Latest news with #CBAs
Forbes
28-05-2025
- Business
- Forbes
Lawsuit By Former Milwaukee Brewer Ruf Is Latest In Line Of Field Safety Cases
Photo byOn May 22, 2025, Darin Ruf, a former utility player for the Milwaukee Brewers and several other clubs, sued the Cincinnati Reds in an Ohio state court arising out of an allegedly career-ending knee injury that Ruf suffered at the Reds' Great American Ball Park on June 2, 2023. Ruf injured his knee when he ran into the end of the rolled up tarp chasing a foul ball down the first base line which, according to Ruf, was not properly padded. Ruf's case is the latest in a series of cases brought by both MLB and NFL players concerning injuries suffered due to field conditions. Those lawsuits have a mixed record of success against the leagues' argument that the lawsuits are preempted by the collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) with the players unions. The Preemption Playbook All of the major American sports leagues have negotiated comprehensive CBAs with their counterpart unions which address a wide range of issues affecting the terms and conditions of employment for the players. Those CBAs also require that should there be a dispute as to whether the league, a club, a union, or a player abided by their obligations under the CBA, such dispute be settled through a confidential arbitration process. As a result, in each league, dozens of grievances are commenced and resolved each year, typically without any public awareness. Nonetheless, players have occasionally brought lawsuits against a league or clubs in state or federal courts for conduct which they have argued is not covered by the CBA. The leagues and clubs involved seek to have the cases dismissed, arguing that claims are preempted (i.e., barred) by the CBA, pursuant to the federal Labor Management Relations Act. Indeed, the NFL Players Association (NFLPA) has also taken a broad view in favor of the preemption argument. In the 1985 case of Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck, the Supreme Court established the controlling principal on this issue, holding that claims whose resolution are 'substantially dependent upon analysis of the terms of' a CBA are preempted. In other words, claims that are 'inextricably intertwined' with the terms and provisions of the CBA cannot proceed. Instead, such claims must be brought pursuant to the arbitration provisions contained in the CBA. The intended and frequent result is the dismissal of the claims. Preemption in Practice The cases that have presented the most difficulty for leagues (and courts) are those like Ruf's, where a player has alleged that they suffered an injury due to negligently maintained field conditions. One of the most well-known cases concerns former NFL running back Reggie Bush. In 2016, Bush sued the St. Louis Rams and their stadium authority when, at the conclusion of a play, he slipped and fell on a concrete surface surrounding the turf playing field causing a knee injury. A federal court denied the Rams' arguments that Bush's claims were preempted by the CBA. The court held that although at the time the NFL and NFLPA had a 'Joint Committee for the purpose of discussing, among other things, the player safety and welfare aspects of playing equipment, playing surfaces, and stadium facilities[,] [t]he Joint Committee d[id] not have the power to commit or bind any of the signatories to the CBA… nor does the CBA establish a contractually agreed upon standard of care applicable to Plaintiff's claims.' In 2020, a jury awarded Bush $12.5 million for the injury which effectively ended his career. The same decision was reached the following year in a case brought by then Philadelphia Eagles player and now Houston Texans head coach DeMeco Ryans after Ryans injured his Achilles tendon due to what he alleged was a dangerous playing surface at the Texans' NRG Stadium. A Texas state court held that it did not need to analyze the CBA to evaluate Ryans' negligence claim and it was therefore not preempted. Whether in response to these legal losses or not, the NFL changed certain of its practices in such a way to seemingly avoid similar litigation in the future. As part of the 2020 CBA, the NFL and NFLPA added a section establishing and discussing the responsibilities of the joint NFL-NFLPA Field Surface Safety & Performance Committee. In short, that Committee is responsible for establishing and enforcing playing field standards, codified as the Field Surface Manual. The scope of that Committee was relevant in a 2023 lawsuit brought by former Denver Broncos linebacker Aaron Patrick. During the October 17, 2022 Monday Night Football game between the Broncos and Los Angeles Chargers, Patrick, after trying to make a tackle near the sideline on a punt, tripped over television cables and mats and collided with the NFL's television liaison, the person responsible for coordinating commercial breaks. Unfortunately, Patrick, an undrafted second year player, tore his ACL in the process. Patrick recovered and participated in the Broncos' training camp the next year but did not make the team. Patrick sued the NFL, ESPN, the Chargers, the entities that own and operate SoFi Stadium, and others, in California state court for negligence and premises liability. A federal court granted a motion to dismiss by the NFL and the Chargers based on preemption, holding that 'resolution of Patrick's claims, and specifically determination of the scope of each defendant's duty and potential liability, would require interpretation of the CBA,' including the Field Surface Manual. Baseball too has faced such cases. In June 2017, in the first inning of his Major League debut, New York Yankees' outfielder Dexter Fowler injured his knee when it hit a metal electrical box along the right field wall in foul territory at the Chicago White Sox's Guaranteed Rate Field. Fowler sued the Illinois Sports Facility Authority, which managed the stadium, and the White Sox for alleged negligence. The defendants sought to have the case dismissed on preemption grounds. Specifically, they argued that Fowler's claim required interpretation of Article XIII of the CBA, which established a joint MLB-MLB Players Association (MLBPA) Safety and Health Advisory Committee 'to deal with emergency safety and health problems as they arise' and 'to engage in review of, planning for and maintenance of safe and healthful working conditions for Players.' An Illinois federal court was not persuaded. It held that Fowler's claims were not preempted by Article XIII because that Article 'leaves no doubt that the clubs were in a vastly better position than the Committee to assess the safety of their own premises. [Moreover,] [t]he clubs did not give up any control over their premises to the Committee, nor did they even grant it any consistent supervisory role.' In sum, the court concluded that it did not need to consult the CBA to evaluate the White Sox's duty of care to Fowler and his claims were therefore not preempted. The case subsequently settled. The Reds' At Bat The Reds will likely move to dismiss the case on preemption but face an uphill battle in light of the Fowler decision, even though it is not binding precedent on an Ohio state court. The 2022 CBA between MLB and the MLBPA did not add any additional field safety obligations for either party. MLB declined to comment on whether it has negotiated a field safety manual with the union, a la the NFL and NFLPA. Should the Reds lose that argument, they would then most likely be in the position of having to evaluate whether its employees were in fact negligent in rolling and covering up the tarp and all of its parts. Such claims would typically have to be decided by a jury. Were the case to make it that far, the Reds would face significant financial risk. Although Ruf was 37 years of age at the time of the injury, he had a $3 million salary in 2023 and thus any lost career earnings would still have been significant (an issue faced by doctors accused of medical malpractice by athletes). Expect the Reds to take a swing at the preemption argument first. If they miss, the club (and its insurer) will likely seek to end the matter with a settlement rather than serving up a home run during a jury trial.
USA Today
25-04-2025
- Business
- USA Today
Cowboys invest $19 million more, now using 13% of 2025 salary cap on offensive line
Cowboys invest $19 million more, now using 13% of 2025 salary cap on offensive line The investment in the offensive line isn't just in draft capital, it's in cap dollars as well. The Dallas Cowboys have added standout Alabama guard Tyler Booker to their collection of Tylers. With 2024 first-round pick Tyler Guyton manning the left tackle spot, and sitting right next to 2022 first-round pick Tyler Smith, there's certainly a sense of familiarity with the Cowboys direction over the last couple of drafts. When it comes to using draft capital, the club has invested more than enough in the offensive line. As the No. 12 pick in the draft, the club already knows how much of a financial investment they'll be making in Booker, who was selected to take over for the recently retired Zack Martin. And while he won't take up nearly as much as he would have before the rookie wage scale was implemented a few CBAs ago, he's certainly going to make a ton of money immediately and off bat. Sometime over the course of the next few months, Booker will sign his rookie deal and when he does, owner Jerry Jones will sign a check for $10.7 million. That's the amount of the signing bonus assigned to the 12th pick in the draft. The total amount of Booker's contract will be $19.38 million, but because the cap hit from that big signing bonus is spread out across four seasons, Booker's cap hit will only be $3.5 million. Drafting Booker ups the ante on how much cap space is being spent on the projected starting offensive line in 2025, $36.7 million. Terence Steele: $18.1 million Zack Martin*: $10 million Tyler Smith: $4.3 million Tyler Guyton: $3 million Cooper Beebe: $1.3 million Martin is included despite his retirement because of his high amount of dead money from his expired contract. Considering there are only 22 starting positions on a team, though, using 13% of the 2025 salary cap on the position group actually isn't a bad look. Will it be worth it in the end? Head coach Brian Schottenheimer spoke to wanting to build from the outside in, and guard isn't among the most expensive positions in the league, so spending a high first on the spot isn't ideal when it comes to positional and surplus value. But it's also not among the lowest paid, so it's not a blown selection, more so one that could go in either direction depending on how his first few years plays out. Follow Cowboys Wire on Facebook to join in on the conversation with fellow fans!
Yahoo
19-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Comptroller cites Plymouth highway, town for fiscal errors
The town of Plymouth paid highway employees for holidays and sick and vacation days they shouldn't have received, a state comptroller's office audit found. According to the audit released March 21 and announced April 18, '10 employees were collectively paid $12,037 for 20 holidays that were not authorized in the town's collective bargaining agreements; seven employees were collectively paid $9,942 for 64.25 days of unearned vacation, sick or personal leave accruals; and upon leaving town employment, two employees received compensation totaling $3,259 for 10 vacation days each that exceeded their earned, but unused, leave accruals.' Auditors examined town records from Jan. 1, 2018 through May 31, 2023. During that time, there were three highway superintendents and two town supervisors, who served the town. There were also three contracts signed between the town and full-time employees. The contracts specified paid holiday leave, vacation, sick time and personal leave benefits for full-time employees, the audit stated. It was up to the highway superintendent and bookkeeper to make sure leave accruals were accurately tracked. 'Although the superintendents manually recorded leave used by department employees, they did not ensure that leave accrual balances were included on employee timesheets,' the audit stated. 'Also, leave accrual balances were not listed on department employees' paychecks in accordance with Town CBA requirements.' According to the audit, during the five-year time frame, seven full-time and three part-time employees received holiday pay in excess of the contract, which totaled $10,928. The auditors recommended that the town 'ensure employees are only paid for holidays listed in CBAs; independently review and approve all unused leave and separation payments to ensure that accruals are accurately calculated, supported and disbursed, according to CBAs and the Town's employee benefit plan; and consult with legal counsel about recovering payments that were inconsistent with CBAs or other applicable laws,' the audit stated. The audit was one of three audits on the town's highway department. The other two faulted the department for its assets and disbursements and fuel and motor oil inventories and procurements. Auditors extended the audit period through November 2023 to verify town assets were on site. According to the audit, auditors reviewed 949 disbursements totaling $2 million that included vehicle and equipment parts and solvents, reimbursements to officials and employees and payments to other vendors and determined: • The board approved 47 disbursements totaling $9,769 for vehicle parts that were not compatible with any town vehicles or equipment and 12 questionable disbursements totaling $23,817 for solvents. Some of the parts are only compatible with snowmobiles, all-terrain and utility-task vehicles, none of which the town owns. The solvents were purchased from out-of-state vendors at higher prices than local vendors offered and some products were never used. All five Board members said they were not aware of what they were approving but trusted the employees. • The board did not approve 16 payments totaling $12,889, some of which lacked support, and included 10 reimbursements of $3,902 paid to town officials and employees and six payments of $8,987 paid to other vendors. Auditors recommended that the town 'establish and implement procedures to provide reasonable assurance that disbursements are authorized, supported by sufficient documentation and are for appropriate town purposes.' It should also audit claims prior to approval. Auditors also found that the town officials 'did not adequately account for, secure or properly procure fuel and motor oil inventories. Had officials properly administered these inventories, taxpayers may have saved approximately $128,600.' This included $81,980 in unaccounted for diesel, gasoline and motor oil, $7,203 in fuel usage not reimbursed by the Plymouth Fire District and $39,435 in potential savings if the town used the state Office of General Services contract. Auditors recommended that the town develop written policies, maintain accurate inventories and ensure access points to fuel pumping systems are unaltered and properly secured. In a letter of response Town Supervisor Patricia Murray and Town Highway Superintendent Louis Redenback stated, they 'generally agree with the findings and recommendations in these draft audit reports. We appreciate all of your time and guidance with the audit procedure. We also ask for your patience and understanding, as we go through the process of correcting these extensive findings.'
Forbes
03-04-2025
- Health
- Forbes
Recent MLS Malpractice Verdict Shows Perils Of Being A Team Doctor
Photo by Tim Clayton/Corbis via Getty Images On March 28, 2025, an Oregon jury awarded former Portland Timbers goalkeeper Jake Gleeson $20.4 million in damages against Dr. Richard Edelson, a Timbers doctor. Gleeson had alleged that Edelson was negligent in performing surgery on Gleeson's legs in 2018, resulting in painful infections which required 14 additional surgeries and ended his career. The verdict highlights the complicated relationship among teams, team doctors, and players, including concerns over divided loyalties, sponsorship arrangements, and potentially costly liability. Doctors for professional sports teams have a variety of duties, including specifically: (1) providing healthcare to players; (2) helping players determine when they are ready to return to play; (3) helping clubs determine when players are ready to return to play; (4) examining players the club is considering employing (e.g., potential draft picks or free agents); and (5) helping clubs make decisions about a player's future with the club, including the possibility of a contract extension or release. These duties do not necessarily align. Trust is an important element of the doctor-patient relationship. But trust can be diminished if the doctor is able to relay the patient's medical situation to the patient's employer for purposes of evaluating the patient's employment. Yet, players generally execute broad waivers permitting the disclosure of their health information by team doctors to team officials or such disclosure is explicitly permitted by the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between the league and players union. The leagues and unions recognize these conflicts and consequently seek to contract around them. For example, the CBA between the NFL and NFLPA declares that 'Club medical personnel's primary duty in providing player medical care shall be not to the Club but instead to the player-patient.' Implicit in this obligation is the recognition that team doctors have duties beyond their 'primary' one, i.e., duties to the teams which may be in conflict with the players' interests. The CBAs governing the NHL, MLS, WNBA, and NWSL all contain the same 'primary duty' language. The MLB and NBA CBAs are silent on the issue. Recognizing the existence of these conflicts does not diminish the fact that team doctors for professional sports teams are generally among the leading experts in their fields. Nevertheless, there is a conflict of interest inherent in the structure through which doctors provide healthcare to players in these leagues. For these reasons, in a 2016 report I co-authored with Glenn Cohen of Harvard Law School and Holly Fernandez Lynch, then of Harvard and now at the University of Pennsylvania, we recommended a division of responsibilities between two distinct groups of medical professionals. Player care and treatment should be provided by one set of medical professionals (i.e., the Players' Medical Staff), appointed by a joint committee with representation from both the league and union, and evaluation of players for business purposes should be done by separate medical personnel (i.e., the Club Evaluation Doctor). The structural conflict of interest and trust concerns between team doctors and players can be exacerbated by the manner in which team doctors are selected. Nearly every team in the major American sports leagues has a sponsorship arrangement with one or more healthcare organizations. Those agreements typically include (or are executed alongside agreements which include) the right for the healthcare organization to be the practice of choice for the players' healthcare needs as well as the right for the healthcare organization to select the team doctors for the club. The leagues take different approaches on this issue. The NFL and MLB have policies which explicitly prohibit healthcare providers from paying for the right to provide healthcare. The NBA and WNBA at least have language in their CBAs requiring that selection of the team's healthcare providers shall not be 'based primarily on a sponsorship relationship.' Other leagues are more permissive (see this report at p. 62). In MLS, it is common for the club's team doctor to work for a healthcare provider that is a sponsor of the club and for that sponsorship arrangement (i.e., payments from the healthcare provider to the club) to be contingent on the team using the healthcare provider for player medical care (Disclosure: from November 2018 to March 2021, I was General Counsel of D.C. United of MLS). Indeed, in the Gleeson case, Dr. Edelson is a part of Sports Medicine Oregon, which advertises itself as the 'Official Team Doctors of the Portland Timbers.' The Timbers did not respond to a request for comment about the verdict or the sponsorship relationship between the club and Sports Medicine Oregon. MLS also did not respond to a request for comment. Again, it is important to acknowledge that team doctors are highly qualified. Indeed, doctors with a history of working with teams sometimes switch their organizational affiliations whenever the club changes sponsors to ensure continuity. Nevertheless, the existence of sponsorship arrangements can contribute to a lack of trust between the players and their healthcare providers. The damages awarded to a plaintiff in a lawsuit must be rationally connected to the harm actually suffered by that plaintiff. In cases where a plaintiff's earning capacity has been harmed (such as in a wrongful termination case), the damages are going to be higher when the plaintiff had a high salary. This simple legal concept is thus particularly important where a highly paid athlete is the plaintiff. For example, in February 2023, former Philadelphia Eagles player Chris Maragos was awarded $43.5 million in a medical malpractice case against the Eagles' team doctors, a verdict upheld on appeal. A jury agreed that the doctors' failure to properly treat Maragos' knee injury prematurely ended his career, depriving him of significant future career earnings. Similarly, numerous medical malpractice cases brought by NFL players over the years have been resolved for millions of dollars (see this report at p. 449). In the Gleeson case, while MLS players earn substantially less than NFL players, most are still paid a few hundred thousand dollars per year. For that reason, the jury awarded him $2.145 million in lost earning capacity (the bulk of the award was for non-economic damages, e.g., pain and suffering). Ultimately, the risk associated with treating professional athletes is reflected in higher insurance premiums for the doctors and their organizations. When coupled with sponsorship fees (as permitted in some leagues), the cost to be a team doctor is not insignificant.
Yahoo
28-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump turns to one judge to back legality of order limiting federal union rights
The Trump administration is turning to a one-judge district in Texas to assert that its move stripping bargaining rights from federal employees is legal. President Trump late Thursday signed an executive order seeking to end bargaining rights for a wide range of agencies with national security ties — a group of 18 departments, as well as additional agencies. While unions have vowed to sue, the Trump administration made the first move, seeking a declaratory judgment from a Waco court that the White House has 'the power to rescind or repudiate' collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) across numerous agencies. 'Plaintiffs wish to rescind or repudiate those CBAs, including so they can protect national security by developing personnel policies that otherwise would be precluded or hindered by the CBAs. But to ensure legal certainty and avoid unnecessary labor strife, they first seek declaratory relief to confirm that they are legally entitled to proceed with doing so,' the suit says. In a fact sheet accompanying the order, the White House said allowing government workers to unionize 'enables hostile Federal unions to obstruct agency management.' The order targets agencies it says have a national security mission, but many of the departments don't have a strict national security connection. In addition to all agencies with the departments of Homeland Security, Defense, State and Veterans Affairs, the order also covers the Treasury Department, all agencies within the Department of Health and Human Services, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Science Foundation, the General Services Administration and many more. The civil service law that allows for collective bargaining does have exceptions for national security agencies. The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) did not respond to request for comment but indicated Thursday in a letter to members that it plans to sue, condemning the action as 'illegally strip[ping] collective bargaining rights from hundreds of thousands of federal workers.' 'Let's be clear. National security is not the reason for this action. This is retaliation because our union is standing up for AFGE members—and a warning to every union: fall in line, or else,' the email said. 'AFGE is not going anywhere. We are fighting back. We are preparing legal action.' An Office of Personnel Management memo that accompanied Trump's executive order encouraged agencies to terminate any already-signed collective bargaining agreements and stop participating in any grievance proceedings. The filing is a somewhat unusual move for the Trump administration, which has in other cases has aggressively fought lawsuits and appealed rulings in cases launched against them but has seldom initiated such a request before being taken to court. The case is sure to come before U.S. District Court Judge Alan Albright, who oversees all cases filed in that district. If unions sue and score favorable rulings in other districts, a judgment in Texas could help speed review by the Supreme Court. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
