Niemiec v. Seattle Rainier Baseball Club, Inc.

67 F. Supp. 705 (1946)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Niemiec v. Seattle Rainier Baseball Club, Inc.

United States District Court for the Western District of Washington
67 F. Supp. 705 (1946)

Facts

Alfred J. Niemiec (plaintiff) played second base with distinction for the Seattle Rainier Baseball Club, Inc. (club) (defendant) of the Pacific Coast League (PCL) until 1942. Niemiec did not play in the 1943 through 1945 seasons because he served in the military. Upon Niemiec’s discharge from the military at the age of 35, he signed a standard contract with the club for $720 per month of the baseball season. The contract provided that, among other things, (1) the club (but not Niemiec) generally could terminate the contract at any time; (2) the club could renew the contract for the next season, which it did not have to do until shortly before the start of the next season; and (3) any salary dispute between the club and Niemiec for the next season would be resolved by a decision maker affiliated with the club. However, the contract also stated it was subject to all laws and regulations regarding military service. Niemiec played in five games in April 1946 before the club unconditionally released him on the stated ground that he was not a good enough player. Niemiec sued the club, alleging it violated the Selective Training and Service Act, which required employers to reinstate veterans to their former positions after they completed their military service and to employ them for one year. The club responded that Niemiec waived his rights under the act by signing a contract that authorized the club to terminate the contract at will and that (1) a court should not substitute its judgment for the club’s judgment regarding whether Niemiec was a good enough player to remain on the team and (2) baseball was not subject to the act by virtue of a United States Supreme Court ruling that professional baseball did not constitute interstate commerce subject to federal antitrust law.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Black, 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 816,000 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 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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 816,000 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
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 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