Collins v. Nat'l Football League

• Decision Date: 12 October 2021
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 4:21-CV-792
• Parties: La'el COLLINS, Plaintiff, v. The NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE, The National Football League Management Council, and Roger Goodell, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Texas

566 F.Supp.3d 586

La'el COLLINS, Plaintiff,

v.The NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE, The National Football League Management Council, and Roger Goodell, Defendants.

Civil Action No. 4:21-CV-792

United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Sherman Division.

Signed October 12, 2021

La'el Collins, Pro Se.

I. John Eric Gambrell, Squire Patton Boggs, LLP, Dallas, TX, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

AMOS L. MAZZANT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Temporary Injunction (Dkt. #9). Having considered the motion, response, and arguments of the parties, and in light of the Court's extremely limited role at this juncture, the Court finds the motion should be DENIED.

BACKGROUND

On October 6, 2021, Plaintiff La'el Collins ("Collins") sued Defendants National Football League (the "NFL"), National Football League Management Council (the "NFLMC"), and Roger Goodell. Collins challenges the NFL's decision, and the confirmation by an arbitrator, of disciplinary actions against him that led to a five-game suspension without pay (see Dkt. #3).

Collins has been an offensive right tackle for the Dallas Cowboys Football Club (the "Cowboys"), one of the 32 member clubs of the NFL, since 2015. A collective bargaining agreement (the "CBA") governs the terms and conditions of Collins’ employment with the NFL (Dkt. #13 at p.3). In March 2020, the NFLMC (on behalf of the NFL) and the National Football League Players Association ("NFLPA") (on behalf of the players) entered the CBA (Dkt. #13 at p. 3). The CBA contains the NFL's Policy and Program on Substances of Abuse (the "Policy") "which includes provisions for mandatory testing for prohibited substances, treatment protocols for players that use substances of abuse, and discipline for violations" (Dkt. #13 at p. 3).

Under the Policy, players agree to submit to unannounced testing during the term of their NFL contract (Dkt. #9 Exhibit 2 § 1.3.1). A player may choose to submit his specimen for collection away from the Club facility or stadium; however, that choice will not serve as an excuse for failure to appear for testing (Dkt. #9 Exhibit 2 § 1.3.3). Additionally, if the NFL's Medical Advisor determines a player has failed "to cooperate fully in the Testing process or provides a dilute specimen," he is treated as having a positive test result (Dkt. #9 Exhibit 2 § 1.3.3). Further, "a deliberate effort to substitute or adulterate a specimen; to alter a test result; or to engage in prohibited doping methods" is treated as a positive test result (Dkt. #9 Exhibit 2 § 1.3.3).

If a player receives a positive result, he enters Stage One under the Policy. If the NFL Medical Director determines that a player in Stage One "has failed to cooperate with the evaluation process or fails to comply with his Treatment Plan," then the player advances to Stage Two (Dkt. #9 Exhibit 2 § 1.5.1(c)). Subsequent violations of the Policy, including positive tests, unexcused failure to appear for testing, and failure to cooperate with testing or clinical care, subject the player to discipline, including fines and suspensions (Dkt. #9 Exhibit 2 § 1.5.2(c)). The Policy sets forth rigid guidelines for the discipline of a player who is in Stage Two:

?

(Dkt. #9 Exhibit 2 § 1.5.2(c)). Appendix E of the Policy outlines the "Procedure for Failure to Appear for Testing":

When a Player fails to appear for testing, the Parties, in consultation with the Medical Advisor, will determine the nature of the failure and the degree of the Player's culpability. If the failure is not excusable but does not reflect a deliberate effort to evade or avoid testing, the Player will be subject to the discipline set forth in Section 1.5.2(c).... Deliberate efforts to substitute or adulterate a specimen, alter a Test Result, evade or avoid testing or engage in prohibited doping methods will be subject to the discipline set forth in Section 1.3.3 of the Policy.

(Dkt. #9 Exhibit 2, App'x. E).

Due to violations of the policy, Collins advanced to Stage Two on December 10, 2019 (Dkt. #13 Exhibit 1-A). During the subsequent offseason, Collins "repeatedly provided the Collection Vendor with international location information without the required supporting documentation ... [and] on at least one occasion [Collins] provided location information that later proved to be false" (Dkt. #13 Exhibit 1-A). The NFL also determined that on at least three occasions Collins failed to fully cooperate with testing (Dkt. #13 Exhibit 1-A). Consequently, the NFL suspended Collins for the first four games of the 2020 regular season (Dkt. #13 Exhibit 1-A). However, before the suspension started, Collins appealed the decision and on July 14, 2020, the NFL agreed to resolve his appeal by allowing him to pay a fine in lieu of serving the four-game suspension (Dkt. #13 Exhibit 1-A). Pursuant to the July 14, 2020 agreement, Collins remained in Stage Two (Dkt. #13 Exhibit 1-A).

On August 26, 2020, Collins received "Marijuana and Dilute" positive tests¹ (Dkt. #13 Exhibit 1-A). On at least three other occasions during the 2020 NFL season, Collins failed to appear for testing (Dkt. #13 Exhibit 1-A). Collins also had another "Marijuana and Dilute" positive test result (Dkt. #13 Exhibit 1-A). Due to these violations, Collins was assessed with a "½ week fine" for the positive test results, and a $20,000 fine for failing to appear for testing (Dkt. #13 Exhibit 1-A).

Nevertheless, Collins again failed to appear for toxicology appointments scheduled on November 9, November 14, and November 16, 2020 (Dkt. #13 Exhibit 1-B). On November 25, 2020, Collins appeared for testing (Dkt. #13 Exhibit 1-B). However, the collector's notes indicated that during the appointment, Collins asked to speak with the collector "man to man" and asked the collector if there was something that "we could do" (Dkt. #13 Exhibit 1-G). According to the collector, Collins offered him $5,000, and later $10,000 (Dkt. #13 Exhibit 1-G). Collins again failed to appear for testing on December 5, December 9, December 10, and December 14, 2020 (Dkt. #13 Exhibit 1-B).

On January 6, 2021, the NFL suspended Collins for five games after finding that Collins violated the Policy's drug test requirements (Dkt. #3 ¶ 35). Collins timely appealed the punishment on January 7, 2021, and a hearing was held before an independent arbitrator on August 31, 2021 (the "Hearing") (Dkt. #3 ¶ 37). At the Hearing, the NFL represented that Collins had previously received a four-game suspension in December 2019 based on violations of the Policy (Dkt. #3 ¶ 38).

On September 9, 2021, the arbitrator upheld the five-game suspension (Dkt. #3 ¶¶ 41, 44). The arbitrator did not reach the issue of whether Collins also engaged in an intentional effort to evade or avoid testing by his failures to appear (Dkt. #13 Exhibit 3). Instead, the arbitrator's decision was based on the attempted bribery, "without consideration of this second set of violations of the Policy" (Dkt. #13 Exhibit 3 ¶ 5.21). Citing to Section 1.3.3 of the Policy, the arbitrator found that suspension was a reasonable punishment for the alleged bribery because it was "the next logical progression from prior discipline" (Dkt. #3 ¶ 42).

On September 14, 2021, Collins submitted a request for reconsideration of the arbitrator's decision and notice of appeal (Dkt. #3 ¶ 45). The next day, the hearing officer denied the motion for lack of jurisdiction (Dkt. #3 ¶ 45).

Collins brought suit on October 6, 2021 in Collin County, Texas, requesting injunctive relief (Dkt. #1 Exhibit 1).² The NFL removed the case to federal court that same day (Dkt. #1). On October 7, 2021, Collins filed the present motion (Dkt. #9). The same day, Defendants filed a response (Dkt. #13). On October 8, 2021, the Court held a temporary injunction hearing (see Dkt. #10).

LEGAL STANDARD

A plaintiff seeking a temporary restraining order must show: (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a substantial threat that he will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted; (3) the threatened injury outweighs any damage that the injunction might cause the defendant; and (4) the injunction will not disserve the public interest.

Nichols v. Alcatel USA, Inc. , 532 F.3d 364, 372 (5th Cir. 2008).

The movant has the burden of introducing sufficient evidence to justify the granting of a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order. PCI Transp. Inc. v. Fort Worth & W.R.R. Co. , 418 F.3d 535, 546 (5th Cir. 2005). The party seeking relief must satisfy a cumulative burden of proving each of the four elements before a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction can be granted. Miss. Power & Light Co. v. United Gas Pipe Line Co. , 760 F.2d 618, 621 (5th Cir. 1985). Injunctive relief is an extraordinary remedy that requires the applicant to unequivocally show the need for its issuance. Valley v. Rapides Parish Sch. Bd. , 118 F.3d 1047, 1050 (5th Cir. 1997). Therefore, denial of a temporary restraining order will be upheld where the movant fails to sufficiently establish any one of the four criteria. Black Fire Fighters Ass'n v. City of Dall. , 905 F.2d 63, 65 (5th Cir. 1990).

Because this request for a temporary restraining order reaches the Court following a final arbitrator decision, the Court's review of that decision is "extremely deferential." Teamsters Loc. No. 5 v. Formosa Plastics Corp. , 363 F.3d 368, 371 (5th Cir. 2004). All doubts are resolved in favor of upholding the award. Executone Info. Sys., Inc. v. Davis , 26 F.3d 1314, 1320 (5th Cir. 1994). If the Court "determine[s] that the arbitrator has acted within the ambit of his authority as set by an arguable construction and application of the CBA, [it] ha[s] no authority to reconsider the merits of the arbitration award." Weber Aircraft Inc. v. Gen. Warehousemen & Helpers Union Loc. 767 , 253 F.3d 821, 824 (5th Cir. 2001). This is true "even if the parties argue...