By Michael James, Jr.
The NBA, NHL, and Major League Baseball all have seem to have their fair share of internal problems in recent years that garnered public attention and criticism of how the situations were handled. The other leagues’ dilemmas, however, pale in comparison to the NFL’s handling of Ray Rice’s suspension stemming from him assaulting his wife in a New Jersey Casino.
Initially, Ray Rice received a two game suspension from the league after he plead not guilty to one count of third-degree aggravated assault and instead sought entry into a pre-trial intervention program for first-time offenders. The diversionary program allowed him to clear his record of charges. The league received public criticism expressing that the suspension was essentially a slap on the wrist for such a serious offense. The NFL would respond with a harsher, indefinite suspension. However, this punishment also garnered public controversy because the indefinite suspension was imposed on Rice only after TMZ published a second video that graphically captured Rice knocking his then-fiancée unconscious in a New Jersey casino.
Notwithstanding the second video controversy, the league still has adequate standing to impose the two game suspensions through its personal conduct policy. The league has discretion to punish players for conduct detrimental to the NFL under the personal conduct policy. Regardless of who saw the elevator video and when, Rice was indicted by a grand jury for aggravated assault and was sentenced by a judge for his conduct.
Rice’s indefinite suspension is vulnerable to legal challenge though. The crux of the controversy stems from the double jeopardy provisions contained in Article 46 of the collective bargaining agreement. Under the Article 46 “one penalty” clause, the NFL cannot punish a player twice for the same conduct or act. The clause bars the league and teams from double-penalizing a player for the same conduct or act. While the elevator video shows a different sequence of Rice hurting Palmer, it is arguably the same act and occurrence.
NFL has implied that Rice was untruthful about what happened in the elevator in an attempt to shield their double-penalization liability. The NFL could better justify its indefinite suspension if Rice was in fact untruthful in speaking with Roger Goodell because the NFL would have impose a punishment based on misinformation. Rice has disputed the accusation by claiming that the TMZ footage was altered and depicts an alternative occurrence than of the actual event. If true, Rice will have a high likelihood of filing a successful grievance because the original penalty was based on correct information.
The NFL has also justified the indefinite suspension on the NFL not having seen the elevator video prior to Monday. In claiming so, the NFL implies that the second video constitutes a separate occurrence, which justifies the additional and more stringent punishment. However, four independent sources claim informing the NFL and the Ravens organization of the incident and sending the video to the NFL. An independent review of the disciplinary process will favor Rice, if the sources are accurate.
Even if none of Rice’s potential legal claims prove successful, Rice may still be in a good position to extract a settlement from the NFL that returns him to the NFL, but not necessarily the Ravens. Regardless of the NFL’s problematic investigation, NFL teams have wide discretion to release players under contract. Rice committed a graphic domestic violence act and was sentenced for his conduct. As long as Rice is paid in accordance with his contract, he likely has no viable legal argument against the Ravens.
James holds a Juris Doctor degree from The Dickinson School of Law at Penn State University and is awaiting admission to the New York Bar. He is the former President of PSU’s Sports and Entertainment Law Society.
