From our private database of 34,000+ case briefs...
National Football League Players Association v. National Football League
United States District Court for the District of Minnesota
2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23843 (2015)
The players in the National Football League (NFL) (defendant) had a collective-bargaining agreement (CBA) with the NFL. Under the CBA, the commissioner could discipline players for detrimental conduct as defined in the NFL’s personal-conduct policy. Players were entitled to a noticed hearing and an appeal for any imposed discipline. In May 2014, Minnesota Vikings running back Adrian Peterson inflicted corporal punishment on his son. The policy in effect at the time (the old policy) provided for a range of possible disciplinary measures depending on various factors, with first-time domestic-violence offenders normally facing a maximum suspension of two games. In late August 2014, following a well-publicized domestic-violence incident involving Baltimore Ravens running back Ray Rice, the commissioner changed the personal-conduct policy. Under the new policy, a first-time domestic-violence offense carried a consequence of a six-game suspension without pay and the potential for a longer suspension. Subsequently, Peterson was convicted of misdemeanor reckless assault. The NFL notified Peterson of a disciplinary hearing. The National Football League Players Association (NFLPA) (plaintiff) responded to the NFL on Peterson’s behalf with questions about the hearing process. The NFL did not reply and proceeded to conduct the hearing without Peterson. Explicitly applying the new policy, the commissioner suspended Peterson for “at least” the remainder of the season without pay and ordered counseling. Peterson had already missed eight games by being placed on an exemption list. The NFLPA appealed the commissioner’s decision, submitting for arbitration the issues of whether the commissioner impermissibly applied the new policy to Peterson, the fairness of the disciplinary process, whether imposition of counseling was allowed, and whether Peterson had already been disciplined by missing eight games. The arbitrator upheld the commissioner’s discipline in its entirety, despite the commissioner’s concession that the new policy could not be retroactively applied to Peterson’s conduct. In district court, the NFLPA filed a petition to vacate the arbitration award.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Doty, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 607,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 607,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 34,000 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.