Professional Documents
Culture Documents
KATZMANN,ChiefJudge,dissenting:
requires the Commissioner to provide a player with notice of the basis for any
hearing.WhentheCommissioner,actinginhiscapacityasanarbitrator,changes
thefactualbasisforthedisciplinaryactionaftertheappealhearingconcludes,he
undermines the fair notice for which the Association bargained, deprives the
playerofanopportunitytoconfrontthecaseagainsthim,and,itfollows,exceeds
10
11
decisions.
12
Initsthoroughandthoughtfulopinion,themajoritydoesnotcontestthis
13
understanding of the CBA. Instead, it asserts that the Commissioner did not
14
change the factual basis for the discipline and, in effect, that any change was
15
harmless.Icannotagree.
16
17
18
19
and relied, instead, on an inapt analogy to the Leagues steroid policy. This
20
deficiency,especiallywhenviewedincombinationwiththeshiftingrationalefor
21
22
reflectedhisownbrandofindustrialjustice.UnitedSteelworkersofAm.v.Enter.
23
Wheel&CarCorp.,363U.S.593,597(1960).
Forthesereasons,Irespectfullydissent.
24
I.
25
Judicialreviewofanarbitrationawardcanbeboileddowntoatwostep
26
27
process.Bothinquiriesfollowfromthefundamentalpremisethatarbitrationis
28
amatterofcontract.UnitedSteelworkersofAm.v.Warrior&GulfNav.Co.,363
29
U.S.574,582(1960).Inthefirststep,thereviewingcourtaskswhetherthe
1
arbitratoractedwithinthescopeofhisauthorityundertherelevantcollective
bargainingagreement.SeeLocal1199,Drug,Hosp.&HealthCareEmp.Union,
RWDSU,AFLCIOv.BrooksDrugCo.,956F.2d22,25(2dCir.1992).Thisensures
thatapartyisnotforcedtosubmittoarbitrationanydisputewhichhehasnot
agreedsotosubmit.Warrior&GulfNav.Co.,363U.S.at582.Ifthearbitrator
actedwithinthescopeofhisauthority,thenhisdecisionisentitledtosubstantial
deference.Theawardwillbeupheldsolongasthereviewingcourtfinds,atthe
secondstep,thatthearbitralawarddrawsitsessencefromtheagreementand
doesnotreflectmerelyanexampleofthearbitratorsownbrandofjustice.
10
BrooksDrugCo.,956F.2dat25.Thisguaranteesthatthepartiesgetwhatthey
11
bargainedfor,namely,thearbitratorsconstructionoftheCBA.Enter.Wheel&
12
CarCorp.,363U.S.at599.Inmyopinion,theCommissionersdecisionfailsasto
13
bothsteps.
II.
14
15
Withregardtothefirststep,Article46oftheCBAveststheCommissioner
16
withexceptionaldiscretiontoimposedisciplineforconductdetrimental,butit
17
checksthatpowerbyallowingtheplayertochallengethatdisciplinethroughan
18
appeal.JointApp.at34546.Indecidingtheappeal,thearbitratormaydecide
19
20
21
under the CBA. But the arbitrator has no authority to base his decision on
22
misconduct different from that originally charged. When he does so, the
23
arbitratorgoesbeyondhislimitedauthority,andtheawardshouldbevacated.
24
25
believetherearesignificantdifferencesbetweenthelimitedfindingsintheWells
26
ReportandtheadditionalfindingstheCommissionermadeforthefirsttimein
27
his final written decision. The letter announcing Bradys discipline explained
28
that his actions as set forth in the [Wells Report] clearly constitute[d] conduct
29
detrimentaltotheintegrityofandpublicconfidenceinthegameofprofessional
30
Wells Report, in turn, concluded that itwasmore probable than not that Tom
McNally and [John] Jastremski involving the release of air from Patriots game
balls,JointApp.at97,andthatitwasunlikelythatMcNallyandJastremski
however, went further. It found that Brady knew about, approved of,
which, with Mr. Jastremskis support, Mr. McNally tampered with the game
10
balls.SpecialApp.at51(emphasisadded).
11
Regardless of whether the difference between the Wells Report and the
12
13
convinced that the change was material. The misconduct found in the Wells
14
15
throughthepaymentofmemorabilia,aswasfoundintheCommissionersfinal
16
decision.
17
The majority takes the view that the Wells Reports conclusions clearly
18
19
footballs. To the contrary, although the Wells Report described evidence that
20
BradyprovidedbothMcNallyandJastremskiwithgiftsandthatMcNallyjoked
21
about demanding cash and other memorabilia, it never concluded that it was
22
more probable than not that the gifts Brady provided were intended as
23
rewardsoradvancepaymentfordeflatingfootballsinviolationofLeaguerules.
24
25
26
awareness,andconsent.Fairlyread,theWellsReportdidnotputBradyon
27
noticethathewasfoundtohaveengagedinaquidproquo.1
The majority also suggests that the Association never raised this issue. Although not every detail I
mentionisfoundintheAssociationsbrief,theconcernisnotofmyownmaking.SeeBr.forAppellees
NatlFootballLeaguePlayersAssnandTomBradyat49(HopingtocompensatefortheWellsReports
limitedfindingsconcerningBradysstateofmind,Goodellpulledhisparticipat[ion]andinducement[]
1
I would also find that Brady was prejudiced by the change in the
lightofthelackofanyclearfindingintheWellsReportastothepurposeofthe
gifts,paidalmostnoattentiontoBradysgiftgivingduringtheappealhearing.
TosupportBradysargumentthathehadnorelationshipwithMcNally,counsel
fortheAssociationaskedBradyondirectexaminationwhetherheeverprovided
giftstopeoplehedidnotknow,andBradysaffirmativeresponsewasthenused
inhisposthearingbriefonlytoestablishthatsinglepoint.SeeDist.Ct.Dkt.No.
28231 at 15 (PostHearing Br. of the NFLPA and Tom Brady) (The only thing
10
linking[BradyandMcNally]isthatBradypurportedlysignedmemorabiliafor
11
McNally, but Brady testified that he naturally does not know the name of
12
everyone for whom he signs memorabilia, and even Wells found that Brady
13
neverprovidedMcNallyanyyearendgiftsorbonusesthatwouldsuggestthey
14
hadanyrelationship.).Beyondthat,thegiftsplayednoroleintheAssociations
15
challenge to Bradys discipline: the League did not ask Brady about gifts to
16
McNallyoncrossexamination,andneithersideaskedBradyaboutanygiftshe
17
providedtoJastremski.
18
19
onlythelackofnotice,notthelackofanavailableargumentoratacticaldecision
20
to focus on other issues. The Wells Report found that McNally referred to
21
himselfasthedeflatorandthreatened(perhapsjokingly)togotoESPNasfar
22
back as May 2014, but it also credited McNallys statement that Brady never
23
provided him with the same gifts doled out to other employees in the locker
24
room.2 The suggestion that McNally did not receive gifts from Brady even
language from thin air.). Indeed, the majority addresses the Associations challenge to the
Commissionersshifttoafindingofparticipation,andinmyview,theCommissionersdecisionuses
participation to refer to not only Bradys knowledge and approval of the scheme, but also his use of
inducements and rewards. The Associations failure to fully flesh out this argument is, I suspect, a
consequenceofthedistrictcourtneverhavingreachedtheissue,seeNatlFootballLeagueMgmt.Councilv.
Natl Football League Players Assn, 125 F. Supp. 3d 449, 474 (S.D.N.Y. 2015), and the majoritys decision
(withwhichIdonotquarrel)torejecttheAssociationsrequesttoremandonthisissue.
2Forexample,theWellsReportstatedthefollowingregardingtextsfromMcNallydemandingticketstoa
gamebetweentheBostonCelticsandLosAngelesLakersandnewUggsshoes:
during the period in which McNally sent suspicious text messages is further
corroboratedbyanOctober2014textmessageinwhichJastremskitoldMcNally
thatBradygivesunothing.JointApp.at101.Finally,itappearsundisputed
in the Wells Report that Brady provided gifts to other locker room attendants
who have not been implicated in the deflation (or any other) scheme. Bradys
giftgiving,inotherwords,wasnotnecessarilyindicativeofillicitbehavior.
NoneofthisistosaythattheinferencesthattheCommissionerdrewfrom
theevidencepresentedintheWellsReportconstitutedreversibleerrorontheir
own.ButtheforegoingdemonstratesthattheAssociationwouldhavebeenable
10
11
12
gifts)haditbeenannouncedpriortotheArticle46appealhearing.Takingthe
13
Commissioner at his word that he entered into the appeal process open to
14
15
discipline, Special App. at 60, I believe that, had Brady been provided an
16
17
outcome may have been different. The majoritys observation that the
18
CommissionerdidnotincreaseBradyspunishmentisbesidethepoint.Hadthe
19
20
havebeenpersuadedtodecreasethepunishmentinitiallyhandeddown.
McNally described these texts as jokes, which we think is likely the case. Specifically, on
December5,2014,theBostonCelticswereplayingtheLosAngelesLakersinBostonand
McNally had been asking Jastremski to get them tickets to a CelticsLakers game for
years. McNally said the joke was that Brady should get them courtside seats for the
game.WithregardtotheUggs,McNallysaidthataroundtheholidayseachyearBrady
givesUggsfootweartocertainPatriotsstaffmembers,butthatMcNallyhasneverreceived
them. He explained that his message was a humorous response to a news report on
BradysdistributionofUggsin2014.
JointApp.at183(emphasisadded).
Accordingly,IwouldfindthattheCommissionerexceededhisauthority,
toBradysdetriment,byrestingBradysdisciplineonfactualfindingsnotmade
intheWellsReport.3
III.
IwouldalsofindthattheCommissionersdecisionfailsatthesecondstep
of our analysis because it does not draw its essence from the CBA. It must be
Precisely because of the severity of the penalty, one would have expected the
10
11
12
13
written decision when resolving an Article 46 appeal. That process is all the
14
more important when the disciplinary action is novel and the Commissioners
15
reasoningis,ashere,farfromobvious.
16
Yet, the Commissioner failed to even mention, let alone explain, a highly
17
18
punishment.TheLeagueprohibitstheuseofstickum,asubstancethatenhances
19
aplayersgrip.UnderacollectivelybargainedforScheduleofFines,aviolation
20
21
circumstances.Giventhatboththeuseofstickumandthedeflationoffootballs
22
involveattemptsatimprovingonesgripandevadingtherefereesenforcement
The Commissioners rationale also shifted insofar as he relied on new evidence regarding Bradys
destructionofhiscellphonetofindthatBradywillfullyobstructedWellssinvestigation.SpecialApp.
at 54. The majority persuasively demonstrates, however, that Brady anticipated this change and
challengeditatthehearingandinhisposthearingbrief.Thus,IagreethattheCommissionersreliance
onthisnewevidencedoesnotprovideagroundtovacatethesuspension.Cf.DufercoIntlSteelTradingv.
T. Klaveness Shipping A/S, 333 F.3d 383, 390 (2d Cir. 2003) (We will, of course, not vacate an arbitral
awardforanerroneousapplicationofthelawifaproperapplicationoflawwouldhaveyieldedthesame
result.).
of the rules,4 this would seem a natural starting point for assessing Bradys
affects the integrity of the competition and can give a team an unfair
advantage,JointApp.at384(LeaguePoliciesforPlayers)isnearlyidenticalto
deflationthatitreflectsanimproperefforttosecureacompetitiveadvantage
in,andthreatenstheintegrityof,thegame,SpecialApp.at57.5
penaltyentirely.ThisoversightleavesanoticeablevoidintheCommissioners
10
decision,6andinmyopinion,thevoidisindicativeoftheawardsoverallfailure
11
to draw its essence from the CBA. Even taking into account the special
12
13
14
deflatedfootballarguablyaffectseveryplay,andthatBradyfailedtocooperate
15
16
Commissionerthoughttheappropriatepenaltywasafourgamesuspensionand
17
the attendant fourgame loss of pay, which, in Bradys case, is far more than
Just as the referees check the inflation level of the footballs before the start of the game, they check
playersforstickumpriortothegameandpriortothebeginningofthesecondhalf.JointApp.at384.
5AlthoughtheCommissionerreasonedthatsteroidusealsohasthesameadverseeffectsontheLeague,
the fact that numerous infractions may be said to compromise the integrity of the game and reflect an
attempt to gain a competitive advantage serves only to render more problematic the Commissioners
selectionofwhatappearstobetheharshestpotentialcomparatorwithoutanymeaningfulexplanation.
This is especially true since, for the reasons stated by the district court, the Commissioners analogy to
steroid use is flawed. See Natl Football League Mgmt. Council, 125 F. Supp. 3d at 465. In short, the
Commissioners reliance on the Leagues steroid policy seems to me to be nothing more than mere
noisesofcontractinterpretationtowhichwedonotordinarilydefer.InreMarinePollutionServ.,Inc.,
857F.2d91,94(2dCir.1988)(quotingEthylCorp.v.UnitedSteelworkers,768F.2d180,187(7thCir.1985)).
6 The omission is all the more troubling since the Association raised this point during the arbitration
proceedings. See Dist. Ct. Dkt. No. 28231at 9 (PostHearing Br.of the NFLPA and Tom Brady) (The
PlayerPoliciesfurtherillustratethedisparatenatureofanyplayersuspensionforanallegedcompetitive
infraction, let alone for just being generally aware of one. They identify player punishments for
equipment violations that affect[] the integrity of the competition and can give a team an unfair
advantagesuchasputtingstickumonreceivergloves...andsubjectfirsttimeplayeroffenderstoa
fineof$8,268foraspecifiedviolation.).
written decision convinces me that the Commissioner was doling out his own
brand of industrial justice. Cf. Burns Intl Sec. Servs., Inc. v. Intl Union, United
PlantGuardWorkersofAm.(UPGWA)&ItsLocal537,47F.3d14,17(2dCir.1995)
([I]f a ground for the arbitrators decision can be inferred fromthe facts of the
case,theawardshouldbeconfirmed.(quotingSobelv.Hertz,Warner&Co.,469
F.2d1211,1216(2dCir.1972))(emphasisadded).Inthisregard,itbearsnoting
thattheScheduleofFinesprovidesthataplayercaughtviolatingtheprohibition
onstickumasecondtimeistobefined$16,537.Thus,evenwhereaggravating
10
circumstances exist, the Schedule of Fines does not provide for the extreme
11
increaseinpenaltythattheCommissionerfoundappropriatehere.7
12
Insum,theCommissionersfailuretodiscussthepenaltyforviolationsof
13
theprohibitiononstickum,theCommissionersstrainedrelianceonthepenalty
14
for violations of the Leagues steroid policy, and the Commissioners shifting
15
rationaleforBradysdiscipline,together,leavemewiththefirmconvictionthat
16
hisdecisioninthearbitrationappealwasbasednotonhisinterpretationofthe
17
CBA,butonhisownbrandofindustrialjustice.Enter.Wheel&CarCorp.,363
18
U.S.at597.
IV.
19
20
TheCommissionersauthorityis,asthemajorityemphasizes,broad.Butit
21
isnotlimitless,anditsboundariesaredefinedbytheCBA.Here,theCBAgrants
22
ThemajorityagaingivesmetoomuchcreditinstatingthattheAssociationdidnotraisethisargument.
IreadtheAssociationsbrieftomaketwoargumentswithrespecttoalternativepenalties.Thefirstisthat
the Player Policies, and in particular the Other Uniform/Equipment Violations provision, governed
Bradysmisconducthereandnecessitatesthathereceivenomorethanafine.Iagreewiththemajority
that this has no merit. The second, however, is that the Commissioners failure to discuss certain
probative termsin particular, the Other Uniform/Equipment Violations provision and the stickum
prohibition(obviously,Ifindonlythelatteractuallyprobative)reflectsthattheCommissionerwasnot
actuallyconstruingtheCBA,theonlylimitationimposedonanarbitratoractingwithinthescopeofhis
authority.And,asthemajorityacknowledges,insupportofthatargument,theAssociationcontendsthat
the Commissioners CBA defiance is only underscored by his reliance on the Steroid Policy. Br. for
AppelleesNatlFootballLeaguePlayersAssnandTomBradyat45.
7
appeals, that is, whether the initial disciplinary decision was erroneous. The
Brady could be suspended for four games based on misconduct found for the
first time in the Commissioners decision. This breach of the limits on the
under such circumstances neither enforces the intent of the parties nor furthers
thefederalpolicythatfederalcourtsshouldenforce[arbitration]agreements...
andthatindustrialpeacecanbebestobtainedonlyinthatway.TextileWorkers
10
UnionofAm.v.LincolnMillsofAla.,353U.S.448,455(1957).
11
IendwhereIbegan.TheArticle46appealsprocessisdesignedtoprovide
12
13
14
explanationofBradysdisciplineundercutstheprotectionsforwhichtheNFLPA
15
bargainedonBradys,andothers,behalf.Itisironicthataprocessdesignedto
16
ensurefairnesstoallplayershasbeenusedunfairlyagainstoneplayer.
Irespectfullydissent.
17