A federal judge from the Eastern District of Missouri has remanded a negligence claim brought by several former professional football players against the Arizona Cardinals back to state court, finding that the relevant collective bargaining agreements, which would have triggered federal jurisdiction, do not apply to the instant claim.
The plaintiffs in the case were Roy Green, who played from 1979 to 1987; John J. T. Smith, who played from 1985 to 1987; and Edward Scott, who played only in 1987.
The men alleged that they suffered multiple concussive and sub-concussive blows to the head between September 1, 1987 and December 1987. The plaintiffs alleged that the team, as their employer, owed them several duties, including the duties to maintain a safe working environment, not to expose employees to unreasonable risks of harm, and to warn employees about the existence of concealed dangers.
They further claimed that the team knew or should have known about the risks of brain trauma, which “can lead to neurological impairments, including Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE).”
Another interesting wrinkle in the claim was the plaintiffs’ allegation that “the team increased the risk of exposure to brain trauma by forcing the players to return to work after they were concussed and by installing AstroTurf, a playing surface that yields faster, more dangerous play and increases the risk of concussion.”
The aforementioned allegations resulted in the plaintiffs suing for negligence, negligent representation, fraudulent concealment, and loss of consortium.
In the court’s analysis of the case, it first looked at the team’s argument that an interpretation of the applicable CBAs (the first entered into in 1977 and the second in 1982) is mandatory in determining whether the team did enough to protect the plaintiffs. Further, the Cardinals claimed the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA), which “completely preempts state law claims,” is the vehicle for making that determination.
The court failed to buy into that argument:
“Unlike the negligence claim in Gore [v. Trans World Airlines, 210 F.3d 944 (8th Cir. 2000)], here the duties arise out of the common law based upon the employer-employee relationship and not out of any particular terms in the CBAs. The reasonableness of the Team’s actions towards [Plaintiff] Scott cannot depend upon an interpretation of a CBA, as Scott was never bound by the contract. It stands to reason, then, that the other plaintiffs’ negligence claims do not necessarily depend upon an interpretation of the CBAs, so far as the duties owed them and the standards applied to their claims derive from the same source as for Scott.” Id. at p.
The court relied on a similar rationale to reach the same conclusion on the negligent misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment claims.
Roy Green, et al. v. Arizona Cardinals Football Club LLC; E.D. Mo.; Case No. 4:14CV461 CDP; 5/14/14
The case is also available here: http://klamannlawcases.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/33-order-granting-remand.pdf
