MORGANTOWN – An amicus brief has been submitted on behalf of New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady for his "Deflategate" case by a West Virginia University (WVU) law professor.

Anne Marie Lofaso has written an amicus brief for the case, regarding the use of underinflated footballs during the AFC Championship game. The brief is questioning NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell’s role in the case’s arbitration, alleging that he has his own way of performing justice that is unfair against Brady.

Brady has been handed a four-game suspension by Goodell for the quarterback's alleged role in the Deflategate scandal. A lower court overturned the suspension, and in April the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ordered that the suspension be reinstated in favor of Goodell and the NFL.

Following the ruling by the appeals court, Lofaso got involved with the case, writing an amicus brief on behalf of labor law professions and industrial relations experts. The brief is part of the request that Brady’s legal team has made for a rehearing before the Second Circuit Court.

Brady's petition was denied July 13. On July 15, Brady said he would not appeal further and would serve his four-game suspension.

“Tom Brady’s lawyers asked for my opinion on the case,” Lofaso told The West Virginia Record. “I was following the case so I gave them my opinion. My interest evolved after that.”

In the amicus brief, Lofaso details how Goodell’s ruling questions the national labor law citing the ruling in the Steelworkers Trilogy, in which the U.S. Supreme Court established the fundamental rules governing national labor arbitration.

“The problem here is that, when parties bargain for an arbitrator, they bargain for a fair process,” said Lofaso. “Here, the NFL bargained for an option – the option for the commissioner to decide grievance appeals. That does not mean that the parties bargained for a lack of process. Our concern is that this case misses that distinction.”

While Brady has asked for a rehearing from the Second Circuit Court, his next step and only remaining option at this point is to have the case tried by the Supreme Court. Brady publicly said on his Facebook page that he will not appeal the suspension to the Supreme Court, saying instead that he will no longer proceed with the legal process. The case has been going on since the championship game was played in January 2015.

“When a court of appeals denies a petition for rehearing en banc, the court has not issued a decision on the merits,” said Lofaso. “It only means that it has decided not to rehear the case. Brady, through his lawyers, could do the following: accept the court’s decision; settle the case with the NFL or petition the U.S. Supreme Court for certiori. If Brady chooses not to go to the Supreme Court or if he loses his appeal at the Supreme Court (either on the merits or because the court doesn’t take the case), then the union is likely to renegotiate this part of the collective-bargaining agreement.”

Further supporting Brady’s cause is another amicus brief that was filed by the union organization AFL-CIO on behalf of Brady. The brief argues that the Goodell acted unfairly against Brady, undermining the integrity of the arbitration procedure.

Want to get notified whenever we write about West Virginia University ?
Next time we write about West Virginia University, we'll email you a link to the story. You may edit your settings or unsubscribe at any time.

Organizations in this Story

West Virginia University

More News