## Facts

- The dispute arose from allegations that Tom Brady participated in a scheme to use underinflated footballs during the 2015 AFC Championship Game.
- The NFL commissioned an investigation led by Ted Wells; the resulting report concluded it was “more probable than not” that Patriots personnel engaged in ball deflation and that Brady was “at least generally aware.”
- Acting under Article 46 of the NFL–NFLPA collective bargaining agreement (CBA), Commissioner Roger Goodell suspended Brady for four games for “conduct detrimental to the integrity of, or public confidence in,” professional football.
- Brady, through the NFLPA, appealed under the CBA; Goodell appointed himself as the hearing officer and conducted the arbitration.
- In the arbitration, Goodell upheld the suspension, drew an adverse inference from Brady’s destruction of his cellphone near the time of his investigator interview, and analogized the conduct to performance-enhancing drug violations that carry a four-game suspension for a first offense.
- The district court vacated the award, reasoning that Brady lacked notice that the conduct could lead to a suspension and that the arbitration was fundamentally unfair due to certain evidentiary and procedural rulings.
- The NFL Management Council and the NFL appealed the vacatur.

## Issues

1. Whether the Commissioner, as arbitrator, exceeded his authority under the CBA by imposing and upholding a four-game suspension for “conduct detrimental” based on the investigation and his findings.
2. Whether the arbitration should be vacated because Brady lacked adequate notice of the prohibited conduct and potential discipline, or because the arbitral procedures and evidentiary rulings denied fundamental fairness.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment vacating the award and directed confirmation of the arbitration award.
- The court held that the Commissioner acted within the broad disciplinary and arbitral authority granted by Article 46 of the CBA.
- The court found Brady had adequate notice that conduct undermining the game’s integrity could result in significant discipline, including suspension.
- The court rejected claims of fundamental unfairness based on the arbitrator’s refusal to compel testimony from NFL General Counsel and denial of requests for investigative notes and memoranda.
- The court accepted the adverse inference drawn from Brady’s cellphone destruction as a permissible evidentiary determination within the arbitrator’s authority and refused to reweigh the evidence.

## Legal Principles

- Judicial review of labor-arbitration awards under federal labor law is narrowly circumscribed and highly deferential.
- A labor-arbitration award must be enforced if it “draws its essence” from the CBA and the arbitrator is even arguably construing or applying the agreement within the scope of delegated authority.
- Courts may not second-guess an arbitrator’s factfinding, credibility determinations, or contract interpretation merely because the court would have reached a different result.
- Labor arbitration need not replicate federal court discovery or evidentiary rules; the question is whether procedures were fundamentally fair under the parties’ agreed contractual framework.
- When a CBA grants an institutional actor both disciplinary authority and authority to arbitrate appeals of that discipline, courts generally enforce that allocation absent action outside the agreement’s bounds.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit confirmed the Commissioner’s arbitration award suspending Brady, holding that the CBA vested broad discretion in the Commissioner to impose and uphold discipline for “conduct detrimental” and that the award and procedures were within the contractually defined arbitral authority and satisfied the limited standards for judicial review.


Nat'l Football League Mgmt. Council v. Nat'l Football League Players Ass'n, 820 F.3d 527 (2d Cir. 2016)