Williams Wall Close to Playing Full Season
by Anthony21 on Aug 5, 2009 1:31 PM CDT
in News
16 comments
Hit the link for the Strib's full report on today's court ruling, but in a nutshell, there's reason to celebrate: The Williams Wall just moved one step closer to playing the complete 2009 season:
Minnesota Vikings Kevin and Pat Williams can play the entire season unless a federal court claims jurisdiction over their lawsuit challenging the NFL's drug-testing procedures, Hennepin County District Court Judge Gary Larson ruled this morning.
Larson stayed action in his courtroom until the U.S. District Court determines whether it has jurisdiction on some of the players' claims.
August 18th is the new big day for the Williams Wall -- that's when federal appeals court will hear oral arguments in the case. If Pat and Kevin get through that final obstacle, and the case heads back to state court, the thing will be put on hold until after the season has reached a conclusion. So they'd be available for the full season.
Minnesota state law prohibits employers from imposing a punishment on employees for a single positive drug test. Therefore, the Williamses argue that their suspension isn't permitted by state law. In order for the Williamses to be suspended, the federal appeals court would need to reverse the ruling of Judge Paul Magnuson -- who referred Pat and Kevin's claim that the NFL violated that law to state court.
It's a confusing story, but here's the bottom line. If federal appeals court decides it doesn't have jurisdiction over the remaining claims by the Williams Wall, they're home free -- for at least the 2009 season. If the opposite occurs in federal appeals court and it reverses Magnuson's ruling, the suspension will go on after all.
0 recs |
16 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Nice to see
that the state of Minnesota actually respects its citizens rights. It’s too bad the federal government isn’t the same.
"Skol pa fiskande"
by NobleSavage on Aug 5, 2009 1:47 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs
Don’t let the words of NFL lawyers confuse anyone. Just because the Federal Appeals Court is hearing the NFL’s argument that these state laws should not apply to them because they have a CBA does not mean they’ve already won their argument. The Tenth Amendment gives states the right to pass state laws, and the NFL has yet to prove that these particular points of state law are an area where two private parties can make an agreement to the contrary. If you and I signed an agreement saying that Minnesota speeding laws don’t apply to us any more, that wouldn’t make it so, and Pat Williams or any party representing him can’t just say that all laws of the state in which they work in do not apply to them. The state law defines things that employers are banned from doing to Minnesota employees. The NFL will have to prove that the state of Minnesota has no right to apply such laws to them.
by Elgar on Aug 5, 2009 2:15 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
So basically...
the Williams Wall can play unless they can’t. ;-)
by Odin on Aug 5, 2009 2:06 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
let's see
if this can just keep getting prolonged until after PW retires. At this rate, I wouldn’t be surprised, HA!
"The latest Brett Favre summer saga apparently has come to an end. The 39-year-old reportedly informed the Vikings on Tuesday that he will not come out of retirement for a 19th season."
The greatest news I've heard all year!
by TheViking83 on Aug 5, 2009 2:47 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I can't see how the Federal Court Could overturn the original ruling...
There is clear precedence that state laws supersede collective bargaining agreements/union contracts. I will give one example. This is the right to work state vs. non right to work state. A typical union requires any employee of union titles to pay union dues in order to work in that position. In a right to work state, that state has a statute which prohibits this and even though the collective agreement that spans multiple states demands it for said unions, employees in these states do not have to pay union dues and are still afforded all the rights of a union worker (of course, their union rep may not try so hard for them).
This case does not appear to be any different. So, I would be shocked if they lose the federal appeal and I would fully expect that they win the State case in 2010.
I am not a lawyer, so I could be missing something obvious to all you legal wizards, but looks good from where I am sitting, with my purple Kool-Aid in hand.
by VikesSince85 on Aug 5, 2009 3:14 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Judge Magnuson is not just a lawyer, he is a federal judge, and he ruled the two points involving Minnesota law belonged in state court, which means that, in his opinion, nothing had been presented to indicate any federal law covered those points. The NFL has appealed his ruling, as one might well do when they think that’s their best way out of a tight jam.
However, the NFL still has to show what specific federal law in an area under which the federal law takes precendence according the the U. S. Constitution would prevent these Minnesota laws regulating employers from applying to the NFL. It’s easier for an NFL lawyer to claim to some eager news reporters that federal law alone should apply to the NFL than it is to convince a federal appeals court that some federal judge has not properly understood federal law.
It is ironic that the NFL thinks that the steroids policy means exactly what it says, even if that means the policy itself does not support its stated purpose of safeguarding the health of their employees, but also claims Minnesota law just takes too much darn time to read because they’re running a football league and they ought to be able to override the will of the duly elected government of the people of Minnesota or any other state that gets in their way.
It’s not the Williamses or the player’s association who control what is the law in the state of Minnesota, it’s the Minnesota legislature and the Minnesota state courts. Nowhere have I found a document that says the people of Minnesota have elected the NFL or any player’s association to govern Minnesota for them.
You can’t just claim we don’t think we should obey certain laws because that would make it harder for us to make money. That’s the way Bernie Madoff thought.
by Elgar on Aug 5, 2009 6:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
the vikings fought the law
And the law lost!
by allday28 on Aug 5, 2009 3:59 PM CDT via mobile reply actions 0 recs
I hope your right
To the 18th!
Bernard, Percy and AP oh my!
by VikesPma on Aug 5, 2009 5:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
even a setback wouldn't be the end
even if the federal court overturns the original ruling on the 18th there would still be another appeal. basically if it’s tried at the federal level, the case would probably be appealled on both sides all the way to the supreme court. and there’s no way the supreme court would rule on this case before the superbowl. i’d doubt they’d even decide to take it before the end of the season.
so basically, either way it goes there’s only a very slim chance that they would miss any games this season due to suspension. the legal system would have to suddenly start moving really fast.
by iseepurplepeople on Aug 5, 2009 4:25 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Florio used to be a lawyer
(and maybe even still practices… or does some sort of consulting??)
and at the end of his most recent post on the topic says:
In other words, if we lived in Delaware we’d be placing some of our lottery-ticket money on the Williamses.
I like the sound of that.
Also, in the comments section somebody came out with very original “They’re responsible for what they put in their bodies” argument and somebody else had this to say:
The issue in state court isn’t whether they knew about the drug, used it to mask steroid use, or even that the NFL sandbagged them cause they failed to disclose the drug in Starcaps — it’s whether MN state law applies. If the bargaining agreement doesn’t preclude state law, it doesn’t supersede state law.
In short, MN state law applies on 2 fronts. First, state statutes say that an employee can’t be punished for taking a legal drug, and second, a MN employee can’t suffer adverse action after a first negative test. The bargaining agreement procedure violates both those statutes, and since state law is not precluded in the agreement, the NFL loses.
The dopes should have put the right language in the collective bargaining agreement when it was drafted. The NFL has admitted that the Williams boys took Starcaps to lose weight off their collective fat asses, not steroids. Yet, the NFL is following the technical terms of the bargaining agreement to punish them, claiming uniform application is necessary. If the NFL can base its position on following technicalities when it has admitted the spirit of the agreement was not violated, how can you now trash the Williams boys for forcing the NFL to adhere to the same technicalities in the same agreement and MN law?
Well, we know the answer to that question — you’re a cheeser.
The NFL appealed the case to federal court, knowing it takes twice as long to get anything done in federal court — not the Williams boys. The NFL was the one that asked the state court to delay a ruling. Don’t blame the delays on the Willaims. The NFL should settle this before a court order sets the issue in stone.
Emphasis mine
Compelling argument, and after I had a whole lot of doubt about this case, the sun may not be setting on the horizon just yet. Looks like the NFL and the NFLPA will have some new things to discuss when attempting to construct a new CBA after/during this season.
"The latest Brett Favre summer saga apparently has come to an end. The 39-year-old reportedly informed the Vikings on Tuesday that he will not come out of retirement for a 19th season."
The greatest news I've heard all year!
by TheViking83 on Aug 5, 2009 4:35 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
it’s too bad big business (read nfl) tends to get its way when it comes to changing or interpreting laws. the combined weight of the nfl, mlb, nba, nhl, etc… will weigh heavily on elected officials all across the country. that’s a lot of campaign contributions right there.
and yes i understand how the checks and balance thing works and that this case is being (currently) decided by the courts. but how long until congress gets involved? at that point all bets are off.
by iseepurplepeople on Aug 7, 2009 12:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I obviously want them to be able to play without the specter of a possible suspension over there heads, but I think this situation needs to be approached like the other major personnel situation for the Vikings this summer. Until its over, I will do my best not to ride the wave of media coverage too high. Although unlike that other situation however, I will be pulling for the Williams Wall to win their case.
by vikingfuture8816 on Aug 5, 2009 4:41 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
What maters most this offseason
The WALL. Not Favre, Sage vs. Tavaris or Winfield’s contract negotiations. If Pat and Kevin were to miss the first four games it would be devastating. More devastating than not getting Favre or T.Jack getting injured. These guys are why the Vikes are in every game they play in, even when the offense sputters. All the suddwn 1-2 yard stuffs and tackles for a loss turn into 4-6 yard gains. This offseason has been dragging on with all the indicision. I hope its over (for this season anyway) on the 18th.
Bernard, Percy and AP oh my!
by VikesPma on Aug 5, 2009 5:36 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
