Judge Hears N.F.L. Arguments to Dismiss Head Trauma Cases
Source: NYT
The two legal teams, the one for the N.F.L. and the one for the retired players suing the league for negligence and fraud, were stacked with top talent, including litigators who have argued in front of the Supreme Court.
But in a twist, the N.F.L., the $9.5 billion league that often gets its way, appeared to have a tougher time of it on Tuesday.
In Federal District Court here, the league had five lawyers who argued that the case should be dismissed because the players agreed to a collective bargaining agreement and therefore an arbitrator, not a judge, should hear their cases.
On the other side of the aisle, packed into a steamy courtroom and an overflowing gallery, were dozens of lawyers representing the more than 4,000 former players and their wives who claim that the league knew about the long-term dangers of head trauma but hid them.
Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/10/sports/football/judge-hears-nfl-arguments-to-dismiss-head-trauma-cases.html
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)<snip>
The five words are the title of a decision made in the higher court that governs the Philadelphia judge who is presiding over a concussion lawsuit filed by more than 4,000 retired NFL players. The Kline v. Security Guards, Inc., decision is nothing but bad news for the NFL.
<snip>
Facing an enormous potential liability, the league denies any concealment and insists that any dispute between the players and the league over injuries is covered by the collective bargaining agreements between the players and the owners and therefore must be resolved in private arbitrations. If the league is right, the dispute will be resolved with severely limited public disclosure and any payments to players will be significantly less than what would be awarded in jury trials.
U.S. District Judge Anita Brody ordered the hearing on Tuesday to test the league's claim that the disputes belonged in arbitration. The league's lawyers were relying on a legal doctrine known as "pre-emption," which provides that disputes between unionized workers and their employers are legally required to be submitted to arbitrators. The idea is that what would normally be a courtroom dispute is pre-empted by the collective bargaining agreement and must be submitted only to arbitration.
<snip>
ike the players in the NFL, the security guards in the Kline case were unionized. The collective bargaining agreement established all of the details of wages, hours and working conditions. And, like NFL players, the security guards accused their employers of fraud and concealment. In the case of the security guards, it was concealment of cameras and microphones that were installed to spy on the guards at their duty stations.
http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/9152465/judge-focus-security-guards-case-indicate-trouble-nfl-concussion-lawsuit
angstlessk
(11,862 posts)What they want to make millions and NOT take risks?
because of the large amount of money some players make--which by the way is a small percentage of what the product that they create generates--the don't deserve to have some kind of safety standards?
*edited to insert a forgotten word*
angstlessk
(11,862 posts)and let the players make their millions...it should be the OWNERS to pay the price...
Javaman
(62,442 posts)and most only have a 4 year window for professional play.
I say, the NFL needs to pay and pay dearly.