03/09/2016
Deflategate in a nutshell. You may have heard rumblings that Brady might lose his appeal. He might. The collective bargaining agreement is a private contract. Private parties have wide lattitude to agree to just about anything. The parties agreed that Goodell could act as the final arbiter of these disputes. It may be dumb...it may be unfair...but that's what they agreed to.
The lack of evidence, the largely disproved "science" underlying the decision, the shocking dismissal of the measurements from the guage that was "probably" the one used...even punishing Brady for not turning over his phone which he had been told would not be required...these things might matter to due process if the case was decided in court with a trial in the first place. They are though less relevant in an appeal from an arbiter's decision.
In a sense, the parties agreed to the decision-maker, warts and all. The real question is does the decision so offend the notions of due process -- was it so bad-- that even though the parties got what they bargained for, the court must set it aside. This case presents an interesting question...how bad is too bad for a Court to enforce the decision? Judge Berman thought it was too bad and would not uphold it. The appeals court might hold their nose and enforce it.
So interestingly enough, this may become an important labor law decision: what, if any, are the minimum due process standards for the court to uphold a decision, even if it is not the decision they would have made.