Go Back   New Orleans Saints - blackandgold.com > Main > Saints

Who Dat in Court: The Jonathan Vilma Case Explained

this is a discussion within the Saints Community Forum; I always enjoy Gabe Feldman's reporting on this case. This is a long one but makes some valid points. Who Dat in Court: The Jonathan Vilma Case Explained By Gabe Feldman on August 14, 2012 9:50 AM ET With the ...

Like Tree3Likes
  • 3 Post By Rugby Saint II

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-14-2012, 03:31 PM   #1
Site Donor 2014
Kansas Who Dat
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Kansas
Posts: 380
Who Dat in Court: The Jonathan Vilma Case Explained

I always enjoy Gabe Feldman's reporting on this case. This is a long one but makes some valid points.


Who Dat in Court: The Jonathan Vilma Case Explained
By Gabe Feldman on August 14, 2012 9:50 AM ET


With the NFL preseason in full swing, the Bountygate scandal is just beginning to wind its way through the courts. Last Friday, lawyers for the NFL, NFLPA, and Jonathan Vilma appeared for the second time in front of Judge Berrigan in federal court in the Eastern District of Louisiana. Each side was looking for a knockout blow — Vilma and the NFLPA wanted an immediate ruling vacating the players’ suspensions (though Vilma would have been more than happy with a preliminary injunction to get him back into camp and on the field for the Saints), while the NFL wanted an immediate dismissal of all of the cases pending against the NFL and Commissioner Roger Goodell, including Vilma’s defamation suit.

This case was always a bit of a long shot for the players because review of commissioner discipline for “conduct detrimental” is only permissible in extremely limited circumstances. The players argued to the court that those circumstances existed here — Goodell was biased, he prejudged the outcome of the case, his punishment was arbitrary and capricious, he exceeded the scope of his authority under the terms of the collective bargaining agreement, and he failed to give the players due process. Jeffrey Kessler, outside counsel for the NFLPA, was at his fiery best, at turns channeling courtroom giant Brendan Sullivan (telling the judge: "You are not a potted plant, an innocent bystander helpless to right this wrong”) and Catskills giant Henny Youngman (remarking that one of the arbitration decisions in favor of the league “slice the salami so thin it became bologna”). The NFL essentially played defense, arguing that the players — and the judge — may disagree with the commissioner’s decision, but federal law and the terms of the collective bargaining agreement simply do not permit a judge to undo or interfere with the commissioner’s decision to punish players for conduct detrimental to the league.

The hearing brought good news and bad news for the players. Let’s start with the good news: Judge Berrigan made it fairly clear that she thought the NFL was in the wrong and began the hearing by saying that she’d “like to rule in Vilma’s favor.” Although she issued no formal ruling, Judge Berrigan repeatedly stated that she believed that the commissioner overstepped his bounds in disciplining the Bounty 4, that the league did not give the players a fair process, that Vilma’s punishment was unnecessarily harsh, and that Vilma was suffering irreparable harm because of it. The judge also strongly suggested — but made no formal ruling — that the bounty scheme was a pay-for-performance issue covered by Article 14 of the CBA.

A formal ruling that this was in fact an Article 14 issue would be significant because the system arbitrator, and not the commissioner, has exclusive jurisdiction over issues covered under Article 14 (additionally, suspensions are not permitted for violations of Article 14). In other words, if this is a pay-for-performance/Article 14 issue and not a “conduct detrimental” issue, Goodell would have no authority to punish the players and their suspension would be vacated (perhaps pending another arbitration heard by someone other than Goodell). The system arbitrator, Professor Stephen Burbank, rejected this very argument by the NFLPA on June 4. A three-member arbitration panel will hear an appeal of that ruling on August 30.

Here’s the bad news: Judge Berrigan did not grant an injunction for Vilma, she did not vacate the suspensions, and she expressed some doubt as to whether she had the authority to do either. Instead, she urged the parties to settle the case and suggested that she would not rule (and perhaps could not rule) until the three-member panel heard the appeal of Professor Burbank’s ruling on August 30.

(By the way, let’s settle down with the notion that Judge Berrigan is leaning toward Vilma because she’s a Saints fan. Home field advantage only gets you so far in federal court. And, I’ll let someone else accuse a federal judge of being biased. Even if Judge Berrigan is a Saints fan, she’s probably a bigger fan of not being reversed on appeal.)

So here’s the question that many Saints fans are likely asking: If the judge so clearly wants to rule for Vilma and the other players, why wait? There are at least a few explanations. It may be that Judge Berrigan is truly struggling with the jurisdictional issues and may not yet have decided if she has the ability to either vacate the suspensions or remand them to a new, neutral arbitrator.

Or it may be that the judge is convinced that this is in fact an Article 14 issue and thus outside the scope of the commissioner’s authority, but believes that she has no authority to act until the NFL’s collectively bargained internal grievance process plays out. That is, she may be waiting to see if the panel overturns Professor Burbank’s ruling on August 30 before inserting herself into the process.

Or, it may be that Judge Berrigan is hoping that the parties will settle and that she won’t have to issue a precedent-setting (or precedent-confirming) decision. That may be wishful thinking, as it’s hard to see a zone of possible agreement, at least between Vilma and the NFL. Given that Vilma wants to get back on the field and have his name cleared, will he accept anything less than no suspension (or a one- or two-game suspension) and a public apology? Given the NFL’s public statements about Vilma’s guilt, their desire to protect the broad commissioner powers they feel they bargained for in the CBA, and their fear of opening the floodgates to future player lawsuits, will they be willing to give anything less than the eight games they allegedly floated in earlier talks? Of course, if settlement talks do break down, it is possible Judge Berrigan might issue a quick decision prior to the August 30 hearing.

And what if Judge Berrigan does rule for the players? Well, it will obviously be a huge win for the NFLPA and will put a dent in the scope of the commissioner’s powers, but it won’t get them what the players truly sought (and what Chad Johnson will want if he feels the wrath of the commissioner for his alleged domestic violence) — real independent review of commissioner discipline for off-field misconduct.

Of course, any decision by Judge Berrigan will be appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and could drag on for months, if not longer. For the Bounty 4, they just hope they’re back on the field while the battle drags on.

Who Dat in Court: The Jonathan Vilma Case Explained - The Triangle Blog - Grantland
kcsaints is offline  
Latest Blogs
Saints: A glimpse of the future Last Blog: 11-19-2014 By: lee909


What i tell you ! !! ! Last Blog: 11-02-2014 By: SAINTstunna


MID TERM ELECTION Last Blog: 10-29-2014 By: teddybarexxx


Old 08-14-2012, 03:51 PM   #2
Bounty Money $$$
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: 5800 Airline Dr. Metairie, LA.
Posts: 11,585
Re: Who Dat in Court: The Jonathan Vilma Case Explained

At this point all I want is to see Vilma win in court and Coach Payton back by the first game. That's not asking too much is it?
QBREES9, WhoDat!656 and Utah_Saint like this.
Rugby Saint II is offline  
Old 08-14-2012, 03:56 PM   #3
10000 POST CLUB
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Cypress Tx.
Posts: 16,193
Re: Who Dat in Court: The Jonathan Vilma Case Explained

This is not over by a looooonnnnggggg shot. We will know 1/2 of it by Sep 1, the other half will not be known until after the apeal to the higher court is heard...

In the end Sean Payton is not part of this at all...
TheOak is offline  
Old 08-14-2012, 04:41 PM   #4
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: New Haven Ct
Posts: 18,775
Re: Who Dat in Court: The Jonathan Vilma Case Explained

Originally Posted by Rugby Saint II View Post
At this point all I want is to see Vilma win in court and Coach Payton back by the first game. That's not asking too much is it?
Not at all !
QBREES9 is offline  
Old 08-14-2012, 05:29 PM   #5
Site Donor
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 2,309
Originally Posted by x626xBlack View Post
This is not over by a looooonnnnggggg shot. We will know 1/2 of it by Sep 1, the other half will not be known until after the apeal to the higher court is heard...

In the end Sean Payton is not part of this at all...
Or just maybe...

That's part of what Mr. Benson was explaining to Goodell. If Vilma does win in court, but the NFL decides to wait for an appeals process before decreasing the suspensions and Payton sits for a year, and it is then found that the Saints had nothing more than the same type of pay for performance scheme that at least a dozen other teams had going (I know that's a heck of a run-on)

Then Goodell would be remembered as the commissioner that screwed a team over and not for anything else he's done.

Arrogant men worry a lot about their legacy.
Utah_Saint is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

LinkBacks (?)
LinkBack to this Thread: http://blackandgold.com/saints/48140-who-dat-court-jonathan-vilma-case-explained.html
Posted By For Type Date Hits
Who Dat in Court: The Jonathan Vilma Case Explained This thread Refback 08-14-2012 04:13 PM 14


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:07 PM.


Copyright 1997 - 2013 - BlackandGold.com
no new posts