By Christopher R. Deubert, Senior Writer
On May 22, 2025, Darin Ruf, a former utility player for the Milwaukee Brewers and several other clubs, sued the Cincinnati Reds in an Ohio state court arising out of an allegedly career-ending knee injury that Ruf suffered at the Reds’ Great American Ball Park on June 2, 2023. Ruf injured his knee when he ran into the end of the rolled up tarp chasing a foul ball down the first base line which, according to Ruf, was not properly padded.
The Reds attempted to remove the case to federal court, arguing that Ruf’s common law claims were preempted by the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between Major League Baseball (MLB) and the players union, the MLBPA. In a January 23, 2026 Opinion and Order, the court granted Ruf’s motion to remand, calling the Reds’ effort at removal “a swing and a miss.” It is the latest loss on this issue for MLB clubs, where NFL clubs have had more success.
The preemption playbook
All of the major American sports leagues have negotiated comprehensive CBAs with their counterpart unions which address a wide range of issues affecting the terms and conditions of employment for the players. Those CBAs also require that should there be a dispute as to whether the league, a club, a union, or a player abided by their obligations under the CBA, such dispute be settled through a confidential arbitration process. As a result, in each league, dozens of grievances are commenced and resolved each year, typically without any public awareness.
Nonetheless, players have occasionally brought lawsuits against a league or clubs in state or federal courts for conduct which they have argued is not covered by the CBA. The leagues and clubs involved seek to have the cases dismissed, arguing that claims are preempted (i.e., barred) by the CBA, pursuant to the federal Labor Management Relations Act.
In the 1985 case of Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck, the Supreme Court established the controlling principal on this issue, holding that claims whose resolution are “substantially dependent upon analysis of the terms of” a CBA are preempted. In other words, claims that are “inextricably intertwined” with the terms and provisions of the CBA cannot proceed. Instead, such claims must be brought pursuant to the arbitration provisions contained in the CBA. The intended and frequent result is the dismissal of the claims.
Preemption in practice
The cases that have presented the most difficulty for leagues (and courts) are those like Ruf’s, where a player has alleged that they suffered an injury due to negligently maintained field conditions.
One of the most well-known cases concerns former NFL running back Reggie Bush. In 2016, Bush sued the St. Louis Rams and their stadium authority when, at the conclusion of a play, he slipped and fell on a concrete surface surrounding the turf playing field causing a knee injury. A federal court denied the Rams’ arguments that Bush’s claims were preempted by the CBA. The court held that although at the time the NFL and NFLPA had a “Joint Committee for the purpose of discussing, among other things, the player safety and welfare aspects of playing equipment, playing surfaces, and stadium facilities[,] [t]he Joint Committee d[id] not have the power to commit or bind any of the signatories to the CBA… nor does the CBA establish a contractually agreed upon standard of care applicable to Plaintiff’s claims.” In 2020, a jury awarded Bush $12.5 million for the injury which effectively ended his career.
The same decision was reached the following year in a case brought by then Philadelphia Eagles player and now Houston Texans head coach DeMeco Ryans after Ryans injured his Achilles tendon due to what he alleged was a dangerous playing surface at the Texans’ NRG Stadium. A Texas state court held that it did not need to analyze the CBA to evaluate Ryans’ negligence claim and it was therefore not preempted.
Whether in response to these legal losses or not, the NFL changed certain of its practices in such a way to seemingly avoid similar litigation in the future. As part of the 2020 CBA, the NFL and NFLPA added a section establishing and discussing the responsibilities of the joint NFL-NFLPA Field Surface Safety & Performance Committee. In short, that Committee is responsible for establishing and enforcing playing field standards, codified as the Field Surface Manual.
In 2023, a federal court granted a motion to dismiss by the NFL and the Los Angeles Chargers against claims brought by former Denver Broncos linebacker Aaron Patrick arising out of injuries he suffered on the field during a 2022 game. The court ruled that the claims were preempted, holding that “resolution of Patrick’s claims, and specifically determination of the scope of each defendant’s duty and potential liability, would require interpretation of the CBA,” including the Field Surface Manual.
Baseball at bat
By comparison, MLB and its clubs have struggled in such cases.
In 2018, an Illinois federal court held that claims brought by former New York Yankees’ outfielder Dexter Fowler arising out of an on-field injury at the Chicago White Sox’s Guaranteed Rate Field were not preempted. The court rejected the defendants’ argument that resolution of Fowler’s claim required interpretation of Article XIII of the CBA, which established a joint MLB-MLB-MLBPA Safety and Health Advisory Committee, since the Committee had no binding authority or supervisory role.
In 2021, the owner of the San Francisco Giants’ stadium argued that claims brought by former outfielder Mac Williamson after he tripped over a bullpen mound in foul territory were preempted by: (i) a contract provision governing player pay in the event they suffer an injury; (ii) the league’s concussion protocols; (iii) league rules permitting bullpens on the field; and (iv) the CBA’s grievance arbitration mechanism. The court disagreed, relying in part on the fact that Williamson was suing the stadium owner rather than the club.
The Reds have now suffered the same fate after trying to rely on the same provisions raised in the Fowler and Williamson cases and arguing that they were wrongly decided. The court in the Ruf v. Reds case easily differentiated the Patrick case since the NFL’s Field Surface Manual “imposed mandatory duties,” whereas the MLB Committee does not.
In fact, the Court determined that the Reds’ arguments were sufficiently meritless as to award Ruf’s attorneys $7,350 in fees for having had to move to remand.
Since remand, Ruf has filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint.
The next pitch
The Ruf case seems likely to eventually settle, as most cases do.
Yet, MLB must be asking itself whether changes need to be made to avoid future such claims. It could work with the union to craft a set of mandatory field safety rules. As in Patrick, such rules could give MLB and its clubs a powerful argument that to evaluate a player’s negligence claim, they would have to interpret the collectively bargained rules, and consequently such a claim is preempted.
At the same time, MLB may have made the decision that retaining near unilateral control over field safety matters is more important than facing the occasional player tort lawsuit.
Deubert is Senior Counsel at Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete LLP
