Exploring New Approaches to Unsettled Legal Questions

Tag: Tulane Mardi Gras Sports Law Invitational

Disclosure Duties as Public Policy?: Setting Aside Arbitration Decisions Under New York State Law

by John Muller*

In 2008, fed­er­al tri­al and appel­late courts found against the NFL Play­ers Asso­ci­a­tion on the appeal of an arbitrator’s deci­sion on the grounds that the league and pol­i­cy admin­is­tra­tors had breached their fidu­cia­ry duties to play­ers. The tri­al court held that the steroid policy’s strict lia­bil­i­ty regime pre­clud­ed any breach of fidu­cia­ry duties, and the Eighth Cir­cuit found on appeal that plain­tiffs had failed to offer author­i­ty under New York law for a pub­lic pol­i­cy encour­ag­ing the per­for­mance of fidu­cia­ry duties. Did the NFL case get it right? In this Con­tri­bu­tion, John Muller (’19) argues that to pre­serve New York’s pub­lic pol­i­cy, courts should set aside the result of arbi­tra­tion under a col­lec­tive bar­gain­ing agree­ment on state com­mon law grounds in these breach of fidu­cia­ry duty cases.

Is This What We Bargained For?: Allowing the Preemption of State Law through Collective Bargaining Agreements

by Micaela Heery*

Can a term in a col­lec­tive bar­gain­ing agree­ment dis­place state law under any cir­cum­stance? How should a court bal­ance the need for con­sis­tent, nation­wide labor stan­dards with con­sti­tu­tion­al con­cerns for pre­serv­ing States’ police pow­ers? In this Con­tri­bu­tion, Micaela Heery (’19) offers an ana­lyt­i­cal frame­work for resolv­ing these pre­emp­tion issues under the Labor Man­age­ment Rela­tions Act. This Con­tri­bu­tion argues that the right legal analy­sis must con­sid­er both whether a claim aris­es inde­pen­dent­ly of the col­lec­tive bar­gain­ing agree­ment and whether pre­emp­tion would be appro­pri­ate giv­en Con­gress’ pow­er over inter­state com­merce and notions of state sovereignty.

The Baseball Rule is Not a Rule, It’s a Relic

by Jake Calvert*

Should sta­di­um own­ers or oper­a­tors be liable for injuries to spec­ta­tors caused by foul balls, or is lim­it­ing such lia­bil­i­ty nec­es­sary to pro­tect America’s pas­time? Jake Calvert (’17) explores this ques­tion, based on his expe­ri­ence at the 2016 Tulane Mar­di Gras Sports Law Invi­ta­tion­al on Feb­ru­ary 3rd, 2016. His­tor­i­cal­ly, the base­ball rule has lim­it­ed the duty of care game atten­dees on the grounds that a more typ­i­cal neg­li­gence analy­sis would force venue own­ers and teams to take unrea­son­able pre­cau­tions. The Con­tri­bu­tion ulti­mate­ly argues that the base­ball rule should be sup­plant­ed by more mod­ern notions of tort lia­bil­i­ty, such as com­par­a­tive fault, that would account for the spe­cif­ic fac­tors of a par­tic­u­lar base­ball game injury.

Long Hair, Don’t Care: An Analysis of Gender-Specific School Athletic Regulations & The Equal Protection Clause

by Matthew Olsen*

Does a high school men’s base­ball team reg­u­la­tion gov­ern­ing play­er hair­styles vio­late play­ers’ Due Process or Equal Pro­tec­tion rights? Matt Olsen (’17) exam­ines this ques­tion, based on his expe­ri­ence at the 2016 Tulane Mar­di Gras Sports Law Invi­ta­tion­al Com­pe­ti­tion. His Con­tri­bu­tion dis­cuss­es the Sev­enth Circuit’s rul­ing in Hay­den v. Greens­burg School Com­mu­ni­ty Cor­po­ra­tion, the sole cir­cuit court case to address the con­sti­tu­tion­al­i­ty of extracur­ric­u­lar ath­let­ic groom­ing reg­u­la­tions in the con­text of an Equal Pro­tec­tion claim. Although the adop­tion of the hold­ing by oth­er courts remains to be seen, the Con­tri­bu­tion con­cludes that the rul­ing could serve as a pow­er­ful means to strike down per­son­al appear­ance reg­u­la­tions based on gen­der stereotypes.

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén