## Facts

- Sterling Sharpe played professional football for the Green Bay Packers, a club in the National Football League (NFL).
- Sharpe’s employment relationship was governed by a collective-bargaining agreement (CBA) between the NFL Players Association (NFLPA) and the NFL (through management), and the NFLPA was the exclusive bargaining representative for NFL players.
- Sharpe’s player contract and the CBA required that employment disputes be resolved through the CBA’s grievance procedure, culminating in final and binding arbitration.
- After the 1994 season, Sharpe underwent surgery. Sharpe alleged he was not injured and did not need surgery, but the Packers coerced him into having it and led him to believe the club would pay his 1995 salary.
- Following the surgery, Sharpe alleged he was physically unable to play, and the Packers terminated him.
- The CBA recognized both “injury grievances” and “noninjury grievances,” and both types were subject to binding arbitration.
- On March 8, 1995, Sharpe filed an injury grievance against the Packers seeking payment of his full 1995 salary, asserting the club terminated him in violation of the CBA.
- Sharpe also filed a federal lawsuit against the NFLPA alleging breach of the duty of fair representation. He claimed the union urged him to withdraw the grievance and, when he refused, secretly agreed with the NFL to expedite the arbitration and not treat his claim as an injury grievance.
- Sharpe further alleged the NFLPA conveyed to the NFL that it did not believe Sharpe’s grievance had merit, harming Sharpe’s ability to present and develop his case in the grievance process.
- When the court ruled on the NFLPA’s motion to dismiss, the arbitrator had not issued a decision on Sharpe’s grievance against the Packers.

## Issues

1. May a player bring a federal duty-of-fair-representation claim against the union before receiving at least an adverse arbitration decision on the underlying CBA grievance against the employer?

## Decision

- The court granted the NFLPA’s motion to dismiss.
- The court held that it could not consider Sharpe’s duty-of-fair-representation claim unless Sharpe first received, at minimum, an adverse arbitration decision on his contract grievance against the Packers.
- Because the arbitrator had not decided Sharpe’s grievance, the lawsuit was premature, and the court did not reach the merits of Sharpe’s allegations about the NFLPA’s conduct.

## Legal Principles

- In a “hybrid” labor dispute, the claim that the employer violated the CBA and the claim that the union breached its duty of fair representation are linked; the employee generally must establish both.
- Where a CBA makes arbitration the final and binding method for resolving contract disputes, federal labor law favors allowing that procedure to run before court intervention.
- A duty-of-fair-representation claim tied to an unresolved contract grievance is not fit for judicial decision when the arbitration process has not yet produced a determination on the underlying CBA claim.
- At least an adverse arbitration outcome on the underlying grievance is required before a court will consider a related duty-of-fair-representation suit against the union.

## Conclusion

The court dismissed Sharpe’s duty-of-fair-representation action against the NFLPA because the CBA required final and binding arbitration of his grievance against the Packers and, at the time of suit, arbitration had not yet resulted in any decision—much less an adverse one—on the underlying contract claim.


Sharpe v. National Football League Players Association, 941 F. Supp. 8 (1996)