Williams v. NFL update

Bloomberg's Sophia Pearson, Beth Hawkins, and Aaron Kuriloff detail the latest in Minnesota Vikings defensive tackles Kevin and Pat Williams' lawsuit against the NFL, the trial for which began this week.

The lawsuit stems from December 2008, when the NFL suspended both Williams and four other players for testing positive for the diuretic bumetanide, a banned substance contained in the dietary supplement StarCups, the label of which omits mention of bumetanide. Simplifying the case quite a bit, Williams claims that the testing and subsequent suspension violate Minnesota law's protections for confidentiality and for failure to timely notify of drug test results. The NFL contends that Minnesota law should not govern a dispute that should arise under the agreed-upon terms and conditions of the NFL-NFLPA collective bargaining agreement. Last month, in a separate hearing, a Minnesota judge--Judge Gary Larson--partially rejected the NFL's arguments. Now the parties are in trial before Judge Larson.

Here's an excerpt of the Bloomberg piece -- it focuses on the NFL's arguments and it includes my comments regarding how the NFL views the case:

* * *

The NFL counters that it complied with Minnesota law and that the players’ union agreed to the steroid monitoring program. The case was moved from federal to state court last year because it centers on questions of state laws governing workplace drug testing.

A federal judge in Minnesota blocked the league from punishing the tackles while the case makes its way through the state court. Judge Gary R. Larson must decide whether the league or the players’ union qualifies as the players’ employer to determine whether state labor law applies.

The outcome of the case could affect the “legal deference” the NFL and other leagues have enjoyed through collective bargaining on drug rules with players’ associations, Michael McCann, an associate professor at Vermont Law School, said yesterday in an interview.

“It could provide incentives for players to file lawsuits in states which feature laws that are uniquely protective of individuals’ privacy rights,” McCann said. “Players might use a particular state’s laws to obtain benefits or protections that are not collectively bargained.”

* * *

To read the rest of the Bloomberg article, click here. I wrote a column on this topic back in December 2008. Gabe also has written about the case, most recently last month.