OPINION: Brooklyn Law School professor Jodi Balsam on deflategate and its expanding impact
Balsam Explores How a Decision from the Second Circuit May Signal a Turning Point in Labor-Management Relations
As the sports world awaits a decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on whether NFL quarterback Tom Brady will serve a four-game suspension for tampering with footballs, a bigger issue looms for the integrity of labor arbitration everywhere. What the Second Circuit must decide is not whether Brady is a cheater, but whether the federal district court misapplied the law requiring deference to the arbitrator of a labor-management dispute.
The Second Circuit must review de novo (anew) whether the Labor Management Relations Act requires the courts to defer to Commissioner Roger Goodell in his capacity as arbitrator of the Deflategate disciplinary proceedings. The legal standard requires only that Goodell’s decision was a “plausible interpretation” of the NFL’s Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), which empowers the commissioner to impose discipline for “conduct detrimental to the integrity of, or public confidence in, the game of professional football.” Keep in mind that the players’ union co-authored and signed onto the CBA, including the provision which appoints the commissioner as arbitrator of any disciplinary appeal.
Thus, to reinstate the Brady suspension, the Second Circuit does not have to find that Goodell’s interpretation of the Deflategate events was correct, or even sensible, but merely plausible. So put aside the disputed science over what might have caused the footballs to deflate and the contested evidence over Brady’s knowledge and involvement. Goodell is entitled to broad discretion to apply the “conduct detrimental” standard to Brady’s conduct.