1. Why did the court reject the trial court’s conclusions?
2. What standard should a court apply in deciding whether to vacate a labor arbitration award?
3. The union contract permits the League’s commissioner to serve as sole arbitrator in a disciplinary suspension appeal. Could this impact the impartiality of the arbitration? Why would the players’ union agree to that provision in its contract with the League?
On January 18, 2015, the New England Patriots and the Indianapolis Colts played in the American Football Conference Championship Game at the Patriots’ home stadium to determine which team would advance to Super Bowl XLIX. During the game, officials from the National Football League (League) were prompted by a complaint from a Colts player to test all of the game balls for inflation level. Of 11 balls used by the Patriots, all 11 were under inflated and measured below the acceptable range established by League rules. Of the 4 balls used by the Colts, each tested within the permissible range. The League retained a law firm to investigate the events culmi-nating in a 139-page report concluding that it was more probable than not that two Patriots equipment assistants were responsible for deflating the Patriots, game balls after the balls were examined by the referee.
The report also concluded that Patriots quarter-back Tom Brady had been at least generally aware of the deflation, and that it was unlikely that an equipment assistant would deflate game balls with-out Brady’s knowledge and approval. As a result of the report, the League notified Brady of his four game suspension under the League’s rules pursuant to its union contract governing players. Brady, through his union, appealed the suspension and asserted his union contract rights to an arbitration hearing. After ten hours of testimony including a revelation that Brady had ordered his assistant to destroy the cellphone that he had been using since early November 2014, a period that included the AFC Championship Game and the initial weeks of the subsequent investigation, Brady’s suspension was upheld by the arbitrator. On appeal, a federal trial court vacated the decision on the basis that Brady had not been provided adequate notice that the suspension was within the League’s range of punishments. The League appealed.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the trial court’s decision, ruled in favor of the League, and instructed the lower court to con-firm the arbitration award. The court held that Brady had not met the high standard required for courts to vacate arbitration awards. This was particularly true when the arbitration was held pursuant to a union contract. The court rejected the trial court’s conclusions about improper notice to Brady because it was outside the proper scope of a court’s review in labor arbitration cases.
“The basic principle driving both our analysis and our conclusion is well established: a federal court’s review of labor arbitration awards is narrowly circumscribed and highly deferential—indeed, among the most deferential in the law. Our role is not to determine for ourselves whether Brady participated in a scheme to deflate footballs or whether the suspension imposed by the [League] should have been for three games or five games or none at all. Nor is it our role to second-guess the arbitrator’s procedural rulings. Our obligation is limited to determining whether the arbitration proceedings and award met the minimum legal standards . . . These standards do not require perfection in arbitration awards. Rather, they dictate that even if an arbitrator makes mistakes of fact or law, we may not disturb an award so long as he acted within the bounds of his bargained-for authority.”
