By Steven Stamps, ESQ.
Judge Thomas Thrash, Jr. of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia upheld an arbitration award ordering several former NFL players to cease and desist from bringing workers’ compensation claims in California. The case, involved former Atlanta Falcon players that sought workers’ compensation benefits in California.
The players, Roderick Coleman, Wilrey Fontenot, Tony Gilbert, Kindal Moorehead, Stanley Pritchett, Karon Riley, Brett Romberg, Jason Webster, and Dez White, were all members of the Atlanta Falcons between 2002 and 2010. Each player had a provision in his contract, which required that workers’ compensation claims and disputes would be governed by the laws of the State of Georgia. The Falcons are headquartered in Georgia, play their home games in Georgia, and practice in Georgia. During the players’ time with the team, the Falcons played four of their 186 football games in the State of California. The players were not asserting specific injuries. They claimed that their injuries were cumulative and sustained in part from their play in games in California.
Following the players’ filing for workers’ compensation benefits in California, the Falcons initiated binding arbitration as required by the collective bargaining agreement between the NFL and the NFL Players’ Association. The arbitrator reviewed prior NFL arbitration awards and determined that the team was entitled to enforce the choice of law and choice of forum provisions contained in the individual contracts. The arbitrator did not review state or federal public policy in issuing the award.
The Falcons sought to confirm the award in federal court while the players’ argued that the award violated state and federal public policy. The players would be required to show that there was a dominant and explicit public policy against confirmation of the award. The players argued that the award violated Georgia, national, California, federal labor public policy, and the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution.
The Court first looked at Georgia public policy. The players pointed towards provisions that prevent contractual waiver of coverage and discuss sharing coverage with other states. The Court disagreed with the players because the award did not relieve the Falcons of any liability for benefits and limiting the claims to Georgia would not allow the players to receive more benefits than allowed by Georgia law. The players also cited case law, which the Court felt, suggested that it might violate Georgia public policy to contract out workers’ compensation liability to another state with which there are very few contacts. Accordingly, the Court concluded that Georgia public policy would not be offended by confirmation of the award.
Next, the Court discussed federal public policy. The players cited several authorities that the Court found to be insufficient. The Court distinguished the players’ case law because the players were not arguing that they were specifically injured in California and only played four out of 186 games there. The Court again found that there was not an explicit, well-defined, and dominant public policy against confirming the award.
Turning to California, the players cited the California workers’ compensation regime along with several cases. The Court based its holding on the recent opining in Matthews v. National Football League Management Council, 688 F.3d 1107 (9th Cir. 2012). Under very similar facts, the Ninth Circuit confirmed an arbitration award barring a Tennessee player from seeking workers’ compensation benefits in California. Matthews also did not allege any specific injury in California. The Court writes that there is uncertainty of California coverage because only four of 186 games were played in California and that uncertainty is fatal to the players’ argument.
In arguing that federal labor policy was violated, the players took the stance that the award violated state minimum labor standards. The Court said that this was not the case because it has been shown that the award did not violate the minimum labor standards of Georgia or California.
Finally, the players argued that the award violated the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution. The players cited two United States Supreme Court cases. The Court wrote that these cases only held that California could, without violating the Full Faith and Credit Clause, extend its workers’ compensation benefits to injured employees who either formed their contracts in California or where injured in California. The Supreme Court did not hold that the Clause is offended unless California can extend its workers’ compensation benefits without restraint.
In conclusion, the Court found that none of the authorities submitted by the players required an application of the law of a forum other than Georgia and given the players’ extensive contacts with Georgia, the award would not violate the Full Faith and Credit Clause.
The Atlanta Falcons Football Club LLC, et al., v. The National Football League Players Association, et al.; N.D. Cal.; CIVIL ACTION FILE NO. 1:12-CV-753-TWT, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 158057; 11/5/12
Steven M. Stamps is an associate for the Law Office of Ricky D. Green in 2010. A graduate of the University of Texas School of Law, Stamps is a frequent contributor to Sports Litigation Alert, especially in the area of workers compensation.
