On September 3, 2015, Tom Brady of New England Patriots won a big legal victory over his four-game suspension imposed by Roger Goodell.
The simplest explanation for Judge Berman’s decision is that the NFL failed to show that it applied Article 46 of the collective bargaining agreement in a fair and consistent way. Federal judges rarely vacate arbitration awards yet Judge Berman felt compelled to vacate Brady’s suspension after finding so many problems in the NFL’s application of Article 46.
First it relates to Brady’s arbitration hearing with Goodell on June 23 where Goodell denied a request by NFLPA attorneys to question NFL general counsel Jeffrey Pash and to access the league’s investigative notes. Mr. Jeffrey Pash edited the Wells Report before its release. Judge Berman regarded Goodell’s decisions on these issues as preventing Brady from enjoying a credible opportunity to make his case. If Brady can’t confront his accuser and study the evidence used to punish him, how can he effectively defend against the accuser’s accusations? Judge Berman stressed that denial of access to key witnesses can be grounds to vacate an arbitration award.
Secondly the notification given by NFL is confusing which failed to explain under which set of rules that Brady was being punished. The Wells Report used the league’s Integrity of the Game and Enforcement of Competitive Rules policy, a document not collectively bargained with the NFLPA, to find that it was “more probable than not” that Brady had “general awareness” of a football scheme supposedly hatched by two equipment assistants.
But in his testimony NFL executive vice president Troy Vincent referenced the Game-Day Operations Manual, also not collectively bargained with the NFLPA. as a crucial document in finding Brady at fault.
Judge Berman seemed perplexed as to what degree non-collectively bargained documents should be considered sources of authority to punish Brady.
Third, Brady had not received adequate notice of discipline. The steroid policy, wrote Judge Berman, “cannot reasonably be used as a comparator for Brady’s four-game suspension for alleged ball deflation by others . . . [the steroid policy sets forth procedures] none of which has anything to do with Brady’s conduct and/or his discipline.”
Fourth, there is lack of consistency in NFL discipline. In prior instances of players being implicated by equipment tampering, those players were fined, warned or not punished in any way. It was never made clear why Brady was treated differently and significantly worse.
Lastly, Goodell as arbitrator was clearly not neutral. While Article 46 permits Goodell to serve as the arbitrator for player appeals, Judge Berman noted that the “law of the shop”—which compels consistency and fairness in arbitration awards—bars Goodell from rendering a decision that may have been compromised by bias.
9月3号，新英格兰爱国者球队明星后卫Tom Brady 赢了。这回是法庭里。法官Berman取消了NFL仲裁员对他停赛4场的惩罚。
联邦法庭很少取消调解员的决定。不过这回法官发现NFL仲裁过程有很多程序问题，整个仲裁过程，使用的处罚规则，仲裁证据，标准都前后不一致，而且仲裁员Goodell 也缺乏中立。Brady 事前也没有被足够通告。这样的结果，是无法保证公平的。
