A federal judge from the Eastern District of Missouri has dismissed the concussion-related claims of several former National Football League players against the NFL Players Association (NFLPA), holding that the claims are untimely under the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA).
The plaintiffs, whose careers spanned from 1975 to 2012, brought two separate lawsuits against their union and two of its former presidents, which were consolidated and resolved in the instant opinion.
The substantive allegations were nearly identical, according to the court. During their respective careers, the players suffered multiple repetitive traumatic head impacts and concussions during practices and games. These injuries, allegedly, were neither acknowledged nor treated while the plaintiffs were players. The players paid money throughout their careers to the NFLPA as association dues.
“The NFLPA assured the players they would protect them and owed them a fiduciary duty, stating that they would act in the players’ best interests at all times,” wrote the court, citing the complaint. “However, the NFLPA did not spend significant funds on research into ways to mitigate or prevent brain trauma, such as developing safer helmets, competition rules, or football equipment. The NFLPA also failed to certify medical personnel that treated NFL players, despite having a duty to do such.
“The players allege that the defendants were in a superior position of knowledge, and they knew the dangers and risks associated with repetitive head impacts and concussions. They attained this knowledge from the NFLPA’s own medical consultants and commissioned studies on the subject, the NFLPA’s participation in the Retirement Board of the Bert Bell/Pete Rozelle NFL Player Retirement Plan, and the NFLPA’s participation in the Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Committee. Despite that superior knowledge, the defendants knowingly concealed the information from the players and fraudulently misrepresented there was no link between head impacts and cognitive decline. The players allege that these actions caused or contributed to cause the players to suffer long-term neuro-cognitive injuries, including dementia, depression, memory loss, and chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE), a condition caused by repetitive sub-concussive and/or concussive blows to the head. The players allege that by concealing or omitting information, the defendants caused the players to ignore the need for treatment.”
The NFLPA moved to dismiss the lawsuits, arguing that the claims are ultimately preempted by section 301 of the LMRA.
In its analysis, the court first considered the fraudulent concealment, fraud, and civil conspiracy allegations. These state law claims are “actually claims for breach of the duty of fair representation under section 9(a) of the National Labor Relations Act and (are) completely preempted,” according to the court, which relied on Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171, 190, 87 S. Ct. 903, 17 L. Ed. 2d 842 (1967).
Similar arguments were successfully made with regard to the negligence claims. To prove negligence, the plaintiffs had to show the defendants “had a duty to protect (them) from injury: and that the defendants “failed to perform that duty,” which “caused injury” to the plaintiffs. L.A.C. ex rel. D.C. v. Ward Parkway Shopping Ctr. Co., L.P., 75 S.W.3d 247, 257 (Mo. banc 2002).
“The players contend that the defendants owe a duty independent from the duty of fair representation,” wrote the court. “They allege that the defendants possessed superior knowledge about the relationship between head impacts in football and brain injuries and a ‘unique vantage point,’ obtained through the NFLPA’s participation in the Retirement Board of the Bert Bell/Pete Rozelle NFL Player Retirement Plan and in the Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Committee, studies commissioned by the NFLPA, and the NFLPA’s own medical consultants. The players contend that this duty required the defendants to disclose their complete knowledge to the players.”
The defendants countered that the court “must interpret the applicable CBAs in order to determine whether the NFLPA owed the players a duty and whether the players’ reliance was justified.”
Turning to the negligent misrepresentation claim, the court revisited the plaintiffs’ argument that “the defendants, in the course of business and because of a pecuniary interest, supplied false information regarding the risks of traumatic head impacts. They allege these misrepresentations occurred before, during, and after their playing years.”
The court agreed, in part:
“The NFLPA had a CBA-mandated advisory role, which at times required it to review current player safety materials. The extent to which the players were justified in relying on the NFLPA’s statements will necessarily depend upon an interpretation of the various CBAs. The claim of negligent misrepresentation is preempted by section 301 of the LMRA.”
Christian Ballard, et al., v. National Football League Players Association, et al.; E.D. Mo.; Case No. 4:14CV1267 CDP, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108621; 8/18/15
Attorneys of Record: (for plaintiffs) Richard F. Lombardo, LEAD ATTORNEY, SHAFFER AND LOMBARDO, Kansas City, MO; Brett A. Emison, WENDT GOSS PC, Kansas City, MO; Charles R.C. Regan, Michael Thomas Yonke, YONKE LAW, LLC, Kansas City, MO. (for defendants) David Louis Greenspan, Jeffrey L. Kessler, LEAD ATTORNEY, WINSTON AND STRAWN LLP, New York, NY; James G. Martin, LEAD ATTORNEY, DOWD BENNETT, LLP, Clayton, MO.
