In other lawsuit news, the plaintiffs motioned to re-depose Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones. Jones is the alleged ringleader among the owners that designed the Kroenke-Spanos collaboration to bring the NFL back to Los Angeles. He is Stan Kroenke’s strongest ally among the ownership group, and he is on the hook for punitive damages after Judge McGraugh ordered that he needed to hand over all financial records back in July. He is the alleged owner that stood up for Kroenke after Commissioner Roger Goodell asked Kroenke to leave the room the owners were meeting in last month to allow NFL General Counsel Jeff Pash to describe the repercussions from Stan Kroenke signing the indemnification clause to allow the Rams to relocate to Los Angeles. Jerry Jones might as well be considered the outspoken version of Stan Kroenke. All reports from the local St. Louis media and now the national media make it sound like Stan Kroenke acted on the NFL’s return to Los Angeles while Jerry Jones had to explain to the other 30 owners what this meant for not only Kroenke, but them as well in the form of profits, such as the relocation fees the Rams and Chargers had to pay. Jerry Jones is as much responsible for this unjustified relocation as is Stan Kroenke, which is why I believe the plaintiffs are seeking to re-depose Jerry Jones. Lastly, the NFL motioned to keep some files and evidence confidential earlier this week in a motion in limine. A motion in limine is a pre-trial motion asking that certain evidence is found inadmissible, and that it not be referred to or offered at trial. If the NFL is requesting this type of motion, they must know either St. Louis is not going to settle, or there is information that could harm their reputation. It sounds like, from this motion, they are trying to minimize the damage. They are like the kid who gets caught with the cookie in their mouth when the parent discovers the lid is off the jar. The NFL wants to keep confidential and hide as much information as possible from the jury when trial kick offs with opening statements on January 10th. Should the plaintiffs settle, the NFL should consider themselves lucky. As mentioned by Wickersham, Perez, and the St. Louis media, after signing the indemnification clause, Stan Kroenke has been responsible for all attorney fees the NFL owners incurred so far, and should the NFL owners either settle or lose at trial, he must indemnify the payment that each owner makes to the plaintiffs, St. Louis, the St. Louis Convention and Visitors Commission (CVC), and the Regional Stadium Authority (RSA). With the recent news that Stan Kroenke tried to settle at $100 million, the NFL has reasons to start motions in limine because they likely know they were caught defrauding St. Louis of an NFL franchise, the Rams. They never thought this lawsuit would still be afloat 4 and a half years later. Jerry Jones’ comments about partnering Kroenke and Spanos as co-tenants in Los Angeles and his public backing of Stan Kroenke may come back to haunt him.

"If the commissioner comes in and investigates to see what the f--- is going on in Phoenix, [he] would be appalled." That is how one current Business Operations employee predicts NBA Commissioner, Adam Silver, will react when he receives the findings from Wachtell Lipton, the law firm now tasked with an impartial investigation. The NBA hired the independent law firm on November 4th, just hours after the release of the ESPN article written by Baxter Holmes, exposing a disturbing pattern of inappropriate behavior by Suns majority owner Robert Sarver. Holmes interviewed 70 current and former Suns employees from various ranks who all seem to tell similar tales of abhorrent language and childish actions displayed through Sarver’s 17-year tenure as the team’s majority owner. Sarver has vehemently denied the vast majority of the allegations through a wall of attorneys and the few he does admit to; he describes as “taken out of context” or meant in a joking manner. They are not jokes when they are hurtful and made at the expense of your subordinates Mr. Sarver. Earl Watson was the head coach in Phoenix from the end of the 2015-2016 season through the early stages of the 2017-18 campaign, when he was let go by Sarver following the team’s 0-3 start. Watson’s head coaching record was very below average, but he does not believe it was wins and losses that ousted him. However, a grudge held by Robert Sarver against Watson’s representation “Klutch Sports” and its owner Rich Paul. The bitterness for Paul began when the two were having a conversation about, then Suns guard Eric Bledsoe, who was looking to attain a contract extension during the 2017-18 offseason. Sarver questioned the guard’s ability to stay healthy among other things and when Paul refuted him by stating, “We aren’t talking about tennis” (Sarver’s childhood sport) the Suns owner became irate. He told Paul he would fire Watson if he did not cut ties with his agency, when Watson got wind of the news and the outrageous ultimatum he got this from Sarver: "Yeah, I will f---ing fire you," Sarver told Watson. "You have 10 days to think about it. Don't wait too long." Watson refused to fire Paul and the agency, his time in Phoenix ended shortly after. This interaction is a microcosm of the boorish behavior that has been attributed to Sarver during his tenure as the Suns owner. Others infractions include, the use of the ‘N’ word in several instances amongst coaches and staff as well as belittling female staff members by making sexist and misogynistic comments often. NBA Spokesman Mike Bass commented publicly following the release of the article saying they had not "received a complaint of misconduct at the Suns organization through any of our processes, including our confidential workplace misconduct hotline or other correspondence." There is certainly a reason for that as well. Many employees both current and former said they felt as if Sarver “owned them” and would often ask questions of that nature to his subordinates in some sort of twisted power trip. A feeling of being trapped in this unhealthy workplace environment led over a dozen employees to seek professional help through psychologists. A current employee who works in the human resources department commented: “If something happens, don’t go to HR.” Alluding to the fact that retaliation efforts would be taken by executives. Another former HR employee recounts several instances where he took employees who were attempting to seek help outside of the team’s property so they weren’t seen by superiors speaking with HR. The constant berating and mental abuse took its toll and led one former female employee to say this regarding her time in the organization. "It wrecked my life. I was contemplating suicide." Chilling. The NBA has a serious problem here and although a few higher executives such as GM James Jones and team president Jason Rowley have stood up for Sarver. Being quoted saying things like this isn’t the man they know/work for/respect, the majority of people in far less powerful positions sing a very different tune. Could we be heading for the third NBA owner removal under Silver’s tenure? The NBA board of governors would need a ¾ vote to do so, but regardless of that, things need to change in Phoenix immediately. Crude remarks might work on a Netflix comedy special, but this behavior crosses far past that line. If ousted as an NBA owner, my advice to Sarver would be to not pursue a career in stand-up.

Dan Wallach, sports betting expert and “Conduct Detrimental” co-host, tweeted out that a member of a focus group in St. Louis that discussed the city’s interest in the Rams, or if the Rams left, spoiler they did, their support for another franchise. The article, located on insidestl.com and reported by various insidestl.com members, reports focus group member, Kip Starnes, describing the atmosphere among the fifteen members as a “tailgate” to The Hollywood Casino Press Box. Rams COO and according to Fox 2’s Charlie Marlow, “professional liar,” Kevin Demoff attended this meeting. This focus group, as described by Mr. Starnes, “looked like people were there to tailgate for the Rams, half the people in the room came in jerseys. It was pretty wild. There was passion and…people are frustrated. It [was] very difficult when you have great owners like the DeWitts with the Cardinals and Stillman with the Blues, and we [had] an owner here who [did not] give us…any hope at all. There are people who [had] a high [angst] level and it was shared among the focus group members and Rams fans.” The way Mr. Starnes described this meeting while the Rams, Raiders, and Chargers were competing in the Los Angeles relocation derby shows that St. Louis is passionate about their sports teams. The St. Louis City FC are going to kick off their Major League Soccer presence, and should the city and the other plaintiffs receive or be asked to settle with an expansion team as a settlement piece, St. Louisans are willing to welcome that team. As reported earlier, Mayor Jones is non-committal, although she is not going to finance a stadium. If the city receives an expansion team, they better settle or persuade the jury to grant them a stadium as well at no cost to them. All financing should be provided by either the defendants, or they can ask for installments in financing, one option as an installment could be private seat licenses (PSLs), season tickets, equipment, and so forth. Howard Balzer, former St. Louis football writer and guest on “Conduct Detrimental” described St. Louis as a football town. He provided Dan Wallach with some astonishing numbers (see second page for these numbers). These numbers show St. Louis supported the Rams, although from 2007-2011, the Rams went through their worst skid in history, 15-65. The Rams never made the playoffs past 2004, but St. Louis always had their backs. The Dome seats 66,000 and they averaged 60,200 in attendance while the Rams played in St. Louis. The fact that Kroenke and the other defendants stated St. Louis did not support the Rams is a farce. The NFL may not offer an expansion team because they do not want to lose another piece of the pie. The owners hate splitting up TV revenue and other sources they must split among the current thirty-two teams. However, it may be cheaper in the long-term to offer St. Louis an expansion team. Should the NFL be forced or settle to pay all expenses the plaintiffs are seeking, this could impact the league severely to the point where a quarter of their revenue may be heading St. Louis’ way. Simply put, St. Louis would support another NFL team, but be aware of the old adage: “Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.” The NFL has fooled St. Louis twice, and as most people say, the third time is usually the charm. An expansion team seems like the logical option, but is the NFL too prideful and greedy to split the pie into a thirty-third piece? Time will tell. Alex Patterson is a 3L at Thomas M. Cooley Law School in Lansing, Michigan. He played football for seventeen years as an offensive and defensive lineman. He graduated from Lindenwood University-Belleville in 2018 with a Bachelor's in Sports Management. He can be followed on Twitter @alpatt71.

(WARNING: Graphic details within this article) Henry Ruggs’s actions on the morning of November 2nd has had widespread impact. As a direct result of his driving under the influence at speeds of 156 miles per hour, the life of 23-year-old Tina Tintor was lost. The criminal charges against Ruggs have been well-explored, as he faces more than 50 years in prison. Our very own writers at Conduct Detrimental have provided great analysis by looking closely at his criminal charges1,as well as Top Golf’s potential liability2. Needless to say, it hasn’t looked well so far for Henry Ruggs. There are no wins in sight for him in criminal prosecution. What about civil litigation? Looking at possible claims, it’s obvious the deceased has various claims against Henry Ruggs, including wrongful death. There are also third parties who may have claims: the citizens who attempted to rescue Tina Tintor from her burning vehicle. In civil cases, the vast majority of states apply a rule called the “Rescue Doctrine.” Under this rule, the wrongdoer is liable for injuries caused to third parties within the commission of a reasonable rescue attempt. Could the individuals in this case recover under the Rescue Doctrine? Though there isn’t any evidence of physical injury to the rescuers, they would likely be able to recover if physical injury did occur. However, in absence of such injury, the courts will likely be faced with a different type of harm: emotional distress. Two standalone civil claims exist in Nevada as ways to recover for emotional distress: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED) and Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (NIED). Tony Rodriguez, one of the citizen rescuers, explained his tragic experience to KTNV, Las Vegas’s local news channel3. Noticing a car in flames and cries for help, Rodriguez attempted to cut Tinton free from her seatbelt. As the flames grew rapidly, he realized that his attempts were futile. He heard the breaths of the victim and noticed her blood on his hands as he decided to give up. Tinton is thought to have died shortly thereafter. Upon returning home, he prayed for Tinton and couldn’t fall asleep for over 24 hours. These events were undoubtedly very tragic for Rodriguez. No amount of money will make an individual whole following a catastrophe such as this. But does he have the ability to recover money through litigation? Looking at both claims, it may be difficult to make his case. NIED In Nevada, NIED requires either physical or emotional distress arising out of negligent conduct that is extreme or outrageous. “Extreme and outrageous” has proven to be an extremely difficult threshold to meet. However, looking over Nevada case law, it seems his conduct may fulfill this element. Instead, Rodriguez’s trouble will come from Ruggs’s state of mind. As mentioned, NIED requires the wrongdoer to have a negligent state of mind. This exists when there is a reasonable duty of care owed, but the wrongdoer fails to provide that level of care. By contrast, a reckless state of mind requires that an individual provides no care at all, despite knowledge that care is required. Ruggs didn’t just miss the mark, he completely failed to provide any care whatsoever. If Rodriguez brings an NIED claim, this may lead to a rare situation in which the defendant argues for a heightened state of fault to avoid liability. This would lead to no recovery for Rodriguez under NIED. IIED So Ruggs has a higher degree of fault, does this mean Rodriguez can’t recover whatsoever? Not quite. He still has a potential claim for IIED, which provides for recovering from reckless wrongdoers. Also, as I explained before, Ruggs’s conduct could be seen as extreme and outrageous. Nevada common law also requires that an individual suffer severe emotional distress. This requires physical proof in the form of a doctor note or something similar. As long as Rodriguez can provide this proof, a prima facie case for IIED would be established. One major problem exists for Rodriguez, however. Nevada limits IIED recovery to family members. Unfortunately, there is nothing in Nevada common law which allows rescuers to recover. The courts reason that the relationship between rescuers and individuals in peril is not close enough to warrant recovery. Both the NIED and IIED claims are unlikely to be possible recovery for the potential mental distress that was imposed upon Rodriguez and the other rescuers, regardless of the level of severity and lifelong impact. Time for a policy change in Nevada? I find the potential lack of available recovery disturbing. The fact that only family members can legally recover in this situation bothers me. It leaves open the potential of an estranged parent recovering but closes the door on Good Samaritans administering life-saving aid. It may be time for a policy change in Nevada to provide for recovery in cases similar to this. Special relationships should extend beyond family members. One could argue that an individual reasonably trying to save another’s life constitutes a relationship as special as any other. Britton Yoder is a 1L at Penn State – Dickinson Law References: 1. www.conductdetrimental.com/post/henry-ruggs-is-being-charged-with-a-dui-resulting-in-death 2. www.conductdetrimental.com/post/should-businesses-be-liable-for-henry-ruggs-accident 3. www.ktnv.com/news/a-young-womans-life-gone-in-an-instant-her-final-moments?_amp=true

One month after resigning as head coach of the Las Vegas Raiders, Jon Gruden is fighting back against the NFL. Gruden is suing both the NFL and commissioner Roger Goodell in Nevada district court, according to NFL Network reporter Tom Pelissero. The introduction of the lawsuit alleges that “through a malicious and orchestrated campaign, the NFL and Commissioner Roger Goodell sought to destroy the career and reputation of Jon Gruden.” The lawsuit brought forth by Gruden has direct ties to the NFL’s investigation of the Washington Football Team. Gruden’s lawyers are arguing that the NFL and Goodell are punishing Gruden as a distraction from their controversial handling of the WFT investigation. The discriminatory emails were disclosed as part of the NFL’s investigation on the WFT, a probe that did not directly involve Gruden. The investigation involved over 650,000 emails and at least 150 witness interviews, but the emails have not been released by the NFL to the public. Through Gruden’s lawsuit, however, there is a chance that the court would order the release of the emails—which members of Congress have pushed for—through discovery. Specifically, the lawsuit accuses the NFL of leaking discriminatory Gruden emails to major news outlets, including the Wall Street Journal and New York Times. First, the suit alleges that defendant’s leaked a 2011 email to Wall Street Journal, in which Gruden made racially discriminatory remarks about DeMaurice Smith, who was president of the NFL Player’s Association at the time. When this email did not lead to Gruden’s firing or resignation, the defendants “ratcheted up the pressure” by leaking another set of emails, this time to the New York Times. The second batch of emails included more discriminatory language—including misogynistic, homophobic and racist remarks—and led Gruden to resign that same day. Gruden sent the emails to former Washington Football Team President Bruce Allen. WFT fired Allen in 2019, and the NFL conducted a yearlong private investigation on the team which resulted in a $10 million fine. Gruden’s lawyers explicitly compare the NFL’s handling of the WFT investigation to their actions against Gruden. Specifically, “in contrast to the formalities of the Washington Football Team investigation, Defendants’ treatment of Gruden was a Soviet-style character assasination” with “no warning or no process.” Further, the defendant’s held on to the emails for months, and waited to release them in the middle of the NFL season to “cause maximum damage” to Gruden. In addition to Gruden stepping down as the Raiders’ head coach, the Buccaneers removed Gruden from their Ring of Honor, Gruden lost his endorsement deal with Skechers, and EA Sports removed Gruden from the “Madden NFL 22” video game. Gruden is seeking massive damages, as he was in his fourth season of a 10-year, $100-million-dollar contract he signed with the Raiders back in 2018. Brendan Duggan is a 1L at Brooklyn Law School. He is also the founder of Sideline Views, a sports and entertainment multimedia brand. You can follow him at @SidelineDuggs.

Seven even years ago Donald Sterling was forced to sell the Los Angeles Clippers after audio of racist remarks to his girlfriend, V. Stiviano, were made public. In the audio you can hear Sterling upset with his girlfriend for “publicizing [on her instagram] that she associates with Black people” and pleading with her to no longer “bring Black people to my games”. The leaked audio created a firestorm throughout the league. After a contentious battle involving Sterling, Sterling’s wife Shelly, NBA commissioner Adam Silver, and attorneys on all sides; eventually Donald Sterling was banned from the NBA and forced to sell the Clippers to Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer. Now the NBA finds themselves in a similar uncomfortable situation involving Phoenix Suns’ owner Robert Sarver. Two weeks ago ESPN reporter Baxter Holmes released a story that details allegations of sexual harassment, racism, and misogyny in the Phoenix Suns organization since Sarver became the owner in 2004.[1] The length of the piece (over 7,000 words) speaks to the number of allegations against Sarver and his staff. Some of the major allegations include using racial slurs in front of a former Phoenix Suns head coach, bragging to employees that his wife performs oral sex, and mockingly asking a player if he shaved his pubic region because the player did not have hair on his legs. The story describes Sarver behaving in ways you could only attribute to an immature middle schooler. Nevertheless, Sarver is a 60-year-old man who is the figurehead of an NBA franchise. In a league that is filled with predominantly Black players, the NBA is constantly looking to increase their number of Black head coaches. In 2013, Sarver took a step that was likely appreciated by the league at the time when he hired a Black head coach in Lindsey Hunter. For his reasoning behind the hire, Sarver reportedly told another staffer, “These [N-Words] need a [N-Word] and someone that could speak their language”. To say the allegations against Sarver are disturbing would be an understatement. Sarver, through an attorney, has denied the allegations against him including using racial slurs in the workplace. So what comes next? On the heels of the ESPN story, the NBA has announced they will hire the outside law firm Wachtell Lipton to launch an independent investigation into Sarver’s allegations.[2] This process could take months and Sarver’s fate in the league ultimately depends on the outcome. There’s one major difference between the situations involving Robert Sarver and Donald Sterling: with Sarver there is no proverbial “smoking gun”. While the allegations are deplorable, as of now that’s all they are – allegations. Some sources in the ESPN story were willing to go on record and attach their name such as former Suns head coach Earl Watson, but many remained anonymous. However with Sterling, his time as owner of the Clippers was over the second TMZ got their hands on the infamous audio tape and released it for the world to hear. There’s still a lot that must be uncovered for Sarver to meet the same fate as Sterling. He will likely have a sufficient legal team fighting this every step of the way. But his wife, Penny Sanders, seemingly ignored all advice from anyone who has ever opened a law school textbook when she sent text messages to former Suns employees condemning them for their role in the ESPN story after it was published.[3] If Sarver wants to keep his team, step one should be monitoring his wife’s phone activities to assure no more retaliatory text messages are sent. If this independent investigation discovers truth behind these allegations, the NBA will attempt to remove Sarver just as they did Sterling. But how would the league go about doing that? The NBA could rely on the public pressure and outrage against Sarver being so extreme that he willingly waves the white flag and voluntarily sells the Suns. The league’s hope would be Sarver feels backed into a corner to the point that he wants this process to end as quickly and quietly as possible. But if Sarver drags this process out creating a legal minefield, then the league will have to take matters into their own hands. They could employ a similar approach taken against Sterling when he was “banned from all team activities for life” by commissioner Adam Silver. This measure strips the enjoyment of being an NBA owner and inviting all of your wealthy friends into your luxury box to sip champagne. Sarver could very easily take this all as a challenge and respond, “over my dead body”. That’s where matters could get complicated. Under Articles 13 and 14 of the NBA Constitution and By-Laws (dated 2012, there may be an updated version not publicly available), if an owner is found in violation of the aforementioned document, they can be removed by a three-fourths vote of the remaining owners in the league. In Article 35A one of the reasons cited for discipline of an owner is “guilty of conduct prejudicial or detrimental to the Association.”[4] Conduct detrimental ­– hence the name of this blog site. It’s important to note the human element in all of this. It may seem like a no-brainer for the other owners to cut ties with Sarver and remove this headache from the league. But the men casting the vote to decide Sarver’s fate are in the position to own an NBA team for a reason. They are all acute businessmen constantly trying to protect their own franchise and investments. Accordingly, they never want to set a low precedent for an owner to be removed because they may have skeletons in their own closet. They realize they could be the next ones on the chopping block. In 2014 Mark Cuban, the owner of the Dallas Mavericks, was adamantly against removing Donald Sterling as the owner of the Clippers, characterizing the move as a “slippery slope”.[5] Just four years later in 2018 the Dallas Mavericks were under investigation for a hostile workplace centered around sexual harassment.[6] During this investigation there was never any true momentum for Cuban to be removed as owner of the team. If Sarver is going down, he could attempt to bring other owners down with him. He could plead that he isn’t the only owner acting in a horrific fashion and this is just par for the course. Therefore, he’s being severely punished for conduct that only warrants a slap on the wrist. There’s still a long way to go before Sarver faces the steep punishment of being forced to sell the Suns. But if it gets to that point, we must ask if this would really be a punishment at all? In 2004 Robert Sarver purchased the Phoenix Suns for $400 million. Currently, the Suns are valued at $1.7 billion. If a forced sale occurs, Sarver is set to make a large profit despite these unsettling allegations. There will be more to this story in the coming months. Matt Netti is a 2021 graduate from Northeastern University School of Law. He currently works as an attorney fellow at the Office of the General Counsel for Northeastern University. You can follow him on twitter and instagram @MattNettiMN and find him on Linkedin at https://www.linkedin.com/in/matthew-netti-ba5787a3/. [1] Baxter Holmes, Allegations of racism and misogyny within the Phoenix Suns: Inside Robert Sarver's 17-year tenure as owner, ESPN (last visited Nov. 14, 2021) https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/32440987/phoenix-suns-robert-sarver-allegations-racism-misogyny. [2] Baxter Holmes, NBA launches investigation into Phoenix Suns owner Robert Sarver over racism, sexism charges, ESPN (last visited Nov. 14, 2021) https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/32551930/nba-launches-investigation-phoenix-suns-owner-robert-sarver-racism-sexism-charges. [3] Joseph Salvador, Report: Robert Sarver's Wife Sent Former Suns Employees Messages Amid NBA Investigation, Sports Illuastrated (last visited Nov. 14, 2021) https://www.si.com/nba/2021/11/09/penny-sarver-messages-former-suns-employees-investigation. [4] Michael Hiltzik, Donald Sterling and the NBA: Your guide to the looming legal morass, Los Angeles Times (last visited Nov. 14, 2021) https://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-donald-sterling-20140502-column.html. [5] Tim MacMohan, Cuban not in favor of booting Sterling, ESPN (last visited Nov. 14, 2021) https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/10854381/mark-cuban-dallas-mavericks-rails-donald-sterling-not-favor-kicking-owner. [6] John Wertheim, Exclusive: Inside the Corrosive Workplace Culture of the Dallas Mavericks, Sports Illustrated (last visited Nov. 14, 2021) https://www.si.com/nba/2018/02/21/dallas-mavericks-sexual-misconduct-investigation-mark-cuban-response.

Yesterday, two former Brooklyn Nets’ equipment attendants sued the franchise in United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, alleging they were wrongfully terminated and discriminated against based on their race. Specifically, plaintiffs bring this lawsuit to recover money damages, as well as for declaratory, equitable, and injunctive relief to redress the Nets’ alleged violation of Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the NYC Human Rights Law. The plaintiffs are Edward Bolden, Jr. and Juwan Williams. The complaint can be reviewed here: The underlying facts of the complaint have already been known, as the two released a public statement earlier this year on Instagram. They said “[m]yself and my colleague have reason to believe that we were terminated due to racial bias, as well as for our beliefs and stance on the Black Lives Matter movement." "There have been numerous inconsistencies in the reasoning behind our termination as well as acknowledgment of improper handling by the franchise.” However, at that time, they only hinted at the possibility for litigation. Instead, they had hoped to find redress through a partnership with the National Basketball Players' Association ("NBPA") to form a labor union for attendants and ball boys. The Nets denied that Bolden and Williams' termination had anything to do with race. “The decision on whether or not to rehire seasonal part-time employees is an organizational matter that is carefully and thoughtfully evaluated,” a Nets spokesperson said in a statement. “We are entirely comfortable with our decision not to rehire these two individuals.” It appears that Bolden and Williams were not satisfied with the results of their public statement, as they have now filed suit in the Eastern District of New York. According to the complaint, Bolden and Williams both began their employment with the Nets as ball boys, one in 2012 and the other in 2014. They stayed with the Nets and were eventually promoted to manager and co-team captain of the equipment team. The two allege that their supervisor, Joe Cuomo, made it clear that they would never progress past their roles but went out of his way to help white employees. The plaintiffs, who are black, were told on March 8, 2020 (the Nets’ final home game of last season) that that was their last day ever working for the Nets or at the Barclays Center. While the plaintiffs were not given a reason for their termination, they strongly believe the decision was motivated by race. “Throughout the entirety of Bolden's employment, he was vocal about cultural racial disparities – specifically, around police brutality. Williams also participated in these discussions and was vocal on these issues. Whenever Bolden mentioned these issues in front of Cuomo, he received significant push-back. Cuomo also expressed his discontent when Williams and others, including NBA players, engaged in a peaceful form of protest against racism by wearing the hood on their hoodie before games.” The plaintiffs included some of Cuomo’s social media posts in the complaint, in an effort to show that he has made some of his anti-social justice movement sentiments public: In the complaint, plaintiffs say they were shocked to learn of their termination as they had fulfilled all obligations in 2020 prior to the suspension of the NBA season and they were among the Nets’ longest tenured team attendants. They claim Nets’ team members and other staff were equally stunned to learn that the plaintiffs had been let go from their employment. Plaintiffs took the issue directly to the Nets’ General Manager, Sean Marks to convey their concerns. On November 30, 2020, Marks told plaintiffs they were a joy to be around and asked if he (Marks) could conduct an independent investigation into the termination decisions, including speaking to Cuomo. Ryan Gisriel, Nets’ Director of Basketball Operations shared the results of the investigation with plaintiffs. Gisriel explained that, after the investigation and speaking to Cuomo, the terminations decisions were being upheld. Gisriel further shared that Cuomo justified the decisions not to have them employed going forward by labeling – for the first time – plaintiffs as “lazy” and stating they were unable to follow directions. Plaintiffs claim to have never been called lazy once during their time as employees, and had been praised with compliments of the exact opposite. Bolden further alleges that Cuomo or someone within the Nets organization retaliated against him after the end of his employment with the Nets by seeking to blacklist or prevent him from working for another NBA team. According to the complaint, in late-September 2021, Bolden reached out to the equipment manager at another NBA team about working there as a team attendant. In response to plaintiff’s inquiry, the equipment manager for that NBA team stated in writing as follows: “Let me check with my GM over here. With the way stuff went down on your way out of Brooklyn I have to run this by the powers that be over here.” Thereafter, plaintiff never heard back from that equipment manager or NBA team. Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury on all issues of fact, their claims, and alleged damages. In their prayer for relief, plaintiffs demand a declaratory judgment that the Nets’ conduct and practices violated U.S., NYS, and NYC laws. They seek an injunction and order permanently restraining the Nets from engaging in such unlawful conduct. They also seek an order directing the Nets to take affirmative action as is deemed necessary to make sure unlawful employment practices are eliminated moving forward. They demand reinstatement as employees. Bolden and Williams further demand an award of punitive damages and compensatory damages for pecuniary losses, emotional distress, pain and suffering, and other nonpecuniary losses as allowable. Finally, the seek costs and attorneys’ fees for this litigation. Could this case be the next pin to fall in the accountability era? We have seen organizational shakeup in Portland, as an investigation was launched into the Trail Blazers’ workplace environment under President of Basketball Operations, Neil Olshey. That has, thus far, led to the resignation of team President of Business Operations, Chris McGowan. There are also allegations of sexual harassment, racism, and misogyny in the Phoenix Suns organization, centered around team owner Robert Sarver. Now, we have the Brooklyn Nets and allegations of racial discrimination. Granted, this controversy stems out of the equipment team, as opposed to ownership or the front office, but management does oversee all operations and conducted an internal investigation. Conduct Detrimental will track this case in anticipation of the Nets' answer. Jason Morrin is a third-year law student at Hofstra Law School in New York. He is the President of Hofstra’s Sports and Entertainment Law Society. Additionally, he is a Law Clerk at Geragos & Geragos. He can be found on Twitter @Jason_Morrin.

Ben Frederickson, writer for the St. Louis Post Dispatch, uncovered the indemnity agreement that Stan Kroenke signed to gain permission from the NFL Commissioner, Roger Goodell, and the other thirty-one owners. The indemnity agreement was one page long, and Stan Kroenke is facing hundreds of millions in legal fees alone. All thirty-two teams in the NFL are defendants in this lawsuit St. Louis and the other plaintiffs brought. Stan Kroenke is trying to bring an action against the other owners, and as stated in the indemnity agreement, should he do so, Commissioner Goodell would rule upon this. He argues the word “costs” does not apply to him paying all the bills in this lawsuit for all thirty-two clubs, although his net worth alone is around $7 billion, according to Forbes. The other 31 owners argue the opposite. New York Giants owner John Mara stated in Seth Wickersham’s article about a month ago that if it was not for that clause, the owners would not have agreed to let Kroenke move to Los Angeles. Stan has a legitimate chance, the NFL drafted this clause, and normally, the wording in an ambiguity is construed against the drafter. As crazy as this may sound, St. Louis, the CVC, and the RSA may want Kroenke to prevail in this action. As earlier mentioned by AJ Perez from FrontOfficeSports.com, Kroenke offered to settle with the plaintiffs for $100 million. However, should he prevail in an action against the other NFL owners, he does not have to pay their lawyer fees, and other “costs” that go along with it. Although Stan Kroenke “won” that battle against the NFL, it also means he has more money in his pockets the St. Louis side could go after. Dan Wallach and Dan Lust brought up an interesting hypothetical on their podcast, “Conduct Detrimental.” They said that if Kroenke is not on the hook due to the ambiguity within the indemnification clause, the plaintiffs may pursue him not only for the money and franchise he took from St. Louis, but they could use his money to get an expansion team. They could pressure him into funding the expansion team, saving St. Louis and its residents millions, if not billions, in tax dollars. This is an interesting side topic within this almost five year legal saga. Personally, I want Stan Kroenke to win this argument. This lawsuit has the other clubs in it to strip them of their gains from when the Rams relocated. The relocation cost was $550 million, so it averages to around $37.5 million per team in restitution damages. Kroenke’s payments are more severe. He would not only pay the $37.5 million, but all damages determined by a St. Louis jury or a pre-trial settlement. If he is offering to settle at $100 million already, he knows he is on the hot seat. These damages could range from $8-$12 billion. Alex Patterson is a 3L at Thomas M. Cooley Law School in Lansing, Michigan. He played football for seventeen years as an offensive and defensive lineman. He graduated from Lindenwood University-Belleville in 2018 with a Bachelor's in Sports Management. He can be followed on Twitter @alpatt71.

Stan Kroenke spent about twenty years trying to figure a way to move the Rams from St. Louis to Los Angeles. As Howard Balzer reported, Stan Kroenke was part of the minority ownership group that helped former owner Georgia Frontiere move the Rams to St. Louis in 1995. When she passed away in 2008, her children inherited the Rams. This is when it turned for the worse for St. Louisans and St. Louis Rams fans. After Ms. Frontiere’s passing, her children sold the team in 2010. The Rams were in the midst of a 15-65 five year stretch that lasted from 2007-2011. This is the worst five year stretch in NFL history. Minority owner Stan Kroenke exercised his right of first refusal on the last day to match the offer current Jaguars owner Shahid Khan placed to buy the Rams. The first refusal right is parallel to an NHL offer sheet. An NHL offer sheet is where the club, that controls the player’s rights, can match another club’s offer to a restricted free agent by placing it on an “offer sheet.” After Stan Kroenke bought the Rams, it became known he planned on moving them to Los Angeles. It would be sweet justice should Stan Kroenke win his indemnity action against the NFL, only to realize he would have to use that money to fund the new team, its stadium, the personal seat licenses, and while I am on this topic, Jerry Jones must fund the new seating, clubs, and suites in the stadium with his Legends company without pay. This is the sweetest karma St. Louisans and St. Louis Rams fans could receive from this lawsuit. Charlie Marlow, Fox 2 reporter for St. Louis, hit the nail on the head; there will likely be a parade in the streets if St. Louis is granted a NFL team, but if the city is only granted monetary damages, it will be cool to see St. Louis beat the NFL in a civil suit, but there would hardly be any jumping for joy. The only parallel I can think of, should this hypothetical happen, is the situation in Cleveland after Cleveland Browns owner Art Modell announced he was moving the Cleveland Browns to Baltimore in 1995. To make things right, Commissioner Paul Tagliabue granted Cleveland an expansion team, and they began play in 1999. However, I caution all fans about getting their hopes up that another franchise is coming to St. Louis. Two teams relocated, credit to Charlie Marlow and Brooke Grimsley on their coverage here, the city and the county have not merged into one entity yet. Should they merge, it would make St. Louis more attractive. Unfortunately, as Dan Wallach and Dan Lust mentioned, there are rumblings the NFL owners do not want to go back to St. Louis for the reason mentioned above, that St. Louis lost two teams already. The NFL does not want to put a team in a market that has not kept a team for more than thirty years. The Rams were there for twenty-one seasons, and the Cardinals were there for twenty-seven seasons. Both teams left due to inadequate stadiums, the Dome at America’s Center and Busch Memorial Stadium (Busch Stadium II). The key is going to be Mayor Jones, who I wrote about earlier. She is non-committal to a franchise, and she wants the stadium to be funded because she does not want to use taxpayer or city money to construct it. It remains to be seen, will the city get another franchise, a monetary settlement, a monetary verdict, etc.? Trial is just under two months away, so get your popcorn ready.

Sports law is an ever-evolving and expanding subset of the law, and as the recent NCAA v. Alston ruling, NIL, and Super League controversy have shown, there are far more legal roles in sports than the typical pro agent. From arbitration and player unions to compliance and contracts, a law degree can open the door to a wide range of opportunities at both the collegiate and professional level of athletics. Many law schools around the country recognize the potential of sports law and offer some opportunities in the field, while some boast full-fledged sports law programs and concentrations. However, unlike business law and health law, U.S. News & World doesn’t offer lists detailing sports law programs; this makes the law school search difficult for a prospective 1L with aspirations for a career in sports. Enter the Sports Law Program Spotlight! In this series, we highlight a law school that offers strong opportunities in the field of sports law. These opportunities include, but are not limited to: a sports-centric curriculum; sports law certifications; unique legal internship opportunities within the sports market; and sports law journals. The focus of this month’s Sports Law Program Spotlight is… The University of Mississippi School of Law This flagship university in Oxford, Mississippi has more to celebrate than the Grove, beer showers at Swayze Field, and the Hotty Toddy chant (though they’re all incredible traditions). Ole Miss Law also boasts one of the best Sports & Entertainment Law concentrations in the country. A hidden gem in the sports law scene, the concentration provides students with a wealth of legal knowledge not only in sports, but gaming law as well. With the recent rise in legalized sports gambling, this education can provide a major advantage in the job market. Few law schools in the country can compete with the opportunities Ole Miss Law students receive through the Sports & Entertainment Law Concentration. “I believe our law school probably has the closest relationship between an athletics department and a law school at any university you find,” says Professor Ron Rychlak, a member of the concentration’s faculty and the Faculty Athletics Representative (FAR) for Ole Miss. As FAR, Professor Rychlak works closely with the Ole Miss Athletic Department, providing information and contacts for law students. Each semester, 2-3 law students are granted work stations in the Athletic Department’s compliance office, researching compliance issues, forming connections and gaining expertise in athletics compliance. Keep in mind, this is an athletic department in the SEC, home to some of the largest collegiate athletics budgets and brands in America; if you can make it here, you can make it almost anywhere! Many years, during the law school’s Winter Intersession, the concentration offers a unique two-week program: one week consists of classes taught by senior Athletic Department staff on campus; during the second week, students attend the NCAA Annual Meeting. Over this two-week program, students gain valuable insight into both the local and national operation of collegiate athletics. If national sports law issues are too small-scale for you, fear not! Through the law school’s Cambridge Study Abroad Program, students can spend a summer across the pond at Cambridge University learning in Ole Miss Law Professor William Berry’s international sports law course. While some law schools in the SEC offer an entertainment & sports law journal, Ole Miss Law boasts the only exclusively-sports law journal in the conference: the Mississippi Sports Law Review (MSLR). “We’re very good at the University of Mississippi at getting students published in external journals and our own journals,” Professor Rychlak notes, which is an incredible resumé booster as a law student. Additionally, students not only serve as editors and writers for journals, but also organize annual MSLR symposia featuring speakers from the sports law industry. The law school also features an active Entertainment & Sports Law Society which organizes guest speaker forums and networking events year-round. The University of Mississippi is a hidden treasure in the sports law world and deserves recognition for the exceptional opportunities it offers future sports lawyers. Hotty Toddy, Gosh Almighty, where should you consider in your sports law search? Flim Flam, Bim Bam, Ole Miss, by Damn! (Special thanks to former EASLS President Brandi Granderson and Professor Ron Rychlak, whom I had the pleasure of interviewing for this article)

While cryptocurrency is still foreign to many, crypto exchanges are heavily investing into sports. Crypto.com Arena will be the new name for the legendary Staples Center beginning on December 25 after AEG, the owner and operator of the arena, struck a 20-year deal with the crypto exchange in a deal valued at over $700 million. This makes it one of the biggest naming deals in sports history. Since the deal, the Crypto.com token, $CRO, is up 30% in 24 hours. This will give the crypto exchange a lot of exposure in one of the largest sports markets in the world, especially with multiple teams playing in the arena. The exposure could potentially help the transition into crypto for the public. Earlier this year, the Crypto exchange FTX agreed on a deal with Miami-Dade County until 2040 for $135 million for the naming rights to the Miami Heat arena. FTX has also signed on some of the biggest stars in American sports in Steph Curry, Tom Brady and most recently Shohei Ohtani as global ambassadors. These players received cryptocurrency and equity in FTX. Baseball fans may have seen the FTX patch on umpires throughout the season, because they have a deal with MLB. Although FTX is a company that was created in 2019, they have made a big splash in sports and are expected to be around for a while as evidenced by these deals. With Ethereum and Bitcoin, the two largest cryptocurrencies, recently hitting all-time highs, it gives exchanges like Crypto.com and FTX some cash flow to be able to secure big deals. How can crypto be used in the future by sports teams? As we’ve seen with some European soccer clubs, teams can create their own fan token. These tokens are mostly built on the Chiliz ($CHZ) blockchain and can be used by fans in a variety of ways. It gives holders access to fan-related membership perks like voting on club decisions and rewards, while still maintaining monetary value. For example, Paris Saint-Germain have a fan token that is trading for approximately $20 a token at the time of writing. People can buy and sell these tokens as they please, the more tokens a fan has, the more voting power they have. In a sense, it’s similar to buying a share of a team. While fan tokens are rising in popularity, you have teams that are giving away NFTs (non-fungible tokens) along with the purchase of a ticket. NFTs are usually bought using cryptocurrency, so it made sense that for the Miami Heat home opener, fans received a t-shirt with a QR code. Once scanned, the QR code awarded the person with a limited edition NFT. Similarly, the Dallas Mavericks give fans an NFT with a purchase of their ticket for every home game. These NFTs can be bought and sold. Some games may be more valuable than others. For example, the NFT for the game where Luka Doncic hit a game-winning shot against the Celtics is going for $2,000 as the lowest price at the time of writing. For Mark Cuban, this is the Mavs version of a fan token. These NFTs can be collected with rewards for collecting along with the ability to buy and sell them. A benefit of an NFT is that you don’t have to worry about it being damaged since it is digitally held and makes it harder to lose since it’s digitally stored on the blockchain. There is no surprise that Mark Cuban is leading the use of NFTs as he has allowed the purchase of Mavericks merchandise and tickets using many of the top tokens like Bitcoin, Ethereum and Doge. Crypto and blockchain could have a big role in sports going forward, although it remains to be seen how long it will take for the sports world to embrace the two technologies. Greg Termolle is a 2L at the Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University. You can follow him on Twitter at @GregTerm.

The case brought by student-athletes in opposition to Western Michigan University’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate for all student-athletes has finally reached its resolution. If you are not familiar with the case, Conduct Detrimental has previously covered both the background of the lawsuit and the first major update as the case moved through the court system. Put simply: Western Michigan University issued a COVID-19 vaccine mandate for all of its student-athletes, a mandate that was different than the vaccination requirements for other students, faculty, and staff who were only “strongly encouraged”[1] to get vaccinated, and several student-athletes who were denied a religious exemption to the vaccine mandate challenged its constitutionality. After a months-long court battle, Western Michigan University and the student-athlete plaintiffs reached a settlement on Tuesday, November 16th. As part of the settlement, the university agreed to allow the student-athletes to continue participating in intercollegiate athletics without being vaccinated against COVID-19. The student-athletes will, however, be required to submit to regular testing in addition to wearing masks when appropriate.[2] Effectively, the settlement adjusted the university’s vaccine requirements so that student-athletes and all other students, faculty, and staff are subject to the same standards concerning vaccination – that is, vaccination is strongly encouraged but not required – and testing. Rather than having a separate vaccine mandate for student-athletes, student-athletes will be treated no differently than anyone else at Western Michigan University. Unfortunately for constitutional law scholars and constitutional law nerds alike, this case resulting in a settlement means that there will not be a full adjudication of the question as to whether the vaccine mandate was constitutional. The admittedly narrow holding by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals will be the final, pre-settlement takeaway for the case: We do not doubt [Western Michigan University’s] good faith, nor do we fail to appreciate the burdens COVID-19 has placed on this nation’s universities. . . . Other attempts by [Western Michigan University] to combat COVID-19, even those targeted at intercollegiate athletics, may pass constitutional muster[.] . . . . But having announced a system under which student-athletes can seek individualized exemptions, [Western Michigan University] must explain why it chose not to grant any to plaintiffs. And it did not fairly do so here[.][3] By creating a religious exemption to the COVID-19 vaccine mandate that student-athletes could apply for and then denying all such exemption requests without any reasoning, Western Michigan University was doomed from the start. The university released the following joint statement on behalf of Western Michigan University and the student-athletes after the settlement was announced: The student-athletes involved in the vaccine lawsuit and Western Michigan University have reached a settlement of the pending litigation, allowing both parties to move forward[.] The settlement entails the students in the suit being awarded permanent relief from the athletics vaccine mandate, although they will continue to abide by testing and mask requirements. The University will play their legal fees in the amount of $34,000.[4] The Court of Appeals acknowledged that all parties were acting in good faith. The University wishes the student-athletes well in their academic and athletic careers, and the student-athletes are excited to continue their academic and athletic careers at WMU.[5] Hopefully the university and its student-athletes will be able to move on from this lawsuit and have successful (healthy) seasons. [1] Vaccination Information | COVID-19 | Western Michigan University (wmich.edu). [2] WMU gives up lawsuit fight over vaccines for athletes (apnews.com). [3] Western Michigan University loses appeal over student athletes and vaccine requirement - mlive.com. [4] Western Michigan University paid $34,617 in attorney’s fees to the Great Lakes Justice Center, the representative for the student-athletes in their lawsuit. [5] Western Michigan University reaches settlement in lawsuit over COVID-19 vaccine mandate for athletes - mlive.com.