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, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

Happening Tomorrow: Connecticut’s Minimum Wage Increases

For those employers and employees alike in Connecticut, mark your calendars as tomorrow, the minimum wage rate increases in the state from $13/hour to $14/hour. This wage hike comes after Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont had signed Public Act 19-4 into law in 2019 which progressively raised the state’s hourly minimum wage rate every year for five years.  In fact, next year, the hourly wage rate will top out at $15/hour.  Beginning in January of 2024, the hourly wage rate will be indexed to the employment cost index. For additional information:   https://portal.ct.gov/Office-of-the-Governor/News/Press-Releases/2022/06-2022/Governor-Lamont-Reminds-Residents-That-Minimum-Wage-Is-Scheduled-To-Increase-on-Friday
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more