On Friday October 15th, 2021, Casey Martin had the lower half of his right leg amputated. [1] Casey Martin is the head coach of the Men’s Golf team at the University of Oregon, a former member of the PGA tour, and was college teammates with Tiger Woods at Stanford. Outside of coaching success, Martin’s name has largely been out of the news for nearly 20 years, but this weekend golf fans were reminded of his past. Martin is best known for suing the PGA Tour in 1997, filing litigation which was seen by many at the time as damaging to the integrity of the game. [2] Casey Martin has suffered from Klippel-Trènaunay-Weber syndrome since birth. KTW is a “congenital circulatory disorder,” and effects his ability to walk, especially significant distances. [3] In October 2019 he suffered a minor accident while pulling his garbage can in off the curb, and due to the weakened condition of his legs, broke his right tibia. Since then, he has fought a two-year battle to save his leg, as amputation above the knee was risky, but due to KTW syndrome the fracture in his leg never healed. [3] Luckily, Martin’s surgery last week was successful and he “has a good shot at an effective prosthesis.” [4] Martin has been quoted frequently as being lucky and grateful that his leg survived this long as he thought it was his “destiny” to lose it eventually. [4] But, while the golf industry reports and celebrates Martin’s successful surgery, it also brings about an opportunity to re-evaluate the stances taken in his lawsuit, ultimately decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2001. Martin sued in US District Court in Oregon for violation of Title III of the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) after his request to use a golf cart at PGA Tour Q-School was denied despite following proper ADA procedure. [5] At trial, the PGA Tour argued it had a right to make and enforce rules for its players, and brought in high profile witnesses such as Arnold Palmer and Jack Nicklaus to testify “walking was a fundamental part of golf.” [2] To the general public, Martin was portrayed as weak and attempting to thwart the game to his own advantage. However, judges at all three levels of Federal court disagreed and issued an injunction which allowed Martin to use a golf cart at PGA Tour events. Ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled “Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act prohibited the PGA from discriminating against either the spectators or competitors on the basis of disability,” noting that Title III specifically identifies golf courses as a “public accommodation.” [5] In a game that has been historically exclusive by race, sex, and ability, Martin’s fight for progress represented an important step toward increasing the accessibility of both professional and amateur golf. And how credible was the pushback from the PGA Tour that they would “lose the game of golf forever the way we know it?” [2] Martin’s specific use of a golf cart has only been repeated by one other Tour player, John Daly, who competed in the 2019 PGA Championship at age 53 and invoked ADA for use of a golf cart. [6] However, the farther-reaching effects of a Supreme Court ruling which bound the PGA Tour to adhere to ADA Title III opened up opportunities in golf at all levels. Change did not occur overnight, but door to opportunity was opened. In 2015, the US Disabled Golf Association, or USDGA, was founded by Jason Faircloth, “the first and only American to play in the Disabled British Open” In 2018 the first ever US Disabled Open was held in Florida, which represented the first event to ever obtain world rankings for golfers with disabilities by the USGA. [7] Overall, Casey Martin’s success on the course and in the courtroom has played a pivotal role in driving the sport of golf toward constitutionally bound equal accessibility. [1] https://golf.com/news/casey-martin-sued-pga-tour-cart-use-loses-right-leg-amputation/ [2] https://www.lyingfour.com/conversations-blog/2021/5/27/gmfy37k9owf5ejxmy6z0o7b4d6gbe9 [3] https://www.cbc.ca/sports/golf/casey-martin-fight-saving-leg-1.5514829 [4] https://www.si.com/golf/news/casey-martin-has-right-leg-amputated-due-to-rare-circulatory-disease [5] https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/casebrief/p/casebrief-pga-tour-inc-v-martin [6] https://www.golflink.com/about_35344_pga-tour-when-can-professional-golfers-use-golf-carts.html [7] http://www.usdga.net/about/

A new development in the St. Louis v. the NFL et al. lawsuit emerged when the plaintiff’s legal team filed a motion to depose Rams owner Enos Stanley “Stan” Kroenke for a second time, but this time on video. This lawsuit is five years in the making, and the plaintiffs claim the NFL fraudulently misrepresented them by telling St. Louis they had a chance to keep the Rams. Judge McGraugh granted this motion on October 28th, as reported by Corey Miller from KSDK Channel Five, the local NBC station in St. Louis. This motion was filed after ESPN investigative journalist, Seth Wickersham, wrote about the thirty-two NFL owners turning on each other and creating a “civil war” amongst them at the first owners’ meeting held in person since 2019. Mr. Wickersham reported that John Mara, the New York Giants owner, stated that if Mr. Kroenke did not agree to indemnify the other owners, they would not have approved his project and let the Rams leave St. Louis. To get to Los Angeles, the NFL needed an owner who was worth billions, and Mr. Kroenke, along with his wife Anne Walton, the heiress to Walmart, are approximately worth $6-$7 billion, according to Forbes. The only Stan Kroenke supporter Wickersham listed is Dallas Cowboys’ owner Jerry Jones. Jerry Jones became the lead proponent at the NFL Owners’ Meeting on January 12th, 2016 to push for the NFL owners to vote for Kroenke’s Inglewood project rather than Dean Spanos’s and Marc Davis’s Carson project to move their respective franchises, the Chargers and Raiders from San Diego and Oakland respectively. The NFL Relocation Committee voted in the Carson’s project favor, 5-1. However, the owners voted for the Rams relocation to Los Angeles 30-2, and the owners conducted this vote secretly. According to Randy Karraker, Mike Florio, Pro Football Talk’s host, and other media members, this was a first in the NFL’s history. Mr. Karraker reported the Cardinals, owned by the Bidwill family, and the Panthers, then owned by Jerry Richardson and now owned by Dave Tepper, voted for the Rams to stay in St. Louis. The plaintiffs moved to videotape Mr. Kroenke’s second deposition after Seth Wickersham reported Mr. Kroenke is threatening to abandon the indemnification agreement he signed when he agreed to the relocation terms in 2016. Also, the public is starting to pay attention to this lawsuit. The plaintiffs are without head attorney Bob Blitz because he was dismissed by Judge McGraugh as a lead attorney. Judge McGraugh dismissed him because he, along with former Anheuser-Busch president Dave Peacock, led the task force to keep the Rams in St. Louis, as reported by the St. Louis Post Dispatch and other media markets. He is still a key figure in this lawsuit as a witness, which requires its own story. The plaintiffs will depose Stan Kroenke a second time, and on videotape, to capture his movements so they can see how he would act as a witness. There is little doubt he is going to be called to the stand on January 10th, 2022, should this case go to trial. They need to know his monetary records, since Judge McGraugh approved the plaintiffs’ motion for punitive damages back in July, as multiple sources reported. First reported by Mike Florio and Randy Karraker, later confirmed by Benjamin Albright, NFL insider for the Denver Broncos, among other sources, the defendants could settle by giving St. Louis an expansion franchise. Different sources mentioned on 101ESPN and Pro Football Talk that the defendants, should they lose at trial, may have to pay an. estimated judgment between $8-$12 billion. The plaintiffs, by deposing Mr. Kroenke a second time on video, can move not only one step closer to a trial, but possibly closer to a settlement. Continue Reading at ksdk.com: https://www.ksdk.com/article/sports/nfl/rams/st-louis-nfl-lawsuit-stan-kroenke-deposition/63-69babbb1-ef4c-4278-9186-b59b093be5cc 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.

This article is the first in a series of articles which will explore the case against Las Vegas Raiders Wide Receiver, Henry Ruggs III from both the prosecution and defense standpoint. This article will explore how Mr. Ruggs III’s blood may just be the key to unraveling this case. The next article will explore Mr. Ruggs III’s potential defenses. Let’s get this out of the way. This isn’t Trevor Bauer or Deshaun Watson where there is a chance (however small in Watson’s case) neither will be charged with a crime. If the final crash investigation concludes the same thing as the preliminary findings, Henry Ruggs III will be charged by a grand jury with DUI Resulting in Death. As reported by the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department via Twitter, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department responded to a traffic collision near the intersection of South Rainbow Boulevard and South Spring Valley Parkway in Las Vegas. Fire department personnel responded and located a deceased victim inside the Toyota Prius. The driver of the Chevrolet Corvette remained on scene and showed signs of impairment. The preliminary finding for the investigation is the Chevrolet Corvette driven by Las Vegas Raiders Wide Receiver, Henry Ruggs III rear-ended the Toyota Prius where the victim was inside. Mr. Ruggs will be charged with DUI Resulting in Death. In the State of Nevada, that charge is a Category B felony and carries a maximum of twenty years in prison. However, it also carries a minimum of two years in prison. Thus, if Mr. Ruggs III was convicted of this crime, he would have to serve a minimum of two years in prison. NRS 484C.430 states that a driver who is impaired by alcohol or drugs or has illegal amounts of alcohol or drugs in their system commits “DUI causing death” when the driver “does any act or neglects any duty imposed by law while driving or in actual physical control of any vehicle on or off the highways of this State, if the act or neglect of duty proximately causes the death to another person.” As we know from the statement, the preliminary finding of the crash was Mr. Ruggs III’s Chevrolet Corvette rear-ended the Toyota Prius driven by the deceased. That finding looks like it fits the language of the DUI Resulting in Death Statute. As it stands right now, how might the prosecution prove their case? Reading the law enforcement’s statement provided me a very important piece of information. “He (Mr. Ruggs III) was transported to UMC Hospital to be treated for non-life-threatening injuries.” The fact he was transported to a local hospital is very important. The reason is because often in cases with DUI Resulting in Death, law enforcement doesn’t need a warrant to get the driver’s medical blood. The hospital will often take the driver’s blood because it is part of their routine practice. As Mr. Ruggs III was showing signs of impairment at the scene of the crash, his medical blood would be able to confirm or dispel whether Mr. Ruggs III was impaired at the time of the crash. The prosecuting attorney and eventually a jury will want to know exactly what his BAC (blood alcohol content) was at the time of the crash. Obviously, his BAC will be lower at the time of the blood draw than it was at the time of the crash. However, if it is till 3x the legal limit at the time of the draw, it is very safe to say it was even higher at the time of the crash. I once prosecuted a woman for DUI whose BAC was .32 at the time of the draw (4x the legal limit) and she was still blowing a .2 when she took the breath test approximately five hours after the crash. A jury loves to hear what the Defendant’s BAC was. It makes their job very easy. Was it more than .08 or not? If it was, how far over .08? If the BAC is .08 on the first blow and. 07 on the second blow, the jury is likely going to find that the Defendant wasn’t impaired. The reason being that one breath sample was under the legal limit. However, if the breath test shows the Defendant’s BAC was .14 on the first blow and .12 on the second than the jury likely will find the Defendant was impaired. The other important fact is somebody died. In opening statements, the prosecution will tell the jury that somebody died in this case. That way the jury is focused on the case and ensures their complete attention as opposed to them thinking about what will happen on the next episode of Squid Game. This case seems very open and shut especially if his blood draw shows his BAC exceeded the legal limit. However, from my experiences, no criminal case is ever open and shut. The ironclad criminal case does not exist. Henry Ruggs III will have his day in court. TO BE CONTINUED in The Defense of Henry Ruggs III. Matthew F. Tympanick is the Founder/Principal of Tympanick Law. P.A., located in Sarasota, Florida where he focuses his practice on Criminal Defense. He is a graduate of the University of Massachusetts School of Law where he served as a Public Interest Fellow and as a Staff Editor on the UMass Law Review. He was previously a felony prosecutor in Sarasota, Florida. In over three years as a prosecutor, he prosecuted thousands of misdemeanor and felony criminal cases. You can follow him on Twitter @Tympanick20.

Missouri governor Michael Parson would welcome and embrace an NFL expansion team, should the lawsuit between St. Louis, the RSA, and the CVC settle or prevail against the NFL. He wants to show the world Missouri loves their sports and their sports franchises. Kaitlyn Schallhorn wrote in the Missouri Times that Governor Parson said the best way to bring the NFL back to St. Louis is through an expansion team, not through relocation. “Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.” The NFL played St. Louis like a fiddle when they moved the Cardinals from St. Louis to Phoenix in 1987, and the Rams to Los Angeles in 2016. The only difference is Cardinals owner Bill Bidwill battled with city council for a new stadium; at the time, the Cardinals played at Busch Memorial Stadium II. They wanted a dome or stadium away from downtown, but the city wanted to keep them in the downtown area. Bill Bidwill is famously quoted saying that “you can’t fight city hall.” After the Cardinals left and scanning the NFL market, St. Louis realized they needed a state-of-the-art stadium, so they built the Dome at America’s Center in 1993 without the guarantee an NFL team would play in the Gateway City. St. Louis believed Commissioner Tagliabue would give them an expansion franchise after the NFL announced two expansion franchises would join the league in 1995. However, the franchises were awarded to Charlotte, North Carolina and Jacksonville, Florida. They were nicknamed the Panthers and Jaguars, respectively. The only reason the Rams moved to St. Louis was that their owner Georgia Frontierre, loved St. Louis, and the city gave them a friendly lease by putting the clause that stated: “if the stadium is not in the league’s top-tier (25%) after 2005, 2015, 2025, etc., the Rams can opt out and go year-to-year. The then-named Trans World Dome opened in 1995, and was considered to be in the league’s top-tier. The Rams won a Super Bowl in 2000, and went to another in 2002, however, from 2007-2011, the Rams went 15-65. This is the worst five year stretch in NFL history. Georgia Frontierre passed away in 2008, and the Rams sold-out every seat in the 66,000 seat dome up until 2007’s halfway point. For a 12-year span, the Rams sold-out the Trans World/Edward Jones Dome. Even when not sold out, the Rams averaged 45,000-60,000 fans per game. In 2010, the local media began reading the tea leaves. In 2015, Stan Kroenke opted out and went year-to-year on the lease, two years after the Rams won an arbitration battle in 2013. They proposed $700 million renovations, which would be paid by taxpayers, beat out the city’s $125 million renovations. To add insult to injury, Mr. Kroenke funded the $3 billion plus SOFI Stadium in Inglewood. Enos Stanley Kroenke, named after St. Louis Cardinals legends Enos Slaughter and Stan Musial, bought the Rams after he exercised his first refusal right. He said in 2010: “I’m a Missourian, I can be trusted, and I will do everything possible to keep the Rams in St. Louis. This quote first appeared, to my knowledge, in the St. Louis Post Dispatch and reported by not only Ben Frederickson, but former Rams beat writer Jim Thomas too. In 2013, Stan Kroenke and his second in command, Kevin Demoff, explored land in Inglewood, California, near Hollywood Park, and they concluded this land was fantastic for a brand-new NFL stadium. In 2020, SOFI Stadium opened. Governor Parson needs to be careful what he wishes for, if he wants an expansion team, he should get a local ownership group with corporate sponsorship based in St. Louis that has St. Louis’ best interests in mind. 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.

Early Tuesday morning, Raiders Wideout and budding star Henry Ruggs was involved in a fatal car accident killing one person in Las Vegas. While the Metro PD will launch an investigation, Ruggs will be charged with Driving Under the Influence Resulting in Death. As the details of this tragedy emerge, the legal ramifications will become clearer, but one thing is nearly certain, the 2021-22 NFL season for Henry Ruggs is more than likely over. The 22-year-old speedster is facing up to 25 years of jail time and fines of up to $5 million. As the story continues to develop, I’m sure the talented lawyers here at Conduct Detrimental will investigate and report on all the possible outcomes and life altering decisions Ruggs will be facing in court in the months to come. One decision however, was the most life altering of them all. That decision was not made by a judge or jury. That is, of course, Ruggs’ decision to get behind the wheel of a car while under the influence. Yes, this decision will certainly change Ruggs’ life and likely end his career, but the life of the victim and their loved ones is one that can never be repaired. Too often in sports, we see cases of DUIs and DWIs where thankfully no one is harmed and there is thus zero penalty for these actions. It is those lack of consequences that lead directly to an outlook on driving under the influence that allowed the terrible and fatal tragedies of to take place early Tuesday morning. This is something that needs to change. We need to learn from a story like this and change the way DUIs are perceived by league and team officials. I do believe that while Ruggs remains responsible for his actions, he is a young man who made a bad mistake, influenced by a society that has not taken these matters seriously enough. I do hope Henry can come through on the other side of this a better man. But we have to learn a lesson from this story. Driving under any kind of influence kills. Do not drink and drive. My thoughts and prayers are with the Victim and their families. Follow @rami_lavi on Twitter and @rami.lavi on IG.

What responsibility does an entity have with regards to serving drinks? Once someone seems intoxicated, a person working in an establishment that’s serving drinks *may* cut them that person off but what “legal” systems are in place to ensure that the intoxicated patrons are not driving drunk when leaving that place of business? To answer both questions in one word: none. Nevada does not impose “Dram Shop” liability against businesses (or individuals for that matter) that are licensed to serve alcohol. Nevada’s law on the matter states that “a person who serves, sells, or otherwise furnishes an alcoholic beverage to another person who is 21 years of age or older is not liable in a civil action for any damages caused by the person to whom the alcoholic beverages was served, sold, or finished as a result of the consumption of the alcoholic beverage.” There are, however, limitations on this law as it relates to alcohol being served to those under the age of 21. That is not relevant in the facts at hand. Also worth noting, it doesn’t seem to be as protective of social hosts, those not permitted to sell or furnish alcohol. While victims in drunk driving accidents cannot generally bring claims against the place that over served or otherwise allowed the drunk person to drive, they could still bring a claim against the driving party. Early in the morning on November 2, Henry Ruggs III, a wide receiver for the Las Vegas Raiders was involved in an accident in which he was allegedly driving under the influence. This accident took the life of one person. As seen on his social media from earlier in that evening, Ruggs was at Topflight with someone, and it does appear as though they may have had at least one alcoholic beverage as well. At this point, it is not known whether they only went to Topflight or adventured out to other nightlife attractions. To that end, it’s unclear what all transpired prior to the accident, but the police report did confirm that Ruggs seemed to be displaying “signs of impairment.” Under Nevada’s criminal driving under the influence law, Ruggs faces up to 20 years if found guilty of driving under the influence. However, this article is not about the criminal charges or even criminal law. This article focuses on liability of entities that serve alcohol. As previously stated, Nevada has very loose liability laws as it relates to entities selling and serving alcohol to those of legal drinking age. Unfortunately, as a result of Nevada law, Topflight cannot be held liable, as Ruggs is at least the legal drinking age. It is definitely a tragedy, an inability to bring a suit against the provider (Topflight) prevents the ability to hold entities responsible for not over-serving patrons, and even more so for ensuring that they are not driving drunk. However, as mentioned, the decedent’s family can bring a civil suit against Ruggs as a result of the accident. It’s time to have this conversation. Nevada should take steps to reduce the number of drunk drivers on its roads. In 2018, over 25% (26.4%) of all car accident fatalities in Nevada were alcohol-related fatalities. Granted, this doesn’t mean they were leaving restaurants or bars necessarily, just intoxicated behind the wheel. Other states do have stronger “Dram Shop laws” in place to specifically ensure that businesses are careful with serving patrons, and granted, it’s Nevada, but still-in cases like this, it is imperative to protect the safety and wellbeing of citizens and in light of this exact situation, the question must be asked: is the state really trying all that hard? Drinking and driving are never ok. Please, take a taxi, call an Uber/Lyft, call a friend, use your resources. When you make rash decisions like this, things can go horribly wrong, as seen here. My thoughts and condolences are with the victim’s family, and I certainly hope that regardless of the outcome in this situation Ruggs learns from this. However, I also really hope that Nevada’s government takes a good look at this incident and its overall statistics and really ponder if it’s doing enough to prevent this completely senseless and preventable problem that affects so many, not just in the state, but the country as a whole. Stephon Burton is a 3L at Duquesne University School of Law in Pittsburgh, PA. He obtained his undergraduate degree from Washington & Jefferson College in 2019. He can be contacted via email at [email protected], on twitter @stephonburton3.

Mike Florio of Pro Football Talk and KSDK’s Corey Miller, reported that St. Louis’ lawsuit against the NFL will go to trial on January 10th, 2022 after the Missouri Court of Appeals denied the NFL’s last-minute effort to summarily dismiss the lawsuit, pending a settlement between the parties. This trial date is significant because less than a month later, Stan Kroenke’s gem, SOFI Stadium, hosts Super Bowl LVI. Stan Kroenke owns the Rams, and is public enemy #1 in St. Louis. He relocated the Rams from St. Louis to Los Angeles, and nearly five years later, Kroenke and the NFL are being relocated back to St. Louis for trial after they exhausted all options to show there is not a triable fact or enough factual evidence for a trial. From the first filing for a motion to dismiss, the local media outlets in St. Louis kept reporting every action taken during the discovery process. Mike Florio from Pro Football Talk and Seth Wickersham, investigative reporter for ESPN were the only national reporters until September, when there became a possibility (now almost a certainty) the NFL could face a jury trial in a former team’s market. The NFL filed motions for venue changes to motions for this case to be heard at the Missouri Appellate level and Supreme Court level. They got desperate and filed an emergency writ to dismiss the case earlier this afternoon, as reported by Corey Miller, Dan Wallach, among others. Seth Wickersham reported a settlement offer had been made; St. Louis rejected it. There are rumors that a possible expansion team could be offered to St. Louis, first reported by Mike Florio. The NFL is desperate because they did not believe St. Louis had the evidence to take this case, first filed in 2017, to trial. Nearly five years after St. Louis lost the Rams on January 12th, 2016, the NFL’s litigation team will head to a St. Louis courthouse because they pursued greener pastures, in the form of money, in Los Angeles. When Stan Kroenke bought the Rams in 2010, he told the local media he would do everything possible to keep the Rams in St. Louis, but they could read the tea leaves. In 2012, Jeff Fisher was hired as the Rams head coach. On Tim Mckernan’s podcast, “The Tim Mckernan Show,” Fisher revealed he was told about the possibility the team would move after he exited the interview. Jeff Fisher previously coached the Houston Oilers, and assisted with their relocation to Tennessee to become the Titans. Stan Kroenke had the coach he needed to help with the relocation. Earlier this year, Joel Currier and Ben Frederickson of the St. Louis Post Dispatch revealed Kroenke and the NFL conducted secret phone calls about viable land in the Los Angeles area that was big enough and could be a potential site for a stadium as early as 2013. These articles mention NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell deflecting questions from the media about a return to Los Angeles at his Super Bowl XLVIII press conference. In 2014, Rams COO Kevin Demoff told St. Louis media outlets the land Kroenke bought near Los Angeles, in Inglewood, was not for a football stadium. Lies were everywhere beneath the surface. As reported by the St. Louis Post Dispatch staff, St. Louis had belief they could keep the Rams. This belief led to the St. Louis’ aldermen board vote, which led to the approved stadium proposal for an open-air stadium on the Mississippi riverfront, with a naming rights deal from National Car Rental. It was smoke to cover the NFL’s fraudulent acts towards St. Louis. Multiple St. Louis Post Dispatch stories revealed St. Louis paid nearly $20 million for a proposed stadium in 2015-2016. St. Louisans were still paying off the $600 million used to construct and finance the Dome. Nearly five years later, it has come full circle. In 69 days, pending a settlement between the parties, opening statements will be made in St. Louis. 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.

Ever since the Rams left St. Louis on January 12th 2016, the St. Louis government has not worried about whether they need to upgrade the Dome at America’s Center, or worry about taxpayer funding to finance such a project. However, should the plaintiffs prevail in St. Louis v. NFL et. al., Mayor Tishaura Jones may need to make a decision about an expansion franchise. She and city council would need to see if the Dome at America’s Center is suitable for an NFL franchise. It has not hosted an NFL game since December 23, 2015, when the Rams beat the Buccaneers 31-23 in what was dubbed the “Ketchup and Mustard Bowl,” due to the teams’ Color Rush uniforms. It is not suitable for an NFL franchise, just ask Reggie Bush and others that slipped on the concrete ring surrounding the playing surface (Bush sued St. Louis and won on a negligence theory). The Dome needs massive upgrades, or even better, St. Louis would need a new stadium. Randy Karraker, co-host of “Karraker & Smallmon” from 7 a.m. to 10 a.m. Central Time on 101ESPN Radio, tweeted out today that Mayor Jones is non-committal to an expansion franchise, should that be the settlement offer or judgment from the aforementioned lawsuit. The Dome needs massive upgrades, or even better, St. Louis would need a new stadium. The plaintiffs have leverage due to every motion brought by the NFL, but one, being denied by Judge Christopher McGraugh. That one motion granted was to exclude Bob Blitz, the lead attorney for the plaintiffs, because he was deemed to be a necessary witness, as reported by Joel Currier from the St. Louis Post and Dispatch. Blitz’s work on the case can be used by the plaintiffs. (I will write another article on this motion and its impact) Dan Wallach, co-host of “Conduct Detrimental,” reported on Karraker & Smallmon that an expansion team is a possible settlement option. When Mayor Jones was asked by Mr. Karraker about the possibility of the NFL building a stadium, told him “I’m not building any stadiums.” She wants questions to be answered first, for example, the expansion team’s owner. Mr. Karraker tweeted that Ms. Jones’ father, former St. Louis comptroller Virvus Jones, voted against building the Dome back in the early 1990s. Mayor Jones voted against financing to keep the Rams in St. Louis. Mr. Karraker spoke to a source with close ties to NFL ownership, and they told him the NFL “not in a million years” would offer an expansion franchise as a settlement offer for this lawsuit. These are not the signs pro-NFL fans in St. Louis want to hear, then again, it is only November 4th. The trial does not begin or fans wanting the NFL back in St. Louis, it is not looking great until January 10th, sixty-seven days away.

Former Miami Dolphins head coach Brian Flores dropped a bombshell on Wednesday when he filed a class action lawsuit in the Southern District of New York against the NFL. The entire 58-page complaint can be found here: https://www.wigdorlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Complaint-against-National-Football-League-et-al-Filed.pdf Let’s break it down. Background Brian Flores was a Patriots assistant coach under Bill Belichick from 2008-2018. He left New England to become the head coach of the Miami Dolphins in 2019. He was fired by the Miami Dolphins on January 10, 2022. Flores was widely considered a desirable candidate for many of the open NFL head coaching jobs this offseason. The NFL adopted the Rooney Rule in 2003 after recommendations were made by the NFL Workplace Diversity Committee. The goal of the Rooney Rule is to encourage hiring best practices to foster and provide opportunity to diverse leadership throughout the NFL. The rule was originally aimed at head coaching positions but has since expanded to assistant coaching positions as well as front office positions. The Rooney Rule places requirements on NFL teams to interview minority candidates for available coaching and front office positions. Complaint Overview The complaint comes out firing, starting with a quote by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.: It then goes on to compare the NFL’s segregation to that of a plantation, stating the NFL has 70% black players but is underrepresented in leadership positions: Throughout the complaint, Flores’ attorneys attempt to show the systematic failure of the NFL through the Rooney Rule to make any type of progress to cultivate a diverse league. Instead, they characterize the Rooney Rule as simply a convenient safeguard to fall back on when no progress is being made. Dolphins Owner Stephen Ross Attempted to Bribe Flores into “Tanking" The NFL world was shocked when the Dolphins decided to part ways with Brian Flores after three seasons. Despite missing the playoffs, the Dolphins ended the 2021 season strongly and Flores lead the Dolphins to back-to-back winning seasons for the first time since 2003. His team seemed to love playing for him and Flores had orchestrated an impressive rebuild. Then stories began to leak to the media that there was a rift in the Dolphins’ front office between Flores, management, and ownership. Several sources stated that Flores attempted to gain too much control over the franchise until Dolphins owner Stephen Ross put a stop to it by firing him. The complaint addresses Flores’ firing, claiming that the writing was on the wall for Flores in Miami dating all the way back to the 2019 season. It wasn’t a power struggle that caused Flores to lose his job, it was insubordination and refusing to follow orders from the boss. Allegedly, in 2019 Flores was approached by owner Stephen Ross and offered $100,000 for every game the Dolphins lost that season. Ross wanted the Dolphins to “tank” for a better draft pick and when Flores refused, Ross took it personally. The goal, in Ross’ mind, was to lose as many games as possible to secure a high draft pick. The Dolphins went 5-11 that season. If true, this is a death blow to Stephen Ross as owner of the Dolphins. The league would almost assuredly have grounds to remove Ross as owner. First and foremost, Ross would likely have committed a felony under Florida law. Title XLVI, Chapter 838.12(1) makes it illegal for bribery in athletic contests. Ross was attempting to bribe Flores to lose games by offering large monetary incentives. With the rise in the legalization of sports gambling, the last thing the NFL needs is a scandal that could potentially expose a team attempting to lose games on purpose. The integrity of the game is something that needs to be upheld for the sports gambling model to run. Leagues have to tread very carefully now that regulated dollars are being won and lost on the end products of their contests. There’s irony in the fact that a coach that was offered hundreds of thousands of dollars to lose games would then be fired a few seasons later for not winning enough. Flores feels he was never given a real shot in Miami. NFL’s Ongoing Problems with Race The complaint lists a lengthy history of the countless scandals the NFL has encountered that shined a spotlight on the league’s race relations. The complaint mentions Colin Kaepernick being blackballed from the league for racial injustice protests, the Jon Gruden email leaks in which the high-profile coach stated NFL Player Association Director DeMaurice Smith had “lips the size of Michelin tires”, and the settlement reached by the NFL in a concussion lawsuit in which they admitted to using race-norming tactics in testing for dementia. More on that settlement can be found here: https://www.conductdetrimental.com/post/the-hits-keep-coming-nfl-settles-in-race-norming-suit The Failure of the Rooney Rule The Rooney Rule was intended to create more leadership roles for diverse coaches and front office executives by requiring teams provide a “fair and legitimate” chance to thrive. The complaint attempts to showcase how this has not been the outcome since the rule’s adoption. Currently there is only one Black head coach in the NFL. The complaint shows an array of headshots of all the NFL head coaches to illustrate this disparity. Sham Interviews This part of the complaint is the most jarring. While the Rooney Rule requires teams to interview diverse candidates, it doesn’t require any of them are hired. The complaint emphasizes that this just provides teams an incentive to conduct a token interview with diverse candidates when there is no true intention to engage in the hiring process. Flores alleges this sham interview process happened to him on two occasions. In 2019, when Flores was eventually hired by the Dolphins, that same offseason he interviewed with the Denver Broncos for their vacant head coaching position. Flores claims that the interview was so unimportant to Denver’s General Manager John Elway that he showed up to the interview late and hungover. It didn’t matter to Elway that the interview went well, just that it happened. The true intent was to check the box that they interviewed a diverse candidate before they hired Vic Fangio. The piece of evidence that immediately sent a shockwave around the NFL involved text messages from Flores’ former boss and mentor, Bill Belichick. After he was fired from the Dolphins just a few weeks ago, Flores immediately began to seek another head coaching job in the NFL. One of the franchises with a job opening was the New York Giants. On January 24, 2022, Flores reached out to New York Giants GM Joe Schoen to schedule an interview for the vacant head coaching position. The interview was scheduled for later that week, Thursday January 27, 2022. But later that day on the 24th Flores received a text message from his former boss indicating the vacant job may have already been decided on: “Thanks Bill” When you take a step back and think about these text messages, you can start to paint a clear picture. Consistent with these texts, the Giants eventually hired Brian Daboll as head coach, not Brian Flores. Brian Daboll was previously with the Buffalo Bills as their offensive coordinator. Belichick, in a move consistent with his age, screwed up somewhere in the iPhone text message process. There are likely two options: Belichick received information that Brian Daboll was going to be hired by the Giants, misread the information as Brian Flores, sent off a text to congratulate his old friend Flores, only to then realize his mistake. Belichick received information that Brian Daboll was going to be hired, meant to text congratulations to Daboll, mistakenly texted Brian Flores thinking it was Daboll, only to then realize his mistake. Ultimately, the timeline of the mishap doesn’t matter. What matters is Belichick revealed to Flores that the job was going to Daboll three days before Flores was set to interview. Flores went through the interview process with the Giants knowing he didn’t have a chance, further illustrating, according to his attorneys, that NFL teams are only interviewing candidates such as Flores as a formality, with no true intention of hiring. What’s next? Obviously, this is a mess for the NFL. The league that is no stranger to controversy suddenly finds themselves wrapped up in another. The league will have to investigate the allegations made by Flores on top of defending themselves from his lawsuit. If we have learned anything from the NFL in the past, it’s that they are anything but forthcoming with their findings from internal investigations. The NFL released a statement in light of the allegations: Flores doesn’t seem concerned with letting the NFL off easy. The allegations are damaging, but does he have enough of a legal basis to move forward? More to come. 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/. You can find all his work at www.mattnetti.com

The Green Bay Packers are the hottest team in the NFL. Coming off a win over the undefeated Arizona Cardinals, the Packers have won seven straight. But this Sunday, the Packers will be without their superstar quarterback. On Wednesday, reigning MVP and face of the franchise Aaron Rodgers tested positive for Covid-19 and will remain distant from the team for their upcoming game against the Chiefs. When the Packers seek to push their win streak to eight, Rodgers will be watching the game on on television. In the post-pandemic world, fans have grown accustomed to players missing time after a positive Covid test. We’ve all become numb as we set our fantasy football lineups treating a positive Covid test as if it was a sprained ankle. That’s why it wasn’t shocking that someone, even of Aaron Rodgers’ stature, tested positive for Covid-19. What was shocking is that Aaron Rodgers had to enter protocols designed for unvaccinated players. Previously, the entire world assumed he was vaccinated. Under NFL protocols, unvaccinated players must isolate for 10 days upon a positive Covid test. Vaccinated players, however, can rejoin their team after two negative tests 24 hours apart if they are asymptomatic. On Wednesday, Rodgers immediately entered 10-day isolation signaling his vaccination status.[1] The assumption that Rodgers was vaccinated stems from an exchange with a reporter in August. Reporter: “Are you vaccinated, and what’s your stance on the vaccination?” Rodgers: “Yea. I’ve been immunized. You know, there's a lot of conversation around it, around the league, and a lot of guys who have made statements and not made statements, owners who have made statements. There's guys on the team that haven't been vaccinated. I think it's a personal decision. I'm not going to judge those guys. There are guys that've been vaccinated that have contracted COVID. It's an interesting issue that I think we're going to see played out the entire season."[2] At the time, Rodgers was praised for being candid about his vaccination status while also sticking up for his unvaccinated teammates. But with what we know now – that quote reads a lot differently. So, did Aaron Rodgers blatantly lie to the world about his vaccination status? Or did he just deceptively utilize semantics? You can decide that for yourself. According to reports, Rodgers previously applied for an exemption to the strict league protocols for unvaccinated players. Under supervision from his personal doctor, Rodgers underwent homeopathic therapy to raise his antibody levels. He asked the NFL and the Players Union to review his status to determine what protocols he would have to abide by during the season. His case went to a neutral third-party medical expert for review, but Rodgers’ exemption request was eventually denied.[3] Through this process the league was put on notice of Rodgers’ vaccination status. But the public was just made aware on Wednesday. The NFL developed a set of strict rules that unvaccinated players are expected to comply with or they risk fine or suspension. Included in those rules are restrictions for unvaccinated players on the size of social gatherings they are allowed to attend off the field. But the stringent protocols didn’t stop the Green Bay quarterback from celebrating Halloween over the weekend. According to his own Instagram page, Rodgers attended a party dressed as John Wick with several of his teammates in attendance. Rodgers has yet to speak publicly following his positive Covid-19 test. As Rodgers mentioned in August, receiving a vaccine is “a personal decision”. Personal feelings aside, professional athletes are human beings that are granted the opportunity to make a choice on whether they want to get the shot. Rodgers would hardly be the first athlete to make headlines over refusing the vaccine. Kyrie Irving is currently sacrificing millions of dollars over his decision to remain unvaccinated. Other NFL quarterbacks have been vocal in their hesitancy around the vaccine, including Kirk Cousins and Carson Wentz. But there’s a difference between Rodgers and those other athletes – Rodgers wasn’t confident enough in his own choice to stand behind it. Instead, he misled the public and shielded himself behind claims he was “immunized”. While Rodgers is facing a lot of heat off the field, inside his own locker room his teammates still have his back. Running back Aaron Jones, whose father died April 6 from Covid-19 complications, stated, "I don't think it's a selfish decision [to not be vaccinated]. I mean, there's guys across the league who are not vaccinated. And to say that they're not committed to their team, I think that that's not true. He's our leader, like you said. He's 100% committed to this team, just like anybody else is in this locker room."[4] The way the season progresses for the Packers will determine if this is just minor hiccup or if Rodgers’ absence will have lasting effects. Currently, there have been no reports on if the Green Bay quarterback is suffering from Covid related symptoms. But while we’re here, I would be remiss if I didn’t quickly address the most common answer given when a player doesn’t feel comfortable disclosing their vaccination status: “Uh, I don’t feel comfortable answering that. That’s HIPAA”. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) was enacted in 1996 to protect patients’ health information. The Act applies to health care providers and requires compliance to protect patient health information. These covered entities must refrain from unlawfully disclosing personal patient health information to third parties. Notably, HIPAA doesn’t apply to individuals and their own personal medical records.[5] Miraculously, this law is constantly cited by athletes when refusing to answer questions about their vaccination status. It’s true, athletes don’t have to answer an intrusive question about their views on the vaccine. But that’s just because of socially recognized personal privacy boundaries, not HIPAA. So at least Rodgers can hang his hat on the fact that he didn’t improperly evoke a federal law when evading the question on if he’s vaccinated. Matthew 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] Rob Demovsky, Green Bay Packers QB Aaron Rodgers tests positive for COVID-19, source says, ESPN (last visited Nov. 3, 2021) https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/32542413/green-bay-packers-qb-aaron-rodgers-tests-positive-covid-19-source-says. [2] Id. [3] Nick Shook, Packers QB Aaron Rodgers tests positive for COVID-19, will not play in Week 9 vs. Chiefs, NFL (last visited Nov. 3, 2021) https://www.nfl.com/news/packers-qb-aaron-rodgers-tests-positive-for-covid-19-will-not-play-in-week-9-ver. [4] Rob Demovsky, Green Bay Packers QB Aaron Rodgers tests positive for COVID-19, source says, ESPN (last visited Nov. 3, 2021) https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/32542413/green-bay-packers-qb-aaron-rodgers-tests-positive-covid-19-source-says. [5] HIPAA Journal, Who Does HIPAA Apply To? (last visited Nov. 3, 2021) https://www.hipaajournal.com/who-does-hipaa-apply-to/.

Ben Frederickson from the St. Louis Post Dispatch and Randy Karraker from 101ESPN Radio reported that Judge McGraugh granted the NFL’s Motion to Disqualify Bob Blitz as an attorney for the plaintiffs, St. Louis, the CVC, and the RSA. Attorney Blitz, as reported by Joel Currier from the St. Louis Post Dispatch, is on the defendants’ witness list. Is this ruling a true “win” for the NFL? The basis for Judge McGraugh’s ruling is that Mr. Blitz worked on the stadium task force team back in 2015, and should he keep working as an attorney for the plaintiffs, this may have been prejudicial to the defendants. Judge McGraugh had to grant the motion to dismiss him as an attorney, and I agree with his decision. However, Judge McGraugh said the plaintiffs can keep and use the work Mr. Blitz conducted and prepared prior to his disqualification. Should the plaintiffs have lost his work, they would have lost an enormous chunk of their case. The American Bar Association Model Rules of Conduct, specifically Rule 3.7 “Lawyer as Witness,” state: “(a) A lawyer shall not act as [an] advocate at a trial in which the lawyer is likely to be a necessary witness . . ..” Mr. Blitz will likely be a necessary witness in the defendant’s case, and his testimony relates to a contested issue, the defendants’ fraudulent misrepresentation towards the plaintiffs, among the other complaints the plaintiffs bring forward. He had first-hand knowledge about the task force’s efforts to try to speak to the Rams organization, Head of Relocation Eric Grubman, and the NFL about why the team should stay in St. Louis. He and former Anheuser-Busch president Dave Peacock proposed an open-air stadium, secured the National Car Rental naming rights, convinced the city and aldermen to allow the vote that went in their favor. The defendants want to convince the jury that Mr. Blitz and Mr. Peacock were the ones that convinced the city and taxpayers to spend $18 million on the stadium project. They want to show that the city and taxpayers would have kept the $18 million. The NFL did not force the taxpayers and city to spend the money, it was Blitz’s and Peacock’s fault they spent that money. This disqualification could be a blessing in disguise for the plaintiffs. Blitz’s disqualification allows him to speak his mind about what really happened in 2015 and January of 2016. He can clarify what went on in those meetings with Grubman, Goodell, the owners, the Los Angeles Committee, and the city. He can show they acted in good faith and did not put an undue burden on the city and the taxpayers to spend $18 million only to receive nothing in return. Instead, they lost the Rams. The work-product doctrine is the plaintiffs’ saving grace. Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) Rule 502, it states: “[A]n adverse party generally may not discover or compel disclosure of written or oral materials prepared by or for an attorney in the course of legal representation, especially in preparation for litigation.” However, under (FRCP) Rule 26(b)(3), “an adverse party may discover or compel disclosure of work product upon a showing of "substantial need" and "undue hardship." The defense could not show this to gather Mr. Blitz’s work, so the plaintiffs can keep it under the Work Product Doctrine. Mr. Blitz’s disqualification seems like a win for the defense at first sight, but it could be a curveball in this upcoming trial. Let me know who you think Mr. Blitz’s disqualification as an attorney for the plaintiffs benefits more, the plaintiffs’ side or the defense’s side.

With the 2021 MLB season in the books (and a sigh of relief knowing the Astros are not the champions), the MLB offseason has officially begun. Aside from the issues surrounding MLB’s collective bargaining agreement, and rumors that we may see the first strike in baseball since 1994, one big question mark that remains has to do with this offseason’s free agency class. More specifically, how MLB’s newest qualifying offer (“QO”) will affect this year’s free agents. A qualifying offer in baseball is a one year offer, worth the average of the top 125 salaries, to impending free agents. In order to be eligible for the qualifying offer, players must (1) have never received a QO before, and (2) have spent the entire season on that team’s roster (MLB.com). This year’s QOs must be made by November 7 (five days after the World Series), and players will have up to 10 days to accept or deny. If a player denies and ends up signing elsewhere, the team who loses that free agent will be compensated with a draft pick. This is a strategy that teams use when they make QOs to players they know will not accept, just so they can get a compensatory draft pick. This year’s MLB qualifying offer was calculated at $18.4 million, $500 thousand lower from a year ago — only the second time since its birth in 2012 that the qualifying offer has decreased year over year (AP News). This is significant because it means that the salaries of MLB’s highest paid players have gone down. What does this mean? Because this year’s QO is set at a comparatively lower rate, it is possible we may see more teams less hesitant to make the offer to their impending free agents. Why? Well, teams may see it as less of a burden on their payroll if players were to accept (Bleacher Nation). On the other hand, players may be more hesitant to accept the offer, and instead opt to explore the open market, to seek a larger deal. In essence, all free agents who receive a qualifying offer and accept will be signing a one year deal worth $18.4 million. Out of the 96 qualifying offers that have been made since its inception, only seven have been accepted. The most recent of them being Kevin Gausman and Marcus Stroman during last year’s offseason (AP). Who is eligible for a qualifying offer? Some of this year’s players eligible for the QO include Freddie Freeman (pictured above), Carlos Correa, Clayton Kershaw, Trevor Story, and Marcus Semien. Who is not eligible for a qualifying offer? Because players like Anthony Rizzo, Kris Bryant, Javier Baez, Eddie Rosario, and Max Scherzer were all traded during the 2021 season, they are not eligible for the QO. The Future of the QO: With the current CBA set to expire on December 1, it will be interesting to see what changes, if any, will be made to the QO rule.