By Christopher R. Deubert, Senior Writer
Tyus Bowser had a respectable NFL career, playing in 98 games over seven seasons with the Baltimore Ravens, Seattle Seahawks, and Miami Dolphins. Nevertheless, he contends his career was cut short by the negligence of doctors affiliated with the Ravens. Contrary to Bowser’s allegations, in 2023, the Ravens designated Bowser’s injury as a “non-football-related injury.” In a lawsuit filed in Texas state court on March 2, 2026, Bowser now also contends that the NFL Players Association failed to properly pursue a grievance over the Ravens’ designation.
A medical and legal morass
Bowser suffered a knee injury in the 2023 offseason, the details of which are notably omitted from his complaint. The Ravens then designated the injury as non-football-related in a July 18, 2023 letter and in a roster designation on August 29, 2023.
While the NFL-NFLPA collective bargaining agreement does not define a “non-football-related injury,” the term seems obvious (until lawyers are involved). The designation is important because players are not paid once placed on the Nonfootball Injury or Illness List. Bowser was due to be paid approximately $5.5 million in each of the 2023 and 2024 seasons and thus faced serious financial consequences from the designation.
Of relevance here, the collective bargaining agreement provides for different filing deadlines depending on the type of grievance. Under Article 43, Non-Injury Grievances (which encompasses most disputes) must be filed within 50 days of the relevant act or omission. Under Article 44, Injury Grievances must be filed within 25 days of the termination of a player’s contract. Injury Grievances are those where a player claims “that, at the time a player’s NFL Player Contract or Practice Squad Player Contract was terminated by a Club, the player was physically unable to perform the services required of him by that contract because of an injury incurred in the performance of his services under that contract.”
Bowser did not file any type of grievance in the fall of 2023 to challenge the Ravens’ designation.
He missed the 2023 season while trying to rehabilitate his knee. In the course of that treatment, Bowser alleges that he learned that his knee issues were cause by a staph infection “contracted during a medical treatment by the Club.”
[As an aside, staph infections have been a serious problem in the past for NFL locker rooms – in 2010, the Cleveland Browns settled a lawsuit with former wide receiver Joe Jurevicius concerning a staph infection and in 2017, the Tampa Bay Buccaneers did the same with former kicker Lawrence Tynes. As a result of those incidents, the NFL and NFLPA consulted with the Duke Infection Control Outreach Network on best practices for infectious diseases.]
On March 13, 2024, according to Bowser, “the Ravens terminated Bowser’s contract after he refused to provide the Club with copies of his outside medical records.” Bowser’s refusal is seemingly at odds with the collective bargaining agreement’s provision that permits players to obtain second opinions and to select the surgeon of their choice, so long as they consult with the team’s doctor and provide a report on the player’s condition and diagnosis.
On April 4, 2024, the NFLPA filed a grievance on Bowser’s behalf challenging the 2023 preseason designation that Bowser’s injury was non-football related.
The NFL responded by arguing that the grievance was time-barred by the 50-day statute of limitations for Non-Injury Grievances, citing a litany of established precedent.
At some uncertain date, the NFLPA apparently agreed and allegedly voluntarily dismissed Bowser’s grievance without consulting Bowser.
The union’s duty
Bowser’s complaint asserts three causes of action: (1) breach of the duty of fair representation; (2) negligence/legal malpractice; and (3) breach of fiduciary duty. Notably, Bowser named the NFLPA attorney responsible for the dismissing the grievance as a defendant in addition to the union.
As explained in Bower’s complaint, under the National Labor Relations Act, the NFLPA is the exclusive representation of NFL players for purposes of negotiating the terms and conditions of employment with NFL clubs. Under controlling Supreme Court precedent (here, here), that status obligates the union to represent all of its members fairly, in good faith, and without discrimination.
The NFLPA has been here before in a case that will undoubtedly serve as useful precedent. In 1978, the NFLPA filed a grievance on behalf of James Peterson, a linebacker for the Buccaneers. Peterson suffered an injury during the 1976 season. He then had his contract terminated during the 1977 training camp after having passed a preseason physical.
The NFLPA filed an Injury Grievance on Peterson’s behalf within two weeks, in August 1977. However, the NFLPA realized in February 1978 that the grievance should have been filed as a Non-Injury Grievance, the statute of limitations for which had since passed. An arbitrator therefore dismissed the grievance.
Peterson sued the NFLPA and its attorney alleging a breach of the duty of fair representation. A jury agreed with him. However, the district court vacated the verdict, finding the evidence insufficient. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, restating “the established principle that a union’s negligence cannot give rise to a suit for breach of the duty of fair representation.”
Bowser bounced?
Bowser seems likely to suffer the same fate as Peterson. The NFLPA did not pursue a Non-Injury Grievance on Bowser’s behalf in the fall of 2023 when he was initially placed on the Nonfootball Injury or Illness List. But it would have needed Bowser to tell them that the designation was not appropriate – and his complaint makes no allegation that he did.
It is unclear why the NFLPA thought the filing of the Non-Injury Grievance on that issue would have been timely. Moreover, there was perhaps a basis to file an Injury Grievance at that time.
Nevertheless, nothing in the complaint suggests that the NFLPA treated Bowser’s case poorly because of hostility toward him. If anything, it was negligent, but that is not enough.
Finally, the negligence/legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty claims are likely preempted by the NLRA as disguised claims for breach of the duty of fair representation, among other possible deficiencies.
Deubert is Senior Counsel at Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete LLP
