Welcome! Log In Create A New Profile

Advanced

Fully Vax'd OL Coach Carberry tests positive for COVID-19: Rules?

Anonymous User
July 29, 2021 03:49PM
NFL’s New Financial Penalties for COVID-19 May Spark Legal Debate

Michael McCann
Mon, July 26, 2021, 2:57 PM·7 min read


The NFL’s COVID-19 rules for 2021 have sparked player objections that could become grounds for legal challenges. It’s also raising a question among some players: Is the players’ union advocating for members’ interests—health and otherwise—or too readily going along with NFL owners’ wishes?

Last Friday, the NFL distributed its “2021 Covid-Related Operating Principles” to teams. Those “principles” sent two unmistakable messages: (1) Teams must ensure their players and staff are vaccinated for the infectious disease; and (2) players who refuse the vaccine could financially hurt their teammates and players on rival teams.

The memo indicates that if a game is canceled on account of an outbreak and not rescheduled during the 18-week schedule, the team deemed responsible for the cancellation will be assigned a loss.

The memo also expresses that players on both teams in a cancellation/not-rescheduled scenario would not be paid.

The NFLPA signaled it accepts these provisions. The players’ association sent an email to union members reminding them that “the same basic rules [which the NFL and NFLPA negotiated] applied last year.”

However, the memo acknowledged there is a “difference this year” reflecting “the NFL’s decision to impose additional penalties on clubs which are responsible for the outbreak and the availability of proven vaccines.”

The league, furthermore, has expressed an unwillingness to add an extra week to the season for make-up games. It’s not clear if the NFLPA gained any benefits in exchange for these changes or how an unvaccinated player thought to be responsible for a paycheck-forfeiting outbreak would be treated by teammates.

Teams have already begun to visually segregate unvaccinated players by making them wear yellow wristbands, while vaccinated players wear red.

Separately, the league and NFLPA have agreed that unvaccinated players can be fined $14,650 for attending an indoor nightclub or otherwise violating gathering and travel protocols.

Players can also be fined up to $50,000 for refusing to cooperate or knowingly providing misleading information during a contact-tracing interview.

NFL efforts to ensure that COVID-19 not disrupt the 2021 season are understandable. The league, which played the entire 256-game 2020 season, and franchise owners would lose opportunities to make money if games were canceled.

Less obviously, the league has legal obligations to ensure a safe workplace. NFL teams could be sued by employees for negligence, premises liability and misrepresentation should they permit dangerous conditions.

Players who sue would face the potential legal hurdle of claims being preempted by the CBA. However, such claims aren’t unprecedented. Former Tampa Bay Buc Lawrence Tynes, represented by attorney Brad Sohn, negotiated a settlement with his team after a methicillin-resistant Staph infection ended his NFL career in 2013.

NFL teams must also be aware of potential oversight by government agencies. While the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) hasn’t historically regulated the NFL, some have urged that to happen.

The NFL also enjoys vast legal authority over its franchises, with the contractual blessing of the owners. In its memo, the league noted that “every club is obligated under the [NFL] Constitution” to make sure the team is “ready to play at the scheduled time and place. A failure to do so is deemed conduct detrimental.”

To that point, the constitution repeatedly states the commissioner has complete authority to determine conduct detrimental, and his decision is “final, conclusive and unappealable.”

As a result, NFL teams are obligated to ensure their own employees follow league rules. Minnesota Vikings assistant coach Rick Dennison and New England Patriots assistant coach Cole Popovich leaving their jobs, reportedly over a vaccine mandate, illustrates this point.

League authority is different, and more constrained, in regard to players, who are members of a union. To that end, the NFLPA’s acceptance of the 2021 season COVID-19 rules is legally crucial.

When a league unilaterally imposes rules that impact players’ wages, hours and other work conditions—such as health policies—players can challenge those rules under federal antitrust and other areas of law. But when those same rules are accepted by the players’ association, courts will generally leave them alone.

But “generally” isn’t “always.” Leagues and players’ associations can’t, for instance, collectively bargain around protections found in the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

This was apparent in 2006, when former Dallas Mavericks big man Roy Tarpley successfully argued that, even though the applicable CBA banned him from the NBA on account of failed drug and alcohol tests, the ADA protects alcoholics and drug addicts from discrimination (provided they aren’t currently abusing).

In that same vein, it’s uncertain how the NFL and its teams might compel players to reveal if they’ve been vaccinated. As a condition of employment, players sign a standard authorization form (Appendix S), which authorizes the release of medical records, including those for disease.
This release could be seen as obligating the player to acknowledge if a vaccination had occurred, though the CBA also permits players to revoke this authorization by written request.

Teams are well within their rights to ask players about vaccinations. But if a team tried to compel a healthcare provider to reveal a player’s vaccination status without the player’s consent, the healthcare provider could run afoul of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.

If a player refuses to reveal his vaccination status and is later punished for his reticence, the player could argue his privacy rights were violated. The U.S. Supreme Court, in Detroit Edison Co. v. NLRB, held that a bargained right to information can’t betray a union member’s legitimate interest in confidentiality.

Of the players who have publicly denounced the new COVID-19 rules, New England Patriots safety Matthew Judon’s comments are the most telling. Judon—who reportedly has been vaccinated, like more than 75% of NFL players—tweeted: “The NFLPA F—— sucks.” He later clarified that his objection isn’t in regard to the vaccine mandate but rather the fact that “every player,” including those who are vaccinated and those on teams not responsible for a cancellation, could lose game checks in 2021.

This line of objection could re-surface throughout the season. Although “breakthrough” infections of vaccinated persons are described as very rare and typically mild, current and future variants pose risks for both the vaccinated and unvaccinated.

Should the league need to cancel games and should it continue to be unwilling to add a 19th week, it could lead to many players—including vaccinated ones—losing game checks and uncertainty over whether vaccinated or unvaccinated employees are responsible.

A player isn’t without legal recourse. He could borrow from the playbook of Philadelphia Eagles offensive tackle Lane Johnson and file an unfair labor practices (ULP) charge with the National Labor Relations Board. The player could argue the NFLPA failed to reasonably represent him when it allowed the NFL to deny pay on account of behavior by other players or staff.

A player could also sue the NFLPA for breach of the duty of fair representation and sue the NFL for violating the CBA. He could insist the NFLPA arbitrarily forfeited the rights of players through COVID-19 rules and unfairly represented them. While the NFLPA seems to downplay the new penalty scheme, a player could argue the scheme contains very important changes from the 2020 season.

Neither a ULP charge nor a lawsuit would likely prevail. The NLRB and federal courts typically review union-management decision-making with high deference. The NFLPA and league could also raise persuasive arguments about player and staff members’ health. Still, if enough players lose money in 2021, don’t be surprised to see a legal controversy surface.

[news.yahoo.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/29/2021 03:54PM by Florida_Ram.
SubjectAuthorViewsPosted

  Fully Vax'd OL Coach Carberry tests positive for COVID-19 and is not at training camp

HornsUpRamily!641July 29, 2021 03:23PM

  Fully Vax'd OL Coach Carberry tests positive for COVID-19: Rules?

Anonymous User254July 29, 2021 03:49PM

  June 2021 NFL-NFLPA revisions to covid rules

HornsUpRamily!188July 29, 2021 03:56PM

  Learned something yeaterday about vaccines....

roman18252July 30, 2021 03:43AM

  Shot is not for immunity.

alyoshamucci461July 30, 2021 04:33AM

  Re: Shot is not for immunity.

AlbaNY_Ram317July 30, 2021 05:37AM

  Ummm. That needs a little more definition.

RockRam221July 30, 2021 05:55AM

  Re: Ummm. That needs a little more definition.

Ramsdude188July 30, 2021 06:25AM

  Sure. I get it.

RockRam149July 30, 2021 09:11AM

  Re: Sure. I get it.

AlbaNY_Ram201July 30, 2021 09:35AM

  Re: Sure. I get it.

Ramsdude456July 30, 2021 09:38AM

  I hear you. But that is way too simplistic.

RockRam189July 31, 2021 06:21AM

  Re: Sure. I get it.

Ramsdude117July 30, 2021 09:36AM

  Masking analogy

HornsUpRamily!155July 30, 2021 02:06PM

  Re: Masking analogy

Ramsdude121July 30, 2021 03:04PM

  PERFECTLY illustration

HornsUpRamily!115July 30, 2021 04:15PM

  Re: Masking analogy

chico n da rams132July 30, 2021 07:04PM

  Re: Masking analogy

AlbaNY_Ram143July 31, 2021 04:37AM

  Re: Masking analogy

chico n da rams124July 31, 2021 06:32AM

  Re: Masking analogy

chico n da rams104July 31, 2021 07:56AM

  Risk of life has been the priority over impact to society

merlin370July 30, 2021 07:26AM

  "Cowards" ?

waterfield224July 30, 2021 08:01AM

  Cowards may be a bit strong, but I agree with the remainder.

RockRam639July 30, 2021 09:18AM

  Re: Cowards may be a bit strong, but I agree with the remainder.

chico n da rams196July 30, 2021 10:01AM

  Re: Cowards may be a bit strong, but I agree with the remainder.

waterfield142July 30, 2021 08:34PM

  Re: Cowards may be a bit strong, but I agree with the remainder.

oldschoolramfan184July 31, 2021 12:57PM

  Re: Cowards may be a bit strong, but I agree with the remainder.

HornsUpRamily!243July 31, 2021 01:10PM

  Don't be so sensitive

merlin418July 30, 2021 09:22AM

  Re: "Cowards" ?

moklerman259July 30, 2021 01:56PM

  France and Australia

moklerman312July 30, 2021 04:32PM

  The countries with a National Healthcare system are the most stringent

RockRam132July 31, 2021 06:01AM

  Re: The countries with a National Healthcare system are the most stringent

moklerman232July 31, 2021 08:57AM

  Re: "Cowards" ?

waterfield139July 31, 2021 07:46AM

  Re: "Cowards" ?

chico n da rams140July 31, 2021 08:00AM

  Re: "Cowards" ?

waterfield136July 31, 2021 11:28AM

  Re: "Cowards" ?

oldschoolramfan134July 31, 2021 01:20PM

  Re: "Cowards" ?

MamaRAMa215July 31, 2021 02:10PM

  Re: "Cowards" ?

Classicalwit258July 31, 2021 02:13PM

  Well said Merlin (nm)

RockRam138July 30, 2021 09:12AM

  Re: Ummm. That needs a little more definition.

GroundPounder340July 30, 2021 08:55AM

  Re: Shot is not for immunity.

Classicalwit159July 31, 2021 11:50AM