exclusive remedy provisions.
Isn't it true that in order to determine Vilma's defamation suit, the judge would have to review the evidence and determine whether Goodell's conclusions (and statements) were supported by the evidence? From a certain perspective, isn't that a backdoor into judicial review of something that is, by law, not supposed to be in the courts?
At least, that's how the rationale goes. It doesn't preempt everything, some kinds of torts would clearly be outside of the scope of the CBA (such as battery). But defamation is a bit of a gray area - that's why Vilma's argument has some merit to it. Basically, there is nothing in the CBA that requires or authorizes a public campaign to spread allegations that result from a league investigation.
But because the investigation and discipline are clearly within the scope of the labor relationship and because the NFL is an enterprise of high public interest, is it within or outside of the scope of the labor relationship when the league issues public statements about activities clearly within the CBA? It's not entirely clear, but both sides of the argument should be understandable.
I think the best way to understand it is that it isn't that the CBA permits management to defame labor without consequence. It's that there's a whole different regime of dispute resolution for disputes that arise in the course and scope of the labor relationship when covered by a CBA with exclusive remedies that are the product of "sophisticated bargaining" - including alleged defamation. In other words, there's grievance and arbitration procedures in the CBA that are available to cover the dispute and because the parties agreed that those procedures are exclusive (i.e. "no suit"), then the court isn't going to undermine that agreed upon process where it is applicable.
Otherwise, labor (or management even) could use state tort law as a backdoor into judicial review of matters that are supposed to be exclusively within the ambit of the CBA and its "no suit" and exclusive remedy provisions.
Isn't it true that in order to determine Vilma's defamation suit, the judge would have to review the evidence and determine whether Goodell's conclusions (and statements) were supported by the evidence? From a certain perspective, isn't that a backdoor into judicial review of something that is, by law, not supposed to be in the courts?
At least, that's how the rationale goes. It doesn't preempt everything, some kinds of torts would clearly be outside of the scope of the CBA (such as battery). But defamation is a bit of a gray area - that's why Vilma's argument has some merit to it. Basically, there is nothing in the CBA that requires or authorizes a public campaign to spread allegations that result from a league investigation.
But because the investigation and discipline are clearly within the scope of the labor relationship and because the NFL is an enterprise of high public interest, is it within or outside of the scope of the labor relationship when the league issues public statements about activities clearly within the CBA? It's not entirely clear, but both sides of the argument should be understandable.
Once again, thanks for providing a clear explanation. Especially important is the information that defamation is a gray area. That gives me some hope. We're in a situation with a lot of subtlety and complexity.
__________________
Pigs have flown. Hell has frozen over. Rickey Jackson and William Roaf made the Hall of Fame. The Saints have won the Superbowl.
Chuck - A Cerullo (sp?) question. If his attorney made the NFL sign some sort of Non-Disclosure/Confidentiality clause, are there any conditions by which the courts could force "source" disclosure. Thanks and thanks for all the great legal reviews.
Chuck - A Cerullo (sp?) question. If his attorney made the NFL sign some sort of Non-Disclosure/Confidentiality clause, are there any conditions by which the courts could force "source" disclosure. Thanks and thanks for all the great legal reviews.
NDAs are not the same as legal privilege. In other words, they prevent a party from disclosing info in the normal course of life/business, but they do not prevent disclosure in legal proceedings.
Linear Mode
