By Jeff Birren, Senior Writer
Anthony Trucks played for the Steelers for a brief moment in 2008 and filed a worker’s compensation case in 2011. The Steelers admitted the claim but insisted that Trucks was merely a “seasonal employee” who would thus receive less compensation than a non-seasonal employee under Pennsylvania’s workers compensation statute. Trucks was at best a marginal player and the Steelers had a major home court advantage since prior published state court opinions favored the Steelers’ position. But cases, like football games, have to be fought out and sometimes the underdog prevails. It is also a case that casts both parties in a poor light.
Trucks’ Short Career and Subsequent Workers Compensation Case
Trucks was an outside linebacker who played college football at Oregon. Undrafted, he signed with Tampa Bay in May 2006 but was released at the end of training camp. He joined Washington’s practice squad in December 2006. He signed for the 2007 season but was released prior to playing in a game. He was then on the Steelers practice squad in 2007 and on Jan. 8, 2008 signed a futures contract with the Steelers (ww.steelers.com/ news/steelers-sign-eight-players-to-reserve-future-roster Jan. 11, 2008). The contract was for two NFL seasons (Pittsburgh Steelers Sports, Inc. Petitioner v. Workers Compensation Appeal Board (Trucks) (“WCAB”), Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, No. 1257 C.D., Jan. 3, 2020 (“Steelers”) at 2). In his application, Trucks claimed that he injured his left shoulder in a preseason game on Aug. 8, 2008 (Id.). The Steelers released Trucks two days later (www.steelers.com/news/steelers sign veteran quarterback, punter) (Aug. 10, 2008).
Trucks filed his claim on Aug. 4, 2011 (Steelers at 2). The Club accepted liability but contested “the proper method of calculating Claimant’s average weekly wage” (Id.). The issue was whether Trucks was a seasonal employee and thus subject to reduced workers compensation benefits compared to non-seasonal employees. Throughout the lower court battles Trucks prevailed and the Steelers appealed. Oral argument was on Oct. 2, 2019 and the Court ruled on Jan. 3, 2020.
The Steelers’ Appeal
The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court stated that its “review is limited to a determination of whether an error of law was committed, whether findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence or whether constitutional rights were violated” (Id. at 4, fn 4 (citation omitted)). The Steelers asserted that the Worker’s Compensation Judge (“WCJ”) and the WCAB should have calculated the claim as a seasonal employee “because Claimant could not possibly play football throughout the year and is, therefore, a seasonal employee” (Id. at 5). Moreover, based on two prior Commonwealth Court opinions, “all professional football players are seasonal employees” (Id.). The Court acknowledged that in “order to determine whether WCJ Tiernan and the Board properly calculated Claimant’s claim…we must first determine whether Claimant’s employment was seasonal” (Id.). That meant examining the cited opinions.
The first case was Station v. WCAB (Pittsburgh Steelers Sports, Inc.) 608 A.2nd 625 (Pa. Cmwlth), appeal denied, 615 A.2nd 1315 (Pa 1992). Larry Station had been a great college linebacker at Iowa. He was twice named an All-America and is the school’s career leader in tackles, having led the team in tackles four straight years. He played in the 1986 Rose Bowl but unfortunately hurt his back in that game. As a result, he was not drafted by the Steelers until the 11th round. Station signed his contract with the Steelers in July but was still unable to practice or play until October (Id. at 6). He played in six games that year but was subsequently hurt in practice and did not return to play (Id.). He tried to resume playing in 1987 but was released. He then filed a worker’s compensation claim (Id. at 6/7).
The Court determined that Station was a seasonal employee and thus subjected to the reduced benefit. It did so based on the following factors: “(1) players’ obligations began at the start of the pre-season training camp and lasted until the regular season was complete; (2) players could not engage in off-season employment with another football team; (3) players were to be compensated after the completion of each game, starting with the first regular season game; and (4) players were not compensated outside of the regular season.” Furthermore, “the prohibition from playing football with other entities, thereby restricting the claimant from playing football throughout the year, was evidence that the claimant was a seasonal employee” (Id. at 7). Finally, the Court believed that “the employer’s decision to fix players’ compensation by completion of games, rather than pay compensation yearly, monthly, or pursuant to any other temporal limits, also led to the conclusion that the claimant was a seasonal employee” (Id.). The Court acknowledged the “exceptional nature of the facts” and consequently determined benefits in an alternative method used “in exceptional cases for the sake of fairness to Claimants” (Id. fn 11).
The other cited case was Cornelius Ross v. WCAB (Arena League) (702 A.2d 1099 (Pa. Cmwlth 1997), appeal denied, 724 A.2d 937 (Pa 1998)). Ross played for the Pittsburgh Gladiators and injured a toe during the 1990 season but continued to play. He re-injured the toe during the club’s sole postseason game and filed a worker’s compensation claim (Id. at 8). The WCJ found that Ross was a seasonal employee and the Commonwealth Court agreed. It did so in part in reliance on Station, in part because although football games could be played throughout the year they are only played for part of the year, that the contract prohibited players from playing for other teams and that the players were only paid during the regular season (Id. at 9).
The Trucks Court, however, stated that it could not agree that the prior cases meant that all players were seasonal employees subject to the statutory reduction in benefits. Furthermore, in Ross the court looked at the specific facts of the case. “Thus, in this case, we must consider the facts and terms of the Contract to determine whether Claimant was a seasonal employee” (Id.).
The Court noted that the contract covered two football seasons and did not end until February 2010 (Id.). Trucks was required to attend off-season mini camps, preseason training camp, all meetings and practices, and all preseason and postseason games, including any all-star games. He had to cooperate with the news media to promote the NFL and was required to attend 10 assigned appearances every year (Id.) Trucks, like Station and Ross, could not play football outside of his Steelers’ employment (Id.). In exchange for his promises, the Steelers agreed to pay Trucks a “yearly salary of $200,000 for 2008 and $230,000 for 2009” (Id. at 10 (emphasis in the original).
The Court distinguished Station and Ross by stating that the players’ obligations in those cases were to be performed in a “fixed and defined period of time” and that limitation was not in Trucks’ contract (Id.). Here, the contract “mandated attendance at numerous appearances, required football players to cooperate with news media to promote the NFL, and did not limit the performance of these activities to the regular season.” This “lack of seasonal limitations … indicates that Claimant’s employment was not seasonal” (Id.).
The prior cases had also viewed the contractual terms “as a restriction on the ability to play football and, therefore, determined that because the football players could not play football throughout the year, they were necessarily seasonal employees” (Id.) (emphasis in the original.) Conversely, Trucks’ contractual terms “seems to assert control over Claimant outside of the regular season” (Id. at 11). Thus, the Court interpreted “the limitation on Claimant’s ability to play football outside his employment as an indication” that the employment was not seasonal (Id.).
The Court acknowledged that the contract provided that Trucks would be paid only during the regular season and that limitation had been present in Station and Ross. However, the contract “makes it clear that Employer would pay Claimant a yearly salary in exchange for performance of all obligations under the Contract” and that included media appearances which were not limited to the regular season (Id.). Thus, although compensation was to be received only throughout the regular season that “does not limit players’ obligations to the regular season; especially where, as here, players are explicitly paid for performance of all obligations under the Contract” (Id.) (emphasis in the original). Trucks was thus an employee “whose wages are fixed by the year” (Id.).
The seven judges all concluded that the Board did not commit an error of law by declining to calculate Trucks’ benefits as a seasonal employee (Id.)
Neither Side Has Covered Itself in Glory
Trucks no doubt feels that he was injured, but before anyone begins to feel sorry for him, Trucks was not injured so seriously that he was unable to compete in American Ninja 9 nine years later in 2017 when he was 33-years-old. He also competed in American Ninja 10 in 2018 and American Ninja 11 in 2019. It is hard to imagine there are more than a handful of athletes competing in such vigorous athletic competitions while simultaneously seeking workers compensation benefits for an injury 10 years earlier. In addition, Trucks operated a gym for six years (around the same time he filed his claim), which requires gym owners to maintain their physique. Furthermore, if Trucks was injured in the preseason game, he could have filed an injury grievance against the Steelers after his release pursuant to Standard Player Contract Paragraph 13 and the 1993 Collective Bargaining Agreement (“CBA”) Paragraph X.
The Steelers’ requirements of Trucks were also in question. Players do not simply show up at the start of training camp. That year the team held a mandatory mini camp in early May. The CBA, Article XXXVI allowed teams to have a three-day minicamp, plus a day to be examined by the club physician. Players received housing and meal allowances, transportation expenses to and from the mini camp, plus a per diem payment. If a player was injured in such a mini camp, he would be afforded the same protections as players injured during the pre-season training camp.
Moreover, the Steelers, like all NFL teams, held a series of Organized Team Activities in May and June. Such “OTA” periods were allowed by CBA Article XXXVII. Although those sessions were “voluntary” the majority of players attended, knowing that it was expected of them. Players were paid separately for participating for all of those days. Players were also paid for their participation in summer training camp, and were paid after each preseason game, though at an amount reduced from the regular-season compensation.
Furthermore, many players worked out at the team’s facility year-round, and a number of players have offseason workout clauses that pay them for working at the club facilities in the offseason. CBA Article XXXVII also allowed teams to have 16 weeks of such offseason training at the club’s facility, and players were paid a per diem for each day they participated. As with the mini camps, players injured during such offseason training periods were paid as if they were injured in the preseason camp.
Teams are also able to require injured players to rehabilitate throughout the offseason, and to periodically see club physicians during that time, Standard Player Contract Paragraph 9. The NFL had long since stopped being a league where players spent the offseason getting out of shape and then spent the preseason getting into playing shape. It has been a year-round activity for all teams for decades.
Trucks will be paid workers compensation benefits based on the state’s guidelines for regular, and not seasonal, employees, as should be the case. However, one can only wonder what the medical experts will say about his condition when confronted with his very recent three-year participation in the American Ninja Warrior broadcasts. This case does not reflect well on either side of the aisle.
Birren is the former general counsel of the Oakland Raiders and is an adjunct professor of law at Southwestern University School of Law. He is a Senior Writer for Hackney Publications.
