Brady v. National Football League - Case Summary and Analysis
Verified
Added on 2023/06/10
|7
|1504
|234
AI Summary
This article provides a summary and analysis of the Brady v. National Football League case. It covers the procedural history, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, and disposition of the case. The article also includes comments and references.
Contribute Materials
Your contribution can guide someone’s learning journey. Share your
documents today.
Brady v. National Football League1 Brady v. National Football League Name Institution Date
Secure Best Marks with AI Grader
Need help grading? Try our AI Grader for instant feedback on your assignments.
Brady v. National Football League2 Brady v. National Football League Name Brady v. National Football League, 640 F.3D 785 (2011). Procedural History The district court in Minnesota issue an injunction in April 2011that was against the “lockout” and in the same month, the same court discarded the persistence of the injunction pending appeal regarding the case. On May 2, 2011, NFL made an appeal by filling an appeal notification in the district court of appeal for a stay7 of the district’s court order that was pending the appeal1. Facts The NFL) apprehended a non-statutory labor exception from the well-known Sherman Antitrust Act based on the NFL Players Association’s (NLFPA) standing as the collective bargaining agent for the players. Consequently, the National Football League plus NFL Players Association betrothed in over two years of consultations regarding their collective bargaining agreement (CBA). Thus, the NFL, as well as thirty-two other teams owned by the NFL appealed from a court injunction that was issued by the district court. This court injunction prohibited the NFL from recommencing the “lockout” versus the nine National Football League qualified players along with one potential player2. This lockout that was issued by the district court that was undertaken by the NFL was due to the cessation of the CBA amid the two parties in this case. 1Glennon, Sean. Tom Brady Vs. the NFL: The Case for Football's Greatest Quarterback. Chicago: Triumph Books, 2012.
Brady v. National Football League3 The players from NFL, who concluded the NFLPA’s position as the CBA representative just prior to filling the original injunction in April 25, 2011, asserted that the “lockout” could breach the federal antitrust laws, as well as the state agreement plus tort law. Thus, the NFL alleged that the blend of the NFLPA’s disclaimers, as well as the antitrust lawsuit was a maneuver and an illegal sedition of the CBA procedure. The NFL players alleged that since they decertified the union, their antitrust exception was no longer applicable. Consequently, the district court awarded the players’ motion of preface injunction. The players then appealed on the ground that the Norris-LaGuardia Act, 29 U.S.C§ 101(NLGA) barred the court order, limiting the capacity of courts to award orders in cases of labor conflicts3. Issue The issue in the case was the query of if the players from the National Football league decertification tactic could be adequate enough to stop lockout in addition to put the Players back to the pitch was not settled. Nonetheless, whether a lockout is an issue to antitrust lawsuit was discernible from the account as to whether anti-competitive actions launched by the NFL breach the Sherman Act, especially the first section. Holding/ Decision Yes Rule 2Howard Beck, “In Attempt to Force Talks, Players File Antitrust Suit”, The New York Times, Nov. 16, (2011). 3Glennon, Sean. Tom Brady Vs. the NFL: The Case for Football's Greatest Quarterback. Chicago: Triumph Books, 2012.
Brady v. National Football League4 A “lockout” is the custody of the employment by the company or firm from its employees in the ground of either opposing their labor demands or advancing compromise from these workers. The labor law practices in the United States founded bans a lockout of its is inspired by an effort to discourage union membership. The NFL defense to the preliminary injunction cannot be sustained in this case4. Thus, NFL’s primary line of defense, whilst intriguingly simple, was not right: the NLGA does not apply in the case where there is no organized labor activity. And in a situation where the Act is applicable to the antitrust litigation, the NLGA does preclude the issuance the issuance of permanent injunctive relief. The claims made by NFL were founded on the labor exemption along with the principal jurisdiction too flatly contradict Supreme Court besides controlling Eight Circuit precedents, which include cases where the NFL was a party and claimed positions directly contrary to those they presented in the court in this case5. Therefore, the NLGA does not apply in the case since this was not a “labor dispute”. The courts, comprising the circuit, have maintained that a “labor dispute” needs collectively organized workers engaged in “concerted labor activity”. This was not the case for the NFL players as they were not unionized. The NFL never argued a case where disputes between the employers and individual nonunionized employees fall under the provisions of NLGA. In any case, the court injunction is in accordance with the NLGA’s provisions. Reasoning 4Howard Beck, “In Attempt to Force Talks, Players File Antitrust Suit”, The New York Times, Nov. 16, (2011). 5Glennon, Sean. Tom Brady Vs. the NFL: The Case for Football's Greatest Quarterback. Chicago: Triumph Books, 2012.
Paraphrase This Document
Need a fresh take? Get an instant paraphrase of this document with our AI Paraphraser
Brady v. National Football League5 The court verdict in the case was that the NLGA was not applicable since the expression “labor dispute” implies a conflict amid the employer along with the union. This act was not relevant for the employees that are out of the union as the case of NFL. The court argued that once Players decertified their union, then the conflict amid the league along with the players stopped to be a labor conflict based on the stipulations of the NLGA. In addition, the court declined to use the non-statutory labor exception in the case since the exception is only applicable to contracts regarding compulsory subjects of CBA that does not include an organization or company lockout. In addition, the district court distinguished the case from that ofBrownon the ground that the parties involved in this case left the CBA framework in its entirety. Ultimately, the court refused to stay the act that was pending the NLRB’s decision founded on the NFL’s unjust labor practices since the delay could lead to significant harm or hardship for the plaintiffs in this case. The court demonstrated in its verdict that the intention of the Congress in passing NLGA in 1932 was to take the federal courts away from labor order issues, apart from very restricting situations6. Disposition The court in this case overruled that the employer did not violate the NLGA. The court affirmed that the employer did not violate the law since the Players’ were out of the union and the case cannot meet the threshold of the NLGA. Dissent/Concurrence 6Glennon, Sean. Tom Brady Vs. the NFL: The Case for Football's Greatest Quarterback. Chicago: Triumph Books, 2012.
Brady v. National Football League6 In the case, it was evident that there was concurrence because the law was very clear on the issue regarding labor dispute under the question7. Comment In my view, the verdict of the case was reasonable and within the confines of the law. The Norris LaGuardia Act (NLGA) was not applicable in the case since the defendant was not unionized and the claims could not have met the threshold of this law. Therefore, the employer did not violate any law as far as the case is concerned and the verdict by the court was fair and within the law8. 7Glennon, Sean. Tom Brady Vs. the NFL: The Case for Football's Greatest Quarterback. Chicago: Triumph Books, 2012. 8Oriard, Michael. Brand NFL: Making and Selling America's Favorite Sport. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2007.
Brady v. National Football League7 References Glennon, Sean.Tom Brady Vs. the NFL: The Case for Football's Greatest Quarterback. Chicago: Triumph Books, 2012. Howard Beck, “In Attempt to Force Talks, Players File Antitrust Suit”,The New York Times, Nov. 16, (2011). Oriard, Michael.Brand NFL: Making and Selling America's Favorite Sport. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2007.