We found a match
Your institution may have access to this item. Find your institution then sign in to continue.
- Title
PAINKILLERS AND PREEMPTION: "DENT"-ING THE NFL'S PREEMPTION DEFENSE.
- Authors
Cain, Thomas
- Abstract
In lawsuits brought by professional athletes against their respective sports leagues, one of the leagues' most effective defenses has been preemption. This defense comes from federal labor law--Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act ("LMRA")--which effectively prevents any state-law claims that arise from or involve interpretation of the organization's collective bargaining agreement ("CBA"). In 2014, when a group of retired professional football players sued the National Football League ("NFL") for its handling and distribution of dangerous painkillers, it appeared that the preemption defense would once again prevail. However, in Dent v. National Football League, the Ninth Circuit held that the players' claims were not preempted by Section 301 because, as pleaded, the claims did not "arise from," nor were they "intertwined" with, the collective bargaining agreement. This Note analyzes the players' pleading in Dent, specifically examining why the players were able to avoid preemption in this case. Further, this Note looks at the history of the "preemption defense" often used by the NFL and its gradual erosion. This Note argues that the Dent case, whether or not it succeeds on the merits, will have long-lasting effects for professional sports leagues and their players, both in future lawsuits and future CBAs.
- Subjects
NATIONAL Football League; ANALGESICS; COLLECTIVE labor agreements; UNITED States. Labor Management Relations Act, 1947; FOOTBALL players; DENT, Richard
- Publication
Wake Forest Law Review, 2019, Vol 54, Issue 3, p859
- ISSN
0043-003X
- Publication type
Article