Update (Tuesday, April 26, 10:40 am ET): Judge Susan Nelson on Tuesday announced that she would hold a hearing Wednesday morning on the NFL’s request for a stay of her injunction. The NFLPA has until 10 am ET Wednesday to respond to the NFL’s request for a stay. So while some players were showing up at team facilities Tuesday, believing the lockout was lifted and they should therefore have the right to work out and/or receive treatment, teams are telling players nothing has changed until the ruling on the stay is issued.
U.S. District Court Judge Susan Nelson on Monday issued a ruling granting the NFLPA’s request for an injunction that would lift the NFL-imposed lockout and allow the new league year (complete with free agency) to begin. The NFL will appeal the decision, which means it’s uncertain when and whether that new league year will actually be permitted to start. But the players were claiming a big victory Monday night.
“Today’s ruling is a win for the players and for the fans that want to see a full NFL season in 2011,” said New York Giants’ defensive end Osi Umenyiora, one of the named plaintiffs in the players’ antitrust suit against the NFL. “The lockout is bad for everyone and players will continue to fight it. We hope that this will bring us one step closer to playing the game we love.”
The NFL and its owners said moments after the ruling that they would appeal to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals. As part of their appeal, the owners will ask Nelson for a stay of her ruling, which would keep the lockout in place pending the appeal. If she denies that request, the NFL will ask the 8th District Court for the stay.
“We believe that federal law bars injunctions in labor disputes,” the NFL’s statement read. “We are confident that the Eighth Circuit will agree. But we also believe that this dispute will inevitably end with a collective bargaining agreement, which would be in the best interest of players, clubs and fans. We can reach a fair agreement only if we continue negotiations toward that goal.”
But the NFLPA gave up its right to collectively bargain on behalf of the players when it decertified March 11 — the day the league imposed the lockout. Any talks now would have to take place as settlement talks on the Brady vs. NFL antitrust lawsuit, of which this injunction ruling was the first part. Nelson’s Monday ruling could have the effect of prodding the owners back into settlement talks (which broke off last week), especially if they don’t get what they want from the 8th Circuit.
If the 8th Circuit denies the league’s request for a stay, the lockout would end and the two sides would have to agree on a set of rules that would govern league business in the absence of a new collective bargaining agreement. It’s unclear what those rules would be, and if the stay is not granted, the owners’ side could become more inclined to settle the players’ antitrust suit rather than risk the damages they could potentially incur if they were found to have implemented illegal labor practices such as collusion (i.e., conspiring not to sign any free agents until the appeal is heard). Regardless, Monday’s ruling negatively affects the owners’ bargaining position in the ongoing dispute. Nelson upheld all of the players’ arguments, likely signaling to the league that the court isn’t likely to look with friendly eyes on in future portions of this particular case.
“We believe that this 89-page well-reasoned decision is totally consistent with prior precedent, governing caselaw as well as administrative rulings on all the issues raised by the NFL defendants,” said Jim Quinn, the attorney who argued for the injunction on the players’ behalf. “We are confident that this ruling will withstand any appeals.”
