Palace Arena Football and Arena Football League Players Association
National Labor Relations Board
2003 NLRB LEXIS 190 (2003)
- Written by Steven Pacht, JD
Facts
In November 2000, Antoine Worthman signed a three-year contract to play for the Detroit Fury (club) of the Arena Football League (AFL), which was owned by Palace Arena Football, LLC (Palace) (defendant). Worthman was a player representative for the club to the AFL Players Association (union). In mid-November 2001, Worthman told Jay Gruden, an executive for another team, that Worthman’s teammate Kelvin Kinney wanted to be paid more money than he was receiving from the club and that Kinney might be available for acquisition by Gruden’s team. Gruden then told Darrel Morris, the club’s coach, that Worthman had said that Kinney was available. Incensed, Morris left a voicemail message telling Worthman that he was considering cutting Worthman for discussing Kinney’s availability with Gruden. Later that day, Morris expressed his anger at Worthman over the telephone. During that conversation, Worthman mentioned that he had advised some teammates to look at the union’s website and had provided teammates with information about the club’s salary-cap status. In early December, after acquiring another player who played Worthman’s position, the club cut Worthman. The General Counsel (GC) (plaintiff) of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) filed a complaint against Palace with the NLRB, arguing that Palace threatened to cut Worthman and then did cut him because he engaged in union activity, in violation of §§ 8(a)(3) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act. Palace responded that the club cut Worthman because (1) it found better players at his position and (2) Worthman acted disloyally by discussing Kinney’s possible availability with Gruden. Palace also denied cutting Worthman based on his union-related activity. Specifically, Morris testified that he was not bothered by the union-related activity Worthman revealed on their telephone call.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning ()
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 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.