National Football League Players Association v. National Football League Management Council

233 Cal. Rptr. 147 (1986)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

National Football League Players Association v. National Football League Management Council

California Court of Appeal
233 Cal. Rptr. 147 (1986)

Facts

In 1978, Dante Pastorini (plaintiff) signed six one-year contracts (Houston contracts) covering the 1978 through 1983 seasons to play quarterback for the Houston Oilers (Houston) of the National Football League (NFL) for a salary of $150,000 per year. Each of the Houston contracts provided that (1) Pastorini would receive his salary even if his skill or performance was unsatisfactory (guarantee clause) and (2) the guarantee clause would not affect the operation of the NFL’s waiver system. In March 1980, Houston traded Pastorini to the Oakland Raiders (Oakland) (defendant), which assumed Houston’s obligations under the Houston contracts. However, Oakland waived Pastorini in September 1981, and Pastorini signed with other teams for the 1981–1983 seasons, earning $505,000 for those years. Nevertheless, Pastorini demanded that Oakland pay him his guaranteed annual salary for the 1981 through 1983 seasons ($450,000 in total) under the Houston contracts. Oakland refused, claiming it was entitled to offset the compensation Pastorini received from the other teams against its obligation to Pastorini. The NFL Players Association (union) (plaintiff) filed a grievance against Oakland pursuant to the collective-bargaining agreement (CBA) between the union and the NFL Management Council (council) (defendant). The council and Oakland responded that Oakland was entitled to an offset based on (1) a wrongfully discharged employee’s duty to mitigate damages and (2) a purported NFL custom and policy that a released player’s guaranteed salary would be offset by any compensation the player subsequently received from another NFL team. The union and Pastorini countered that Pastorini did not have a duty to mitigate because Oakland did not wrongfully discharge him but rather waived him, as authorized by the Houston contracts, and that the NFL’s purported custom and policy was inapplicable because it concededly was not part of the CBA. The arbitrator rejected the council and Oakland’s offset arguments, ruling that NFL guaranteed salaries were subject to offset only if they expressly so provided and that the claimed NFL custom and policy was not part of the CBA and thus was inapplicable to Pastorini. When Oakland refused to pay, the union and Pastorini filed a petition against the council and Oakland (which now played in Los Angeles) for an order confirming the award, which the trial court granted. The council appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Barry-Deal, J.)

What to do next…

  1. 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 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. 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.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,500 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership