Odds against Alex Rodriguez in federal court

Published on NewsOK Modified: January 11, 2014 at 9:54 pm •  Published: January 11, 2014
Advertisement
;

NEW YORK (AP) — The odds are against Alex Rodriguez in federal court as he tries to overturn his season-long drug suspension.

For the past five decades, the U.S. Supreme Court has set narrow grounds for judges to consider when evaluating lawsuits to overturn arbitration decisions. That position was reaffirmed in 2001 when it ruled against Steve Garvey in his suit against the Major League Baseball Players Association stemming from the collusion cases of the 1980s.

"I don't think he has very much of a chance," said Stanford Law School professor emeritus William B. Gould IV, the former chairman of the National Labor Relations Board. "There are many cases that are appealed from arbitration awards, but the case law at the Supreme Court level makes success very much a long shot."

The Joint Drug Agreement between Major League Baseball and the players' association gives the sport's three-person arbitration panel — the independent arbitrator plus one representative of management and the union — jurisdiction to review discipline resulting from violations.

The union filed a grievance after baseball Commissioner Bud Selig suspended Rodriguez for 211 games last August, and arbitrator Fredric Horowitz presided over 12 days of hearings last fall and cut the penalty Saturday to 162 games plus the 2014 postseason.

Rodriguez is expected to sue under section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, also known as Taft-Hartley, which allows actions for violations of collective bargaining agreements.

"There are very specific and narrow grounds for overturning an arbitration award," said Jeffrey Kessler, a partner at Winston & Strawn who has represented players and unions in many sports. "Either there has to be a showing of partiality by the arbitrator, or there has to be a showing that there as a manifest disregard of some settled legal principle, or there has to be a fundamental denial of what's called arbitral due process — the procedures were completely defective — or it could be in a collective bargaining context a decision that's contrary to what we call the essence of the CBA. So basically there are four targets and they have to hit one of them, and they're not easy."

Garvey had sought about $3 million from the $280 million settlement in the collusion cases. While the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled for Garvey and overturned the decision by arbitrator Thomas Roberts, the Supreme Court reversed.

| |

Advertisement


Trending Now



AROUND THE WEB

  1. 1
    Antonin Scalia faults Sonia Sotomayor for 'doubly shameful' suggestion that Michigan voters are...
  2. 2
    The NRA Quietly Backs Down On Domestic Violence
  3. 3
    Tara Lipinski, Johnny Weir to work Kentucky Derby
  4. 4
    Oklahoma basketball: Juco guard set to visit Sooners on Wednesday
  5. 5
    Texas town ready to drink its own toilet water
+ show more