New York Times article explains why Goodell may not be able to suspend Smith, Grant
The league will be working hard to get this issue fixed in the new CBA so that it can't happen again.
The problem is that the Minnesota law says that it applies even if there's a CBA. It is considered a "minimum guarantee" that all employers must follow, whether there's a CBA or not. A CBA is free to provide more guarantees, it just can't go less than the law allows.
But I totally disagree with the general premise of this article and those who act like this is so monumental a challenge to an effective drug program. All the Minnesota law said was that you can't discipline an employee for a first time failed drug test without a confirming test - even if using the same sample. How hard is that? What's the big problem that is keeping the NFL from being compliant with that? It doesn't seem that unusual or difficult to comply with.
The bigger question is, what other laws may be out there that could come into play? That question should also be easily answered. States typically don't enact crazy laws (apart from Louisiana - ha!), there are just minor differences, nuances. And, more importantly, not every state law will preempt a CBA. The NFL could somewhat easily find out where there may be local variances that it needs to comply with - and then just comply with those variances!
This is something that every other multi-state employer has to deal with (including those with CBAs) and the NFL should be no different. Compliance with local law shouldn't be such an unusual concept as the league is making it out to be. Especially given the league's choice to remain an unincorporated entity that simply is the collection of teams, which themselves are local entities and local employers.