Ray Rice Seeking Immediate Reinstatement

[HtownColt]

@Edwerderespn: Ray Rice now seeking immediate reinstatement via NFL appeal, back pay from #Ravens thru grievance for wrongful termination of contract.

Rice’s position is that the Collective Bargaining Agreement permits one punishment for infraction. In July, the NFL suspended Rice two games for the assault. Then, immediately after the video surfaced, the Ravens cut Rice and the NFL suspended him indefinitely.

If successful on both grievances, Rice would be eligible to receive $3.52 million from the Ravens. That’s the amount he would have earned if reinstated as of Week Three of the regular season.

Rice’s grievance against the NFL has been set for November 5 and 6. It’s unknown when the grievance against the Ravens will be resolved.

Regardless of Rice’s infraction, he has rights. The Ravens and/or the NFL knew or should have known exactly what he did when he was suspended by the league for two games. The move to cut him (by the team) and to suspend him indefinitely (by the league) obviously was driven by the intense public reaction to the elevator video. And while the moves may have won the Ravens and the NFL points in the court of public opinion, the team and the league arguably (or actually) screwed this up by not getting all of the pertinent evidence before suspending Rice in July.- pro football talk

[Derakynn]

Not versed in the CBA, so I can't say whether I think this makes sense or not. I know the league isn't the government, but generally you cannot increase a person's punishment retroactively once the rules are more favorable to what you want. You can't just change them so you can single out and punish a specific person. So he should have been punished for two games, or whatever the requirement was, regardless of what the uneducated public, who generally know very little about anything except emotion, wanted. Even under the new rules, he should only be punished for 6 games under his first infraction, thereby breaking their own rules anyway as we go into week 8. 

Do not get angry at me for anything I said, as I stand from a completely objective viewpoint that has my opinion about the infraction completely stripped from influence. This is all logistics. It has nothing to do with the infraction in question. 

[oldunclemark]

The NFL should have the right to ban a criminal.

Money aside (I'd pay him to go away) Ray has no RIGHT to be reinstated.

The NFL didn't screw up..Rice did.

They cant stop Ray from beating his wife but they can stop him from playing. The NFL is a private organization

[HtownColt]

The NFL should have the right to ban a criminal.

Money aside (I'd pay him to go away) Ray has no RIGHT to be reinstated.

The NFL didn't screw up..Rice did.

They cant stop Ray from beating his wife but they can stop him from playing. The NFL is a private organization

Double jeopardy

[BloodyChamp]

Not versed in the CBA, so I can't say whether I think this makes sense or not. I know the league isn't the government, but generally you cannot increase a person's punishment retroactively once the rules are more favorable to what you want. You can't just change them so you can single out and punish a specific person. So he should have been punished for two games, or whatever the requirement was, regardless of what the uneducated public, who generally know very little about anything except emotion, wanted. Even under the new rules, he should only be punished for 6 games under his first infraction, thereby breaking their own rules anyway as we go into week 8.

Do not get angry at me for anything I said, as I stand from a completely objective viewpoint that has my opinion about the infraction completely stripped from influence. This is all logistics. It has nothing to do with the infraction in question.

Unfortunately you can do that just about anywhere now which I hate, even though it's sometimes warranted on a humane level.

[oldunclemark]

Double jeopardy

That only applies to the courts..The NFL is not a court

[HtownColt]

That only applies to the courts..The NFL is not a court

Pro football talk stated that Rice's team says that the CBA says the samething.

"Rice’s position is that the Collective Bargaining Agreement permits one punishment for infraction."

He was punished 2 games for his infraction

[Dr. Guildo]

The NFL should have the right to ban a criminal.

Money aside (I'd pay him to go away) Ray has no RIGHT to be reinstated.

The NFL didn't screw up..Rice did.

They cant stop Ray from beating his wife but they can stop him from playing. The NFL is a private organization

Unfortunately the NFL screwed up the way they handle the whole case. I don't think anyone would want anything to do with him, but there may be a case for him being punished twice... and they may reinstate him.

[amfootball]

the team and the league arguably (or actually) screwed this up by not getting all of the pertinent evidence before suspending Rice in July.- pro football talk

What's that you say? The league messed up? And how.

[Nadine]

must be the cba.  everywhere else people lose their jobs for no reason at all.........every day.  Big money at stake here

[SkyBane]

That only applies to the courts..The NFL is not a court

The NFL CBA has a double jeopardy clause. NFL players have protection from double jeopardy written in to the contracts. By punishing Rice twice for the same offense, the rules agreed upon by the ownership and the players union were broken, and Rice has a right to reinstatement and the remainder of his contract with the Ravens. If upheld legally, I believe the Ravens would also be on the hook for the salary cap hit cutting Rice would cost them. I doubt any team would sign him to a deal, but making himself immediately available certainly doesn't hurt his situation from his viewpoint.

 

So no, the NFL is not a court, but it is a union shop that must abide union rules, no matter how toothless the union may be these days.

[jvan1973]

The NFL should have the right to ban a criminal.

Money aside (I'd pay him to go away) Ray has no RIGHT to be reinstated.

The NFL didn't screw up..Rice did.

They cant stop Ray from beating his wife but they can stop him from playing. The NFL is a private organization

The nfl should have put that in the CBA then. They didn't. They have to abide by the union agreement

[The Old Crow]

I really think the guy deserves a second chance. He made a horrible mistake, and was drunk off his rocker in doing it. No excuses, he paid the price, but he deserves a chance at rehabilitation. His record in the community leading up to this was excellent. No one wants to be totally defined by their worst moment or mistake in life.

[Valpo2004]

He might win the reinstatement but the contract thing, I can't see him winning that.

 

It seems to me that an NFL team can terminate your contract for whatever reason they feel like.  So I don't see how he could win that case unless they are trying to withhold some guaranteed money or something.

 

Even if he reinstated the public mood is so against him that no one is going to sign him.

[ruksak]

He is a leper. He has become the public face of domestic violence. There isn't a chance any team takes him for a long time, and that's going to require a great deal of humility and contrition on his part. Forcing his way back into league on the basis of contractual clause loopholes isn't exactly a contrite maneuver. 

 

*, Ray. Everybody hates Raymond. 

[Valpo2004]

I really think the guy deserves a second chance. He made a horrible mistake, and was drunk off his rocker in doing it. No excuses, he paid the price, but he deserves a chance at rehabilitation. His record in the community leading up to this was excellent. No one wants to be totally defined by their worst moment or mistake in life.

 

Not likely to happen 2 things are working against him.

 

1. He did something we are in a moral panic about - violence against women.

 

2. He was caught on video.

 

Vick got a 2nd chance but we aren't in the middle of a moral panic about dog fighting and he wasn't caught on video.  Any team that signs him knows their team logo is gonna be shown next to the video of Rice punching his now wife out over and over and over again.

 

A third thing he's got against him is that he's an RB and RB's have short shelf lives. 

[Superman]

He might win the reinstatement but the contract thing, I can't see him winning that.

 

It seems to me that an NFL team can terminate your contract for whatever reason they feel like.  So I don't see how he could win that case unless they are trying to withhold some guaranteed money or something.

 

Even if he reinstated the public mood is so against him that no one is going to sign him.

 

Yeah, I see no grounds for a wrongful termination suit. Even if he can prove that the Ravens or the NFL had seen the video already, the CBA permits a team to cut a player for any reason, aside from anything that's protected by federal anti-discrimination laws. Players get cut all the time, for things as minor as attitude issues or insubordination.

[DougDew]

It would be interesting to hear an actual labor attorney weigh in.  IMO, contrary to some beliefs, I don't believe it is legal for a company to fire an employee for no reason at all.

 

All terminations have to be supported by a reason.  Most firings in the private sector are performance based, although the idea that a company can fire an employee for conveying a certain image via personal conduct seems to be gaining (im)moral support.

 

And of course, there are layoffs.  Layoffs are supported by the idea that the company struggling financially and seeks to shed labor costs.  Those aren't really firings for performance issues, but the effect on the employee is the same.

 

You can't fire someone for a reason that is illegal.  And unions bargian for labor contracts so that the reasons for firing are spelled out more clearly.

 

Rice can be cut for performance reasons, like any employee.  But the Ravens and the NFL stated that the reason he was cut was for an infraction that is covered by the CBA.

 

It seems like Rice has a decent argument.

 

[Timothypa]

http://eworldoftanks.weebly.com/ http://tinyurl.com/ovdvbn5 może to

[Valpo2004]

It would be interesting to hear an actual labor attorney weigh in.  IMO, contrary to some beliefs, I don't believe it is legal for a company to fire an employee for no reason at all.

 

All terminations have to be supported by a reason.  Most firings in the private sector are performance based, although the idea that a company can fire an employee for conveying a certain image via personal conduct seems to be gaining (im)moral support.

 

And of course, there are layoffs.  Layoffs are supported by the idea that the company struggling financially and seeks to shed labor costs.  Those aren't really firings for performance issues, but the effect on the employee is the same.

 

You can't fire someone for a reason that is illegal.  And unions bargian for labor contracts so that the reasons for firing are spelled out more clearly.

 

Rice can be cut for performance reasons, like any employee.  But the Ravens and the NFL stated that the reason he was cut was for an infraction that is covered by the CBA.

 

It seems like Rice has a decent argument.

 

I don't get that though.  The CBA didn't protect Da'rick Rogers from being cut when he was pulled over for drunk driving.  It hasn't protected many other players who have screwed up with the law and gotten released from their teams.  

 

But Rice punches his Fiancee and somehow the CBA protects him from being released?  I don't see how.

 

I do think he has a case on the reinstatement thing because he received a punishment, nothing changed other then a video got made public and then the NFL extended his punishment because the video looked bad.  But in terms of contract termination. . . I don't see how he has a case, nor do I think he'd be able to sign with a team even if re-instated.  That video is going to follow him wherever he goes.  I say 75% chance he's done for good in the NFL.  

[The Old Crow]

Not likely to happen 2 things are working against him.

1. He did something we are in a moral panic about - violence against women.

2. He was caught on video.

Vick got a 2nd chance but we aren't in the middle of a moral panic about dog fighting and he wasn't caught on video. Any team that signs him knows their team logo is gonna be shown next to the video of Rice punching his now wife out over and over and over again.

A third thing he's got against him is that he's an RB and RB's have short shelf lives.

You may be right about all those things, I'm just saying he deserves a second chance. Whether he gets one or not, is another matter , like you said .

[ColtsBlueFL]

That only applies to the courts..The NFL is not a court

 

Leaving aside anything to do with RR and just commenting on what has happened, and what may/will happen.

 

NFL collected  'some' evidence and made a ruling.  Then, video comes out and the NFL changes ruling.   From my understanding it is true, they cannot do that... unless... there is new evidence to allow that.

 

RR team says RR was candid at meetings and admitted everything to the league.  League says what RR and team said doesn't match up to video that was released, and warranted new punishment.

 

So this appeals hearing is interesting.  First off, people are saying if league didn't know what was on video that allegedly didn't match RR story, they should have because they could have done better to get tape before ruling, or it was supplied to them but they ignored it for whatever reason(s).  Next is the second punishment issued didn't follow the unilaterally instituted Domestic Violence policy, in the suspension is set at 6 games 1st offense, and indefinite on #2.  The NFL went direct to indefinite, even though it was RR 1st offense under the policy.  So NFL would have to show RR story and tape were different so a new punishment could even be issued.  But all the stories surrounding evidence out there that NFL didn't get (for any number of reasons) show incompetence at best, and the new punishment of indefinite suspension and not following their own policy and applying a 6 game suspension is another mistake.  I have heard that Roger Goodell will now have to testify at the appeals hearing. This will get very interesting quite soon.

 

Personally, I think the policy is 6 games, and that is where we'll end up.  Whether other teams ever feel like offering RR an opportunity after that suspension is deemed served, I do not know.

[DougDew]

I don't get that though.  The CBA didn't protect Da'rick Rogers from being cut when he was pulled over for drunk driving.  It hasn't protected many other players who have screwed up with the law and gotten released from their teams.  

 

But Rice punches his Fiancee and somehow the CBA protects him from being released?  I don't see how.

 

I do think he has a case on the reinstatement thing because he received a punishment, nothing changed other then a video got made public and then the NFL extended his punishment because the video looked bad.  But in terms of contract termination. . . I don't see how he has a case, nor do I think he'd be able to sign with a team even if re-instated.  That video is going to follow him wherever he goes.  I say 75% chance he's done for good in the NFL.  

You're looking at the morality of each situation, rather than how the law applies to the situation. 

 

If Da'Rick was terminated according to the rules of the CBA, then the CBA has no case.  It doesn't matter what the moral transgression is.

 

Rice and the CBA are claiming that he was terminated, or punished, in a way that violated the CBA. 

 

The application of the rules, and hopefully laws, don't change because we think one infraction is worse than the other.

[Valpo2004]

You're looking at the morality of each situation, rather than how the law applies to the situation. 

 

If Da'Rick was terminated according to the rules of the CBA, then the CBA has no case.  It doesn't matter what the moral transgression is.

 

Rice and the CBA are claiming that he was terminated, or punished, in a way that violated the CBA. 

 

The application of the rules, and hopefully laws, don't change because we think one infraction is worse than the other.

 

I am looking at the law of the situation.  Like I said he may have a case in terms of reinstatement, but I don't see how he has a case on the money.  Last I knew the CBA allowed NFL teams to cut players for pretty much any reason they want. 

 

How could the CBA protect him from being cut if it hasn't protected others from being cut? 

[King Colt]

To reinstate that thug would be a dark day for the NFL, all sports and American society. There is now a commercial on every game to stop the violence by the NFL so if they let that bucket of skunk pee back in then the NFL itself should be suspended. Either take a stand or take a walk.

[SkyBane]

I am looking at the law of the situation.  Like I said he may have a case in terms of reinstatement, but I don't see how he has a case on the money.  Last I knew the CBA allowed NFL teams to cut players for pretty much any reason they want. 

 

How could the CBA protect him from being cut if it hasn't protected others from being cut? 

Because punishment had already been issued for the offense, then later was reissued for the same offense based on the video going public. That violates the CBA's double jeopardy clause. By contractual obligation, the NFL had no right to suspend him beyond the 2 games they initially did, and the Ravens had no right to take further action based on an illegal punishment. That's the legal argument. The first part is pretty blatant and will likely go Rice's way, and he will see reinstatement based on how the CBA is written. The second is more ticky tacky, and will probably end in a settlement rather than going to court. 

 

It's the union rules the NFL agreed to, and because of that, they had no legal right to indefinitely suspend Ray Rice.

[Valpo2004]

Because punishment had already been issued for the offense, then later was reissued for the same offense based on the video going public. That violates the CBA's double jeopardy clause. By contractual obligation, the NFL had no right to suspend him beyond the 2 games they initially did, and the Ravens had no right to take further action based on an illegal punishment. That's the legal argument. The first part is pretty blatant and will likely go Rice's way, and he will see reinstatement based on how the CBA is written. The second is more ticky tacky, and will probably end in a settlement rather than going to court. 

 

It's the union rules the NFL agreed to, and because of that, they had no legal right to indefinitely suspend Ray Rice.

 

I agree they don't have the right to indefinitely suspend him.  

 

However the contract thing I disagree, I just don't see how he has any case.  The NFL itself is subject to restrictions on how it punishes it's players.  But teams can cut players for pretty much any reason they feel like.  

[SkyBane]

I agree they don't have the right to indefinitely suspend him.  

 

However the contract thing I disagree, I just don't see how he has any case.  The NFL itself is subject to restrictions on how it punishes it's players.  But teams can cut players for pretty much any reason they feel like.  

It's not like he would get his job back if he won, the court's would just declare it was wrongful termination of contract and award him the full sum he would have gotten for playing through it, rather than just the guaranteed money he got via being cut. The only real difference is that I think that would put the Ravens on the hook for his cap numbers, which I believe they got exempted for by the league due to the circumstances of his termination. The main question regarding the whole thing is, are the individual teams held accountable to the CBA just like the league itself is? I believe the answer to that question is yes, meaning the Ravens initial stance of no further punishment, which was changed to cut from the team, would violate the CBA no double jeopardy clause as well, allowing for a wrongful termination suit on behalf of the Rice party. The reason this is more ticky tacky is because it hinges on things that were said behind closed doors, and what the Ravens knew when they initially decided on no further action beyond the 2 game suspension, which is why both sides would probably rather settle than drag all those private conversations and knowledge in to the public eye with court hearings.

 

The whole situation was grossly mismanaged, and left the door open for Rice to have a case.

[Valpo2004]

It's not like he would get his job back if he won, the court's would just declare it was wrongful termination of contract and award him the full sum he would have gotten for playing through it, rather than just the guaranteed money he got via being cut. The only real difference is that I think that would put the Ravens on the hook for his cap numbers, which I believe they got exempted for by the league due to the circumstances of his termination. The main question regarding the whole thing is, are the individual teams held accountable to the CBA just like the league itself is? I believe the answer to that question is yes, meaning the Ravens initial stance of no further punishment, which was changed to cut from the team, would violate the CBA no double jeopardy clause as well, allowing for a wrongful termination suit on behalf of the Rice party. The reason this is more ticky tacky is because it hinges on things that were said behind closed doors, and what the Ravens knew when they initially decided on no further action beyond the 2 game suspension, which is why both sides would probably rather settle than drag all those private conversations and knowledge in to the public eye with court hearings.

 

The whole situation was grossly mismanaged, and left the door open for Rice to have a case.

 

I don't think it can or will apply to the teams like that.  I know he won't be back on the team or anything but I just don't see a wrongful termination of contract working here.  

 

He'll win reinstatement, but no money. . . and then precisely zero teams will line up to sign him.  His career is over because that video will be played over and over again on the news next to the team logo of any team that signs him.  People will immediately begin their irrational hatred of that team because a guy they signed engaged in something we are in a moral panic about.  And since that moral panic won't be ending any time soon, Rice is done.

[SkyBane]

I don't think it can or will apply to the teams like that.  I know he won't be back on the team or anything but I just don't see a wrongful termination of contract working here.  

 

He'll win reinstatement, but no money. . . and then precisely zero teams will line up to sign him.  His career is over because that video will be played over and over again on the news next to the team logo of any team that signs him.  People will immediately begin their irrational hatred of that team because a guy they signed engaged in something we are in a moral panic about.  And since that moral panic won't be ending any time soon, Rice is done.

I agree his career is over, but it's tough to say how the CBA applies to individual team ownership without intimate knowledge of the CBA and the inner workings of the given organization. Ray may or may not have a case, but I don't think it will come to that, because in the end, the Ravens will settle with him to keep their privacy rather than be forced to testify about how they handled it behind closed doors. Ultimately, I believe that's the play here.

[Valpo2004]

I agree his career is over, but it's tough to say how the CBA applies to individual team ownership without intimate knowledge of the CBA and the inner workings of the given organization. Ray may or may not have a case, but I don't think it will come to that, because in the end, the Ravens will settle with him to keep their privacy rather than be forced to testify about how they handled it behind closed doors. Ultimately, I believe that's the play here.

 

I suppose that is possible, because the Ravens wouldn't want it to become public that they might have seen the video and not immediately released him.  

[jvan1973]

To reinstate that thug would be a dark day for the NFL, all sports and American society. There is now a commercial on every game to stop the violence by the NFL so if they let that bucket of skunk pee back in then the NFL itself should be suspended. Either take a stand or take a walk.

guys have done worse and been able to comeback