Skip to main content

Employer Wants to Retroactively Apply Tougher Discipline to Employee Misconduct? Think Again


National Football League Players' Association (on behalf of Adrian Peterson) v. the National Football League - U.S. District Court of Minnesota


Facts:  For those unfamiliar with Adrian Peterson's legal issues, Peterson was disciplined by the NFL for alleged misconduct in May 2014 when Peterson caused injury to his child when he was disciplined.  

As a result of an outcry against the rather lenient punishment Baltimore Ravens running back Ray Rice got for knocking out his fiance (initially, Rice was given only a two game suspension), in August 2014, the NFL Commissioner issued an enhanced personal conduct policy and increased penalties for violations of the policy.  Even though Peterson's actions occurred in May 2014, Commissioner Roger Goodell enforced the new policy against Peterson and suspended him for the remainder of the 2014 season, fined him six weeks pay, and ordered him to participate in counseling and treatment.  The Commissioner further stated that if Peterson failed to cooperate, the suspension could be lengthier and without pay.

The NFL Players' Association appealed the discipline and an arbitrator affirmed Commissioner Goodell's discipline in all respects.  The arbitrator noted that the Commissioner had "broad discretion" to impose discipline under the new policy, which the arbitrator held implicitly meant the Commissioner could impose penalties retroactively. 

The NFL Players' Association subsequently asked the U.S. District Court in Minnesota to vacate the arbitrator's award against Peterson. 

Holding:  Unsurprisingly, the U.S. District Court stated upfront that an arbitrator's decision is usually given great deference by the courts.  However, in this case, the arbitrator's decision meant that the new personal conduct policy would be retroactively applied against Peterson.  As a result, the Court held this was not permissible, as the new policy could not be retroactively applied to Peterson's alleged misconduct.  Consequently, the Court did not agree with the NFL's argument that the new policy granted the Commissioner "broad discretion" under the Collective Bargaining Agreement to impose enhanced policies set forth in the new policy.  

Judgment:  The U.S. District Court vacated the arbitrator's ruling and remanded the case on the grounds that the disciplinary policy could not be retroactively applied against Peterson, as the policy was not in place at the time Peterson's alleged misconduct occurred. 

The Takeaway:  Employers, let this case serve as a reminder:  When an employee engages in misconduct, only enforce the policy/policies in place at the time the alleged misconduct occurred. When you think about it, this reasoning makes sense.  How can an employee be expected to adhere (and be bound) to a disciplinary policy, if that policy was not in place when alleged misconduct occurs?  As this case demonstrates, retroactively attempting to enforce a disciplinary policy against an employee is not going to pass muster. 

Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge Doty

Date:  February 26, 2015

Opinion:  http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/USCOURTS-mnd-0_14-cv-04990/USCOURTS-mnd-0_14-cv-04990-0

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum,...
Post a Comment
Read more

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations
Post a Comment
Read more

NLRB: Former Employee Cannot Be Barred From Work Premises After Filing Wage Suit

MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC - NLRB Facts :  MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC d/b/a Grand Sierra Resort & Casino ("GSR") operated a facility that included a hotel, casino, restaurant, clubs, bars, and a pool which were all open to the general public.  Tiffany Sargent ("Sargent") was briefly employed by GSR as a "beverage supervisor" in December of 2012.  After her employment ended, Sargent continued to socialize at one of the clubs.  GSR had a long standing practice of allowing former employees to patronize its facility and did not prohibit Sargent from doing so.  In June of 2013, Sargent and another employee filed a class and collective action against GSR for alleged unpaid wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law.  In July of 2014, GSR denied Sargent access to an event at one of the clubs.  GSR followed up with a letter and stated that with the on-going litigation (from the wage suit), it decided to bar Sargent from the premises. ...
1 comment
Read more