And if my boss says I raped the secretary, and I know I didn't, I'm hauling his ass directly to court...

And if he called you into his office and told you "Bye".

Catch here is no one was terminated and nothing illegal was done... Well, unless the IRS gets involved and finds something.

With collective bargaining, "at will" is "out the window". Period.

You can put all the periods you like.

With collective bargaining, right to appeal to a higher level, and proof of punishment becomes 600 shades of gray.

I don't deny the shades of gray. And I'm no lawyer. I do however know that "at will" doesn't apply.

I maintain that if Roger wants to in essence "terminate" Vilma for 16 games or 1 he should be required to show evidence of why, at the very least to Vilma, and this has not been done. It isn't right. Period.

Well lol to be fair to reality. Right n legal go hand in hand about as often as proof n guilt.

Guilty people walk free everyday, not because they were innocent, or there was not proof of their guilt... but because they had a better lawyer.

Actually "at will" does apply here. From the 2011 CBA.

1 5. INTEGRITY OF GAME. Player recognizes the detriment to the League and professional
football that would result from impairment of public confidence in the honest
and orderly conduct of NFL games or the integrity and good character of NFL players. Player therefore acknowledges his awareness that if he accepts a bribe or agrees to throw
or fix an NFL game; fails to promptly report a brib e offer or an attempt to throw or fix an NFL game; bets on an NFL game; knowingly associates with gamblers or gambling
activity; uses or provides other players with stimulants or other drugs for the purpose of attempting to enhance on-field performance; or is guilty of any other form of conduct reasonably judged by the League Commissioner to be detrimental to the League or professional football, the Commissioner will have the right, but only after giving Player the opportunity for a hearing at which he may be represented by counsel of his choice, to fine Player in a reasonable amount; to suspend Player for a period certain or indefinitely; and/ or to terminate this contract.



The NFLPA gave Goodell all encompassing power based on his "judgement/opinion".


If the NFLPA takes this to court, a judge is not going to decide weather the punishment was too harsh or not. The judge is going to rule on weather Goodell has the rights that this contract bestowed on him.

Again I'm no lawyer, but the difference, in my opinion, is justification. Goodell cannot just randomly pull a player from a roster "Because He Wants To". And from all that I can see, we may have breached a situation where this all powerful person's power will come in to question.

CAN Roger do what he has done without providing evidence? That remains to be seen. "at will" is pretty cut and dry. The situation Vilma and Smith find themselves in at the moment? Not so much...not yet...

Exactly -- the judge is going to be asked to rule on whether or not Goodell has the right under this contract to "reasonably judge" on player behavior, without sufficient proof of guilt -- which is another way of saying, what exactly his "rights" that this contract bestowed on Goodell are. The suit will be to ask the court to determine that legal question, not to change the punishments or make them less, or say whether they were too harsh or too lenient. And as a part of discovery on the case, that proof is going to have to come out as evidence. Which the NFL does not want.

But really, the p's and q's of the court case doesn't matter as much to me. It's about delaying the suspensions, and it's about forcing the league to show their hand, to get this matter out in the open so that it's transparent, and so this thing blows up in the NFL's face as a PR nightmare. And of course, if Vilma or somebody else is innocent, then I support that right to fight it in court. Until which time as they are actually shown to my eyes to be guilty, at which point I will gladly throw them under the bus if that's where the facts lead.

Not really, they look at if he violated those rights bestowed upon him. Vilma just has to show probable cause.
If a judge see not evidence that shows Vilma's involvement, and that Godell didn't "fine Player in a reasonable amount",
that is probable cause, and it goes to trial.