Vilma Sues Goodell

[peterpan]

I like it. I don't like how Goodell can hand out suspensions and fine as ever he sees fit. Remember B Marhsall betting his GF for the 4th time and getting 1 game, while Lynch got 3 for having a permitted handgun locked in its case in the trunk of his car? WTF is that?

 

I would think that at a minimum Vilma could win his entire years salary if he wins. The NFL better have some evidence.

 

The NFLPA either can't or otherwise isn't going to pay the legal fees for this lawsuit.

 

This suit can't be won by Vilma. He would have to prove 4 things--first, he has to prove Goodell's claims are false, second he has to prove he was harmed, third he has to prove that Goodell's claim was made without adequate due diligence or research, and 4th (as a celebrity or public figure) he has to prove that Goodell made his claims with the intent to do harm or with reckless regard for the truth.

 

correct me if I am wrong, but I believe your forth point is only true if the person is a politician or running for political office. If its just two people or companies, it doesn't have to be intentional. My company has sued collection agencies who have harmed our businesses credit wronglyfully, even though they were acting in good faith (they had bad info from the people who hired them). They didn't do it intentionally and we still won.

[DC Tom]

Oh, that's a great read. Vilma's entire case, as filed, presents no more evidence beyond "Liar, liar, pants on fire!"

 

 

Yeah, this'll fly.

[ICanSleepWhenI'mDead]

correct me if I am wrong, but I believe your forth point is only true if the person is a politician or running for political office. If its just two people or companies, it doesn't have to be intentional. My company has sued collection agencies who have harmed our businesses credit wronglyfully, even though they were acting in good faith (they had bad info from the people who hired them). They didn't do it intentionally and we still won.

I'm inclined to believe that Goodell was telling the truth, which is a complete defense to any defamation suit. But who knows? It does seem odd that Vilma would file this suit if he knows that Goodell's statements were truthful. FWIW:

 

http://www.answers.c...ander-and-libel

 

In New York Times Company v. Sullivan (1964), the U.S. Supreme Court provided a significant expansion of the protection of the press from libel actions. Stemming from a case in which an elected official in Montgomery, Ala., complained of defamation by civil-rights activists, the court ruled that to protect the free flow of speech and opinions, public officials could only collect damages for libel if falsehoods were made with "reckless disregard" for the truth. This ruling has since been extended to any celebrity before the public.

 

I haven't looked to see if any court has decided whether an NFL player or other pro athlete is considered a "celebrity before the public," but my guess is that Vilma is sufficiently in the news on a regular basis to be a public figure for purposes of a defamation suit. So if Vilma filed suit against a newspaper, broadcast network or other member of the media, he would probably have to show that falsehoods were made maliciously (i.e., in this context, with at least "reckless disregard for the truth").

 

But Vilma didn't file suit against a reporter or media company - - he filed suit against the commissioner of a professional sports league. I haven't researched it, but it seems to me like the reasons for granting extra protections to the press - - protecting the free flow of speech and opinions by reporters and their employers - - don't apply to a defamation suit against the commissioner of a sports league.

 

So even though Vilma may very well be a celebrity or public figure, it's not clear to me whether or not he would have to prove that Goodell acted maliciously to win a defamation suit against Goodell.

 

Vilma's suit is significantly different from your company vs. collection agency example because the plaintiff, Vilma, is probably a public figure. But Vilma's suit is also significantly different from the Sullivan vs. NY Times case because the defendant, Goodell, is not a reporter or media company.

 

I wonder if Goodell has any way to claim that the NFL's ownership of NFL Network (a TV broadcaster) entitles him to the extra legal protections given to members of the media in defamation suits by celebrities or other public figures? Seems like a stretch, but I don't know how much of Goodell's job duties involve NFL Network business. If he has a separate job title or routine job duties with NFL Network, he might be in a better position to make that argument.

 

It will be interesting to see if the courts require Vilma to prove that Goodell acted with malice.

[finknottle]

Good On Vilma - while I think he is probably guilty of participating in the bounty program and pledging money I think its outrageous that Goodell gets to act as judge, jury and executioner -- you need some form of independent arbitration as well as public disclosure of evidence. Since that is not available Vilma should use all the tools available rush the evidence to a public forum with the goal of trying play this season. This is one of those tools.

 

Let me see if I have this right: you own a company, and you believe an employee is doing something detrimental to your business. You investigate and decide to suspend them, consistent with any labor laws or agreements. Are you saying you can't do this without independent arbitration and public disclosure of the evidence?

 

Can a business ever take disciplinary action without independent arbitration and public disclosure?

[NoSaint]

Let me see if I have this right: you own a company, and you believe an employee is doing something detrimental to your business. You investigate and decide to suspend them, consistent with any labor laws or agreements. Are you saying you can't do this without independent arbitration and public disclosure of the evidence?

 

Can a business ever take disciplinary action without independent arbitration and public disclosure?

I'd think they should have some access to the evidence, especially if disputing the claim. Not to mention a year removed from a highly specialized profession where millions will certainly be lost.

 

This isn't "joes been clocking in late so I'm taking him off the schedule for a couple days after he signs off on his time sheet."

Edited May 18, 2012 by NoSaint

[Brainiac72]

Demaurice Smith wants names of who talked to the NFL.

 

but why? the NFLPA should be protecting the whistle blowers as much as the "accused". although a black eye, it was going on, thus a good thing for the players that could be stopped. good luck getting people to talk again if they are exposed. i would not want a thug like Vilma after me for getting him suspended and causing him to lose millions. who knows what people are capable of?

 

however, there does have to be some indication of proof against players... just not specifics. i would assume Goodell did say we have "this this and this" w/o giving away everything, but if not i guess he should.

[stony]

but why? the NFLPA should be protecting the whistle blowers as much as the "accused". although a black eye, it was going on, thus a good thing for the players that could be stopped. good luck getting people to talk again if they are exposed. i would not want a thug like Vilma after me for getting him suspended and causing him to lose millions. who knows what people are capable of?

 

however, there does have to be some indication of proof against players... just not specifics. i would assume Goodell did say we have "this this and this" w/o giving away everything, but if not i guess he should.

 

Very true. It seems that this is only going to make the situation worse from the player's perspective. Those that recorded testimony under oath are going to be viewed as traitors by some. The evidence will be turned over so both sides can have some closure in this process, but Vilma is going to look like a huge dbag if what has been said thus far holds up.

[JuanGuzman]

Let me see if I have this right: you own a company, and you believe an employee is doing something detrimental to your business. You investigate and decide to suspend them, consistent with any labor laws or agreements. Are you saying you can't do this without independent arbitration and public disclosure of the evidence?

 

Can a business ever take disciplinary action without independent arbitration and public disclosure?

 

I think the issue here is the NFL is granted considerable relief from A U.S. Anti-Trust Laws, the NFL gets it operate as a monopoly unlike almost all businesses in the U.S. When you're exempt from a lot of traditional forms of competition you have to meet a higher standard to earn those exemptions IMO.

 

Imagine what the job market would be like for all accountants if all the major accounting firms e.g., Price Waterhouse Coopers, Deloitte, Ernst Young and KPMG were allowed to collude and set one policy for wages, discipline (like all NFL teams to do).... Accountants (who weren't partners) would be considerably worse off.

 

Again my criticism is not against the suspension of Vilma (if you did the crime you should do the time, cliche etc)...... My criticism is that the NFL, given its monopoly status, needs to operate in a open manner and this includes public disclosure of evidence (or least disclosing evidence to the accused, as well as setting up an independent appeals process).

Edited May 18, 2012 by JuanGuzman

[Mr. WEO]

I think the issue here is the NFL is granted considerable relief from A U.S. Anti-Trust Laws, the NFL gets it operate as a monopoly unlike almost all businesses in the U.S. When you're exempt from a lot of traditional forms of competition you have to meet a higher standard to earn those exemptions IMO.

 

Imagine what the job market would be like for all accountants if all the major accounting firms e.g., Price Waterhouse Coopers, Deloitte, Ernst Young and KPMG were allowed to collude and set one policy for wages, discipline (like all NFL teams to do).... Accountants (who weren't partners) would be considerably worse off.

 

Again my criticism is not against the suspension of Vilma (if you did the crime you should do the time, cliche etc)...... My criticism is that the NFL, given its monopoly status, needs to operate in a open manner and this includes public disclosure of evidence (or least disclosing evidence to the accused, as well as setting up an independent appeals process).

 

The players, as clearly evidenced in the last 2 CBA's, have not been interested in "an independent appeals process".

 

And the NFL is going to release the evidence likely after the grievance and appeals are complete.

[K-9]

I think the issue here is the NFL is granted considerable relief from A U.S. Anti-Trust Laws, the NFL gets it operate as a monopoly unlike almost all businesses in the U.S. When you're exempt from a lot of traditional forms of competition you have to meet a higher standard to earn those exemptions IMO.

 

Imagine what the job market would be like for all accountants if all the major accounting firms e.g., Price Waterhouse Coopers, Deloitte, Ernst Young and KPMG were allowed to collude and set one policy for wages, discipline (like all NFL teams to do).... Accountants (who weren't partners) would be considerably worse off.

 

Again my criticism is not against the suspension of Vilma (if you did the crime you should do the time, cliche etc)...... My criticism is that the NFL, given its monopoly status, needs to operate in a open manner and this includes public disclosure of evidence (or least disclosing evidence to the accused, as well as setting up an independent appeals process).

 

If only a competing professional football league had the balls and money to sue the NFL for this reason.

 

Oh wait...

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Fan in San Diego]

You guys are missing some of the bigger points. I don't know about the public figure and defamation of character issues. But Vilma certainly has the right to sue because he is being prevented from earning a living for himself and his family, there isn't a court in this land that wont take seriously. If he wants to see the evidence against him, I think he has the right to see the evidence against him. And I would think that the NFLPA as his union rep could pay the lawyers fees to represent a union member. Just my two cents.

[K-9]

You guys are missing some of the bigger points. I don't know about the public figure and defamation of character issues. But Vilma certainly has the right to sue because he is being prevented from earning a living for himself and his family, there isn't a court in this land that wont take seriously. If he wants to see the evidence against him, I think he has the right to see the evidence against him. And I would think that the NFLPA as his union rep could pay the lawyers fees to represent a union member. Just my two cents.

 

I haven't seen too many posts claiming Vilma doesn't have a right to file a suit. More power to him in that regard. Like you said, it's the only way the league can be compelled to show evidence. He is certainly entitled to his day in court to face his accusers.

 

It's been reported that Vilma is filing this suit alone and with the help of attorneys not related to the NFLPA. The NFLPA is not involved from a legal standpoint as it pertains to Vilma's suit. That's a good thing for the NFLPA as the information Vilma is seeking is surely going to contain the names of members of the NFLPA.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[JuanGuzman]

If only a competing professional football league had the balls and money to sue the NFL for this reason.

 

Oh wait...

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

Haha don't get wrong I think the fan experience is much better under the sporting league monopolies, I also think the owners pocketbooks are much fatter as a result. The only people that lose out are the players -- although their annual compensation is much more than most americans will earn in their lifetimes.

[tennesseeboy]

It's not a bad move by Vilma, what can Goodell do? Nothing really. Any disciplinary action by Goodell would be viewed as retaliation.

Think of it this way. Vilma files suit asks for broad discovery, deposes Goodell, Gregg, Sean Payton and others, has a ton of dirt that Goodell and others want private. He offers to settle and there is a quiet settlement with noone admitting defamation and the records remain confidential. Not a bad racket.

[Toshiero]

http://www.cbssports.com/images/nfl/vilmacomplaint517.pdf

 

By this action, Vilma seeks to recover damages for defamatory statements made by Roger Goodell, Commissioner of the National Football League (“NFL”).

 

Wow!!!

 

This moron doesn't get it. Goddell has tried to protect these players by NOT letting the proof get out. Once it does they can be criminally liable for participating in that bounty program AND those targeted can sue as well.

 

So I really hope now Goddell just brings the hammer and puts all the info out there and all of the saints !@#$s involved go down permanently

[Malazan]

This moron doesn't get it. Goddell has tried to protect these players by NOT letting the proof get out. Once it does they can be criminally liable for participating in that bounty program AND those targeted can sue as well.

 

So I really hope now Goddell just brings the hammer and puts all the info out there and all of the saints !@#$s involved go down permanently

 

The last thing Demaurice Smith cares about is players.

[BillsWatch]

This moron doesn't get it. Goddell has tried to protect these players by NOT letting the proof get out. Once it does they can be criminally liable for participating in that bounty program AND those targeted can sue as well.

 

So I really hope now Goddell just brings the hammer and puts all the info out there and all of the saints !@#$s involved go down permanently

 

Agree completely on Goddell's purpose on this - he is trying to limit as much damage as possible in this case targeting the leaders and prevent an avalanche of lawsuits by players targeted by defenses. We are talking about racketeering here.

[dogma+]

It's not a bad move by Vilma, what can Goodell do? Nothing really. Any disciplinary action by Goodell would be viewed as retaliation.

 

Oops, I think you DID lead with your head on that hit Vilma ... $50,000 fine.

Well, I think you DID try to intentionally hurt the QB on that sack Vilma ... 5 game suspension.

 

Etc.

 

Retaliation is often not so outwardly obvious.

[spartacus]

The NFLPA either can't or otherwise isn't going to pay the legal fees for this lawsuit.

 

This suit can't be won by Vilma. He would have to prove 4 things--first, he has to prove Goodell's claims are false, second he has to prove he was harmed, third he has to prove that Goodell's claim was made without adequate due diligence or research, and 4th (as a celebrity or public figure) he has to prove that Goodell made his claims with the intent to do harm or with reckless regard for the truth.

 

Vilma knows the evidence against him, as he most certainly is guilty. I would guess almost all of the evidence comes from his teammates and coaches. Goodell isn't a crazy person. He took a lot longer to suspend these players than he did the coaches. He had the evidence vetted by a former federal prosecutor and probably dozens of other lawyers/

 

Vilma is being preyed upon by unscrupulous counsel, it seems. This lost cause will cost him a bundle.

Vilma is opening Pandora's box

 

 

of more concern to him should be what criminal claims an aggressive prosecutor will raise based on all that evidence that will be come public

 

 

Vilma is a pawn of the NFLPA and may end doing jail time for his involvement

 

 

[NoSaint]

Oops, I think you DID lead with your head on that hit Vilma ... $50,000 fine.

Well, I think you DID try to intentionally hurt the QB on that sack Vilma ... 5 game suspension.

 

Etc.

 

Retaliation is often not so outwardly obvious.

 

That would go to a panel to review.

 

And be outwardly obvious.

 

Vilma is opening Pandora's box

 

 

of more concern to him should be what criminal claims an aggressive prosecutor will raise based on all that evidence that will be come public

 

 

Vilma is a pawn of the NFLPA and may end doing jail time for his involvement

 

Or maybe it's not all true?

Edited May 19, 2012 by NoSaint