It's been awhile since law school and I never practiced labor law, but I'm curious about this whole "the CBA governs absolutely, no matter what Goodell does." Can it really be that simple?
I thought I remembered there being an argument about unconscionability/good faith and fair dealing that would go something like "while the CBA grants the league wide berth in determining player discipline, the league's conduct in: (a) using flawed science and conjecture rather than actual evidence to determine guilt; (b) telling a player that certain conduct (e.g., refusing to turn over a cell phone) would not result in a negative inference, then basing the player's punishment entirely on that same conduct; and (c) blatantly misrepresenting a player's testimony to characterize him as untruthful and thus deserving of additional punishment go so far outside the bounds of what a reasonable person would understand the terms of the Agreement to be . . ."
MGoLawyers, am I totally of base here? I mean if Goodell required Brady's puppy to be put down as part of his punishment that would clearly be no bueno, so why is everyone falling back on the "welp, the contract says so" in this situation where the league has been so incredibly shady every step of the way?
I'm trying the Good JuJu, which is brewed with ginger. It's interesting, I think I should be having sushi while I eat this.
My real purpose in posting after lurking since The Horror is to ask if anyone watches Archer on FX? Specifically, part one of this season's finale, which had a very U of M centric theme.
In a nutshell, the team has to Fantastic Voyage themselves into a brilliant scientist's body to remove a blood clot or something.
That scientist's name? Zoltan Kovacs.
I can't find a screencap, but let's just say that when I saw the name my girlfriend thought I was going to pop a vein in my brain from laughing so hard.
Recent Comments
It's been awhile since law school and I never practiced labor law, but I'm curious about this whole "the CBA governs absolutely, no matter what Goodell does." Can it really be that simple?
I thought I remembered there being an argument about unconscionability/good faith and fair dealing that would go something like "while the CBA grants the league wide berth in determining player discipline, the league's conduct in: (a) using flawed science and conjecture rather than actual evidence to determine guilt; (b) telling a player that certain conduct (e.g., refusing to turn over a cell phone) would not result in a negative inference, then basing the player's punishment entirely on that same conduct; and (c) blatantly misrepresenting a player's testimony to characterize him as untruthful and thus deserving of additional punishment go so far outside the bounds of what a reasonable person would understand the terms of the Agreement to be . . ."
MGoLawyers, am I totally of base here? I mean if Goodell required Brady's puppy to be put down as part of his punishment that would clearly be no bueno, so why is everyone falling back on the "welp, the contract says so" in this situation where the league has been so incredibly shady every step of the way?
Well, for those of us fogeys and luddites who refuse to sign up for Twitter or Vine or Snapchat or whatever, now you know too...