Latest news with #LaborManagementRelationsAct
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.
Yahoo
12-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
How JD Vance is pushing America toward a 'constitutional crisis'
The term 'constitutional crisis' gets overused. But Vice President JD Vance seems to be inviting one. On Sunday, the vice president's comments on social media raised alarm bells across the legal profession. Apparently in response to multiple judges temporarily halting some of President Donald Trump's executive actions, Vance posted: 'If a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal. If a judge tried to command the attorney general in how to use her discretion as a prosecutor, that's also illegal. Judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power.' Wrong. Wrong. And wrong. Courts have ruled against illegal military actions, such as striking down military commissions at Guantanamo Bay after 9/11. Courts have also ruled a prosecutor violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment when engaging in selective prosecution. And, in the same way, courts serve as a check on presidents when they exceed their power. The Supreme Court famously struck down President Harry S. Truman's efforts to seize steel mills during the Korean War on the grounds that his conduct conflicted with the Labor Management Relations Act. Judges are allowed to check the executive branch when it exceeds its authority. In fact, that's exactly what they are supposed to do. Vance's statement contradicts more than 200 years of Supreme Court precedent. Every first-year law student reads the case of Marbury v. Madison, the 1803 decision that confirmed the power of the courts to conduct judicial review. In our system of three co-equal branches of government, the role of the courts is to interpret the law. Courts strike down statutes passed by legislatures when they violate the Constitution. Courts also declare executive action illegal when it violates the law. To date, judges have ruled against a number of Trump's executive orders, at least temporarily, based on findings that plaintiffs have shown a substantial likelihood to succeed on the merits. The lawsuits include challenges to Trump's efforts to end birthright citizenship, impound appropriated funds, shutter USAID, slash the federal workforce and permit Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency to access Treasury Department payment systems. Courts have entered temporary restraining orders to preserve the status quo while the cases work their way through the legal system. As a graduate of Yale Law School, Vance certainly knows that courts have the power to strike down executive actions that exceed legal limits. But he seems to be planting seeds to undermine public confidence in the courts. And he is not alone. Posts popped up in an online chorus rebuking the courts that ruled against Trump. Vance quoted another post from conservative Harvard Law professor Adrian Vermeule, who wrote, 'Judicial interference with legitimate acts of state, especially the internal functioning of a co-equal branch, is a violation of the separation of powers.' Both Vance and Vermeule used the word 'legitimate' to describe the president's use of executive power, suggesting that it is the courts that are overstepping their boundaries. While people are free to criticize judges and to appeal their decisions, these attacks imply an abuse of power rather than a difference of opinion. Musk joined in on the attack, posting a baseless accusation against the judge who ruled against the DOGE. 'A corrupt judge protecting corruption. He needs to be impeached NOW!' In his post, Musk quoted another X user who referred to the judge as 'unelected' and lacking a 'mandate by the people.' Of course, under our Constitution all federal judges are unelected and are instead appointed by the president for life, for the very reason that they will be insulated from politics. Whatever electoral mandate Trump enjoys does not give him license to violate the law. He certainly has the authority to implement his policy agenda, but he must do so in a way that conforms to the federal statutes and the Constitution. Many of his executive orders seem to deliberately defy the law, perhaps in an effort to invite lawsuits that in turn push the limits of his power. Perhaps he hopes that ultimately a friendly Supreme Court will agree to expand the authority of the executive. In 2021, while campaigning for the Senate in Ohio, Vance said he would 'fire every single midlevel bureaucrat, every civil servant in the administrative state, replace them with our people.' Advocating for replacing federal employees with political loyalists is troubling enough, but Vance went on to advocate for defying court orders as well: 'When the courts stop you, stand before the country, like Andrew Jackson did, and say, 'The chief justice has made his ruling. Now let him enforce it.'' The Jackson quote, which may be a myth, relates to a Supreme Court decision that the Cherokees were an independent nation and entitled to live on their land. It makes the point that courts, unlike the executive branch, have no armies or police officers to carry out their rulings. Instead, they depend on the willingness of the other branches of government to obey their decisions. The defiance of a court order by the executive branch would indeed be a constitutional crisis. Eventually, the only realistic remedy in that situation would be impeachment, and in recent history, we have seen that members of a president's own party have been reluctant to vote against him. And if the legislative branch failed to come to the rescue of the courts, then the executive branch would become something the framers of our Constitution would find unrecognizable. We would have not just a constitutional crisis but a constitutional tragedy. This article was originally published on
CBS News
08-02-2025
- Business
- CBS News
King Soopers claims Colorado union used illegal negotiating tactics, leading to strike, in new lawsuit
King Soopers/City Market filed a federal lawsuit in Colorado against United Food and Commercial Workers Local Union No. 7 (UFCW Local 7) on Friday. This comes amid the beginning of the two-week worker strike across the state. According to the lawsuit, this action is being taken due to damages King Soopers says it's suffering, "as a result of [the] Defendant's continuing pattern of threatening, coercive, and restraining actions, taken for unlawful purposes in violation of the National Labor Relations Act and actionable in federal court under Section 303(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act." In response to the new lawsuit the workers union released a statement that said in part, "UFCW Local 7 learned that earlier this afternoon King Soopers filed a baseless lawsuit against the Union. The Union is confident it will successfully defend against the suit, and that King Soopers' claims will not survive initial scrutiny by a court." King Soopers' parent company asserts UFCW Local 7 is violating, "with a purpose of forcing King Soopers to bargain with unions other than Local 7, culminating in repeated threats of strikes and calling and supporting an unlawful strike by Local 7 members against King Soopers for prohibited purposes under Section 8(b)(4) of the NLRA." The other unions Local 7 is accused of unlawfully collaborating with included Teamsters Local 38, UFCW Local 324, UFCW Local 770 and UFCW Local 3000 to, "consolidate their bargaining and other efforts to force multi-union bargaining on King Soopers and other employers without bargaining relationships with the labor ... unions." The complaint asserts the activity between fellow unions began on or before October 2024. CBS News Colorado has reported about ongoing negotiations for months between Local 7 and King Soopers. Fruitful negotiations continued to elude both parties, and that led to an overwhelming majority of workers in the Denver metro area and Colorado Springs/Pueblo areas voting for a labor stoppage. In the complaint, King Soopers' parent company also claims Local 7 and the other unions sent a letter to confirm the intention of unlawful practices to King Soopers' lead negotiator. King Soopers is requesting relief from the court in the form of payment from Local 7 for costs, expenses and damages sustained due to the labor strike deemed unlawful by the plaintiff. It also wants to be awarded payment for attorney's fees and costs incurred by the strike, as well as any relief the court might grant the plaintiff. King Soopers is being represented by the Taft Stettinius & Hollister in both Denver and Colorado Springs areas. Nowhere in the new lawsuit does the plaintiff call for the stoppage of the strikes taking place outside various King Soopers locations in the state. King Soopers released adjusted hours of impacted grocery stores as a results of the worker strike this week. As of online publication, there was no indication other union workers outside of Colorado were striking under the purview or guidance of Teamsters Local 38, UFCW Local 324, UFCW Local 770 or UFCW Local 3000. However, there was some indication that workers for those unions had a presence in Colorado in support of the workers represented by Local 7, who are currently striking.
CBS News
08-02-2025
- Business
- CBS News
King Soopers parent company claims Colorado union used illegal negotiating tactics, leading to strike in new lawsuit
Dillon Companies, the parent company of Kroger and King Soopers/City Market, filed a federal lawsuit in Colorado against United Food and Commercial Workers Local Union No. 7 (UFCW Local 7) on Friday. This comes amid the beginning of the two-week worker strike across the state. According to the lawsuit, this action is being taken due to damages Dillon Companies says it's suffering, "as a result of [the] Defendant's continuing pattern of threatening, coercive, and restraining actions, taken for unlawful purposes in violation of the National Labor Relations Act and actionable in federal court under Section 303(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act." In response to the new lawsuit the workers union released a statement that said in part, "UFCW Local 7 learned that earlier this afternoon King Soopers filed a baseless lawsuit against the Union. The Union is confident it will successfully defend against the suit, and that King Soopers' claims will not survive initial scrutiny by a court." King Soopers' parent company asserts UFCW Local 7 is violating, "with a purpose of forcing King Soopers to bargain with unions other than Local 7, culminating in repeated threats of strikes and calling and supporting an unlawful strike by Local 7 members against King Soopers for prohibited purposes under Section 8(b)(4) of the NLRA." The other unions Local 7 is accused of unlawfully collaborating with included Teamsters Local 38, UFCW Local 324, UFCW Local 770 and UFCW Local 3000 to, "consolidate their bargaining and other efforts to force multi-union bargaining on King Soopers and other employers without bargaining relationships with the labor ... unions." The complaint asserts the activity between fellow unions began on or before October 2024. CBS News Colorado has reported about ongoing negotiations for months between Local 7 and King Soopers. Fruitful negotiations continued to elude both parties, and that led to an overwhelming majority of workers in the Denver metro area and Colorado Springs/Pueblo areas voting for a labor stoppage. In the complaint, King Soopers' parent company also claims Local 7 and the other unions sent a letter to confirm the intention of unlawful practices to King Soopers' lead negotiator. Dillon Companies on behalf of King Soopers is requesting relief from the court in the form of payment from Local 7 for costs, expenses and damages sustained due to the labor strike deemed unlawful by the plaintiff. It also wants to be awarded payment for attorney's fees and costs incurred by the strike, as well as any relief the court might grant the plaintiff. Dillon Companies is being represented by the Taft Stettinius & Hollister in both Denver and Colorado Springs areas. Nowhere in the new lawsuit does the plaintiff call for the stoppage of the strikes taking place outside various King Soopers locations in the state. King Soopers released adjusted hours of impacted grocery stores as a results of the worker strike this week. As of online publication, there was no indication other union workers outside of Colorado were striking under the purview or guidance of Teamsters Local 38, UFCW Local 324, UFCW Local 770 or UFCW Local 3000. However, there was some indication that workers for those unions had a presence in Colorado in support of the workers represented by Local 7, who are currently striking.
