(06-04-2012 12:53 PM)JDaveG Wrote:  Guess what this does to Jonathan Vilma's lawsuit?

(06-04-2012 01:21 PM)ATLBound Wrote:  What? All these posts in between means my post will be conveniently ignored but I am intrigued by what this means for Vilma's lawsuit.

(06-04-2012 02:10 PM)TeamPlayer1 Wrote:  However, and you see it in the news often, when a man asks an undercover female cop for sex he is busted and is guilty of soliciting. He does not have to have sex with the cop to be guilty. Just the intent.

(06-04-2012 02:11 PM)Drathdon Wrote:  I just want to make sure the appeals keep coming until July 16th so that Vilma's contract will still be on the cap, and cannot be used to sign Brees. What a beautiful quagmire. The NFLPA should be ashamed at how hard they defend these cheaters, while rolling over on defending the safety of players.

(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.

(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.