Ezekiel Elliot remains suspended

[Phire]

@jrry32 I'll take a look after work

[Matts4313]

Didnt granting Brady the TRO also satisfy the irreparable harm requirement? 

[mse326]

2 hours ago, jrry32 said:

@mse326 and @Phire

Out of pure curiosity, I decided to take a few minutes to look around this morning to see how many opinions are out there discussing irreparable harm to athletes. I actually found something pretty interesting, and I'm shocked that Judge Failla didn't discuss this case at all in her opinion:

"Given the short careers of professional athletes and the deterioration of physical abilities through aging, the irreparable harm requirement has been met." Silverman v. Major League Baseball Player Relations Comm., Inc., 67 F.3d 1054, 1062 (2d Cir. 1995).

This case is distinguishable because the issue it dealt with was very different, but I'm surprised she didn't feel the need to distinguish it considering the impact of that finding by the Second Circuit on her finding. Again, I have no doubt that she could have distinguished it, but I think it adds to all of the sources out there making it clear that this sort of issue falls into a legal gray area.

I think that is so far from this situation to really not be applicable. I fully acknowledge that the language taken as just the quote seems applicable, at least enough to be mentioned and distinguished, but reading the opinion as a whole is very different. I think it is pretty clear that an unfair labor practice in CBA negotiations is irreparable. That is only heightened by the fact that even a brief time is not so brief in an athletes career. And actually think that is why it was mentioned just to show this is even more damaging in the professoinal sports field than in normal industry. But ultimately think irreparable harm in the context of unfair labor practices during labor negotiations is basically a given. Not even something that needs discussion.Further if we take the sentence as the lone reason the used for irreparable harm then any claim by an athelete ever would have irreparable harm. I don't think it was intended to go that far. 

Given such a radically different scenerio I don't think it is that imperative that she mentioned and distinguised it. Nor do I think the 2nd Cir will have any trouble recognizing this as different (not to say they wouldn't find irreparable harm, just that this citation really doesn't have any bearing). It may even be similar to your debate earlier with Phire about rushing and maybe not be completely full the way we would normally expect opinions to be (which frankly I think tend to be over-full with needless discussions and distinguishing or pretty weak cites to buttress their statements).

(I'll be back later as I may have more thoughts on this irreparable harm part)

EDIT:http://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1131&context=mlr 

This link is interesting. It seems like there is a split on whether "just and proper" requires the full analysis of an odinary injunction or whether it is only necessary to show it is needed to preserve the court's remedial powers. The 2nd circuit is in the first camp so has to talk about irreperable injury even though it is virtually a given in this context. That is why it was a curt 1 sentence statement. It is basically a given and this was just a little extra. At least that is how I interpret it.

[fretgod99]

1 hour ago, Matts4313 said:

Didnt granting Brady the TRO also satisfy the irreparable harm requirement? 

Brady's case was heard and ruled on by the District Coirt prior to the first game of the 2015 season.

[Matts4313]

1 hour ago, fretgod99 said:

Brady's case was heard and ruled on by the District Coirt prior to the first game of the 2015 season.

He had a TRO for an entire year, right?

[fretgod99]

1 hour ago, Matts4313 said:

He had a TRO for an entire year, right?

For 2015? No. The district court ruled in his favor and vacated his suspension.

The NFL appealed that decision and won, which meant the oroginal suspension was reinstated (in 2016, which is why he missed the games that season). So far as I recall, Brady never received an injunction. The initial filing in MN requested one, but the case was transferred to NY and got resolved before an injunction would have been relevant.

[Matts4313]

13 minutes ago, fretgod99 said:

For 2015? No. The district court ruled in his favor and vacated his suspension.

The NFL appealed that decision and won, which meant the oroginal suspension was reinstated (in 2016, which is why he missed the games that season). So far as I recall, Brady never received an injunction. The initial filing in MN requested one, but the case was transferred to NY and got resolved before an injunction would have been relevant.

Whelp, you lawyered me out of this convo. So ill just take your word.

[Deadpulse]

3 minutes ago, Matts4313 said:

Whelp, you lawyered me out of this convo. So ill just take your word.

Ive been lawyered out of this entire thread since page 2 

[jrry32]

43 minutes ago, fretgod99 said:

For 2015? No. The district court ruled in his favor and vacated his suspension.

The NFL appealed that decision and won, which meant the oroginal suspension was reinstated (in 2016, which is why he missed the games that season). So far as I recall, Brady never received an injunction. The initial filing in MN requested one, but the case was transferred to NY and got resolved before an injunction would have been relevant.

I checked. He didn't. The NFL also never filed for an emergency stay, so neither the SDNY not the Second Circuit discussed irreparable harm at any point in that case.

[TXsteeler]

10 hours ago, mse326 said:

No. Otherwise there would be no such thing as irreparable harm. But merely liking something or it having personal value does not make it a legal harm. There needs to be an actual legal interest in it.

Can you define this for me?

[jrry32]

8 hours ago, mse326 said:

I think that is so far from this situation to really not be applicable. I fully acknowledge that the language taken as just the quote seems applicable, at least enough to be mentioned and distinguished, but reading the opinion as a whole is very different. I think it is pretty clear that an unfair labor practice in CBA negotiations is irreparable. That is only heightened by the fact that even a brief time is not so brief in an athletes career. And actually think that is why it was mentioned just to show this is even more damaging in the professoinal sports field than in normal industry. But ultimately think irreparable harm in the context of unfair labor practices during labor negotiations is basically a given. Not even something that needs discussion.Further if we take the sentence as the lone reason the used for irreparable harm then any claim by an athelete ever would have irreparable harm. I don't think it was intended to go that far. 

Given such a radically different scenerio I don't think it is that imperative that she mentioned and distinguised it. Nor do I think the 2nd Cir will have any trouble recognizing this as different (not to say they wouldn't find irreparable harm, just that this citation really doesn't have any bearing). It may even be similar to your debate earlier with Phire about rushing and maybe not be completely full the way we would normally expect opinions to be (which frankly I think tend to be over-full with needless discussions and distinguishing or pretty weak cites to buttress their statements).

(I'll be back later as I may have more thoughts on this irreparable harm part)

EDIT:http://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1131&context=mlr 

This link is interesting. It seems like there is a split on whether "just and proper" requires the full analysis of an odinary injunction or whether it is only necessary to show it is needed to preserve the court's remedial powers. The 2nd circuit is in the first camp so has to talk about irreperable injury even though it is virtually a given in this context. That is why it was a curt 1 sentence statement. It is basically a given and this was just a little extra. At least that is how I interpret it.

The point isn't that it was a comparable case in terms of facts. The point is that many of the D. Cts. that found irreparable harm for athletes did so along those same lines. It's more to add more fuel to the fire behind my argument that you can't simply conclude that playing can't be an irreparable harm because that's their job. Again, the issue in Zeke's case is in a gray area.

I agree, though, that she was also time-crunched. It's a difficult job under those conditions.

[mse326]

1 hour ago, TXsteeler said:

Can you define this for me?

A legally cognizable interest means an interest recognized at common law or specifically recognized as such by the Congress. Here is a quote from a SCOTUS opinion. "a cognizable interest is one that 'consist 

of obtaining compensation for, or preventing, the violation of a legally protected right.'" Vt. Agency of Natural Res. v. U.S. ex rel. Stevens, 529 U.S. 765, 772–73 (2000).

If you are really interested here is a law review article discussing cognizable injuries in the context of standing.
It's a bit long and may be difficult to understand if not a lawyer

[mse326]

48 minutes ago, jrry32 said:

The point isn't that it was a comparable case in terms of facts. The point is that many of the D. Cts. that found irreparable harm for athletes did so along those same lines. It's more to add more fuel to the fire behind my argument that you can't simply conclude that playing can't be an irreparable harm because that's their job. Again, the issue in Zeke's case is in a gray area.

I agree, though, that she was also time-crunched. It's a difficult job under those conditions.

I understand that. But my interpretation of the 2nd circuit case isn't that the short careers actually made it irreparable. The ULP itself would be an irreparable injury. That statement is just to say it is even worse in sports. I don't read it as saying that that is a factor that actually makes it irreparable. So in the context of the other cases, or this case, they'd have to find irreparable injury without that and that only magnifies the harm.

I also think, in general, that is really a throw away sentence for the opinion in that the judge needed to include and irreparable harm "analysis" even though everyone understands that the ULP is almost always going to create an irreparable harm and clearly did so in this case.

[jrry32]

3 minutes ago, mse326 said:

I understand that. But my interpretation of the 2nd circuit case isn't that the short careers actually made it irreparable. The ULP itself would be an irreparable injury. That statement is just to say it is even worse in sports. I don't read it as saying that that is a factor that actually makes it irreparable. So in the context of the other cases, or this case, they'd have to find irreparable injury without that and that only magnifies the harm.

I also think, in general, that is really a throw away sentence for the opinion in that the judge needed to include and irreparable harm "analysis" even though everyone understands that the ULP is almost always going to create an irreparable harm and clearly did so in this case.

Assuming arguendo that you're correct, that still undercuts the argument that playing is work, which can't be a benefit.

[mse326]

Just now, jrry32 said:

Assuming arguendo that you're correct, that still undercuts the argument that playing is work, which can't be a benefit.

How so? The irreparable injury isn't not being allowed to work (which in fact they were as it was a strike not a lockout). It was the UPL of making unilateral changes (which in this case was significant things regarding FA and player movement) without being at an impasse.

I would also point out there is a difference in the right to work/make a living and the right here to actually play that is involved in the Elliot case

The shortness of the careers can magnify an injury, but does not itself cause one or change it's character.