NFL's Dallas Cowboys Lean on Seyfarth Team in National Anthem Labor Case
Joshua Ditelberg in Chicago and William Dritsas in San Francisco represent the Cowboys in the National Labor Relations Board case.
October 24, 2017 at 12:38 PM
5 minute read
Two Seyfarth Shaw lawyers are leading the defense of the Dallas Cowboys professional football team that faces a labor complaint over the owner's demand that players not kneel in protest during the national anthem.
Joshua Ditelberg in Chicago and William Dritsas in San Francisco represent the Cowboys, according to records posted online this week by the National Labor Relations Board. Ditelberg is co-chairman of Seyfarth's workplace restructuring and transactions group and is chief counsel for a company challenging the NLRB's definition of “joint employment” relationships among businesses.
The NFL case follows Cowboys owner Jerry Jones' comments that he would bench players who chose to kneel during the national anthem, part of a protest initiated by players throughout the National Football Association. Many players have continued to kneel during the anthem, drawing ire from President Donald Trump on Twitter.
Two dozen NFL players continue to kneel during the National Anthem, showing total disrespect to our Flag & Country. No leadership in NFL!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 23, 2017
Local 100 United Labor Unions, which represents workers in Texas, Arkansas and Louisiana, filed a charge earlier this month against the Cowboys and the NFL, arguing that Jones coerced or attempted to intimidate team members with threat of termination and violated federal labor laws that protect employees' rights.
Employment attorneys say there are many legal considerations at play in the questions raised by the players' protests. The NFL teams, which decide whether to terminate a contract, would have to consider the players' protections under the National Labor Relations Act, strong collective bargaining agreements with the players' union and the individual contracts. The teams also must consider federal and state anti-discrimination laws, and in some jurisdictions, employee protections for free speech.
The charge filed this month targets labor laws that protect employees' rights to concerted speech, which gives workers the right to collectively speak out against conditions at work. Union advocates contend Jones attempted to silence those rights through his threat of benching players.
“The employer, evidenced by repeated public statements, is attempted to threaten, coerce, and intimidate all Dallas Cowboy players on the roster in order to prevent them from exercising concerted activity protections under the act by saying he will fire any layers involved in concerted activity,” according to the document filed with the Fort Worth Regional Office of the NLRB.
The union, led by organizer Wade Rathke, said the football players fall under the labor protection for workers that include taking actions about wages, hours and working conditions.
“By Jones' actions, he is attempting to change working conditions and creating a hostile work environment for players,” the union said.
An NFL spokesman said the organization did not have a comment. Ditelberg and Dritsas of Seyfarth Shaw did not immediately respond.
Brad Livingston, a Seyfarth Shaw partner in Chicago and co-chair of the firm's labor relations practice, told Bloomberg News last month that owners would need to prove that the players' protest was harming the business.
“The employer would argue that it weakens the brand, it weakens the franchise in some way,” Livingston said. Livingston, according to the Bloomberg report, questioned whether an arbitrator would punish any NFL player who protested during the anthem.
Seyfarth, the Chicago-founded Am Law 100 firm, has ties to NFL teams. The firm represented the New York Jets in a sexual harassment case in New York state court in 2011. That case later settled. The firm has also represented Trump Organization business interests in contract disputes.
Ditelberg is the lead attorney for the company Browning-Ferris Industries in a challenge in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to how the NLRB defines “joint employment” relationships between companies. Ditelberg argued in March in the appeals court that the labor board's expanded standard was unworkable. The case has wide implications for companies across the country.
Read more:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllJustices Take Time to Answer Ken Paxton About Handguns at the State Fair
4 minute readDraftKings Faces $65M Lawsuit by National Football League Players Association
4 minute readFTC's Ban on Noncompete Agreements Struck Down on the Eve of Implementation
5 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250