NFL: Saints Bounty Thread

[Beef]

(06-04-2012 02:01 PM)JDaveG Wrote:  Remember the bunk about how the lawsuit against Goodell fell outside the collective bargaining agreement because, supposedly, this was an action against an individual?

Well, if his actions were contemplated by and proper under the collective bargaining agreement, that argument doesn't hold water. He was acting in his official capacity and cannot be sued individually since his actions were part of his official job as the commissioner of the NFL. It's the idea that if a corporation or entity can be liable under a respondeat superior theory, you have to sue the corporation or entity rather than the person acting in their official capacity (usually this isn't a problem, because usually the corporation or entity has money and the individual does not). Here, that means the proper lawsuit would be against the NFL under the CBA. The only way around that is for Vilma to prove Goodell was acting outside his capacity as commissioner of the NFL, and the arbitrator's decision is clear he was not.

And while an arbitrator's decision doesn't establish this as a fact, it is evidence to help prove it, and more to the point, it points out the reasonableness of Goodell's apparent belief that he was acting in accordance with the CBA, which at the very least will help in defending an already specious slander case.

I completely understand what you're saying and agree. But don't defamation, libel, and slander sorta come with the advantage of either-or with regards to the subjectivness of their basis or context?

Can't Vilma take his NFL salary, for instance, out of the equation and claim that Goodell's words and actions, IF FALSE or misrepresented, cost him income via sponsors and endorsements outside the realm of the NFL and CBA?

Just curious.