Previously, the Raiders argued in response to the lawsuit filed by Randy Hanson, who allegedly had his jaw broken in a training-camp confrontation with coach Tom Cable, that Hanson’s claims should be referred to arbitration. According to the Associated Press, Cable has made the same argument in response to the claims against him.
Per the report, a copy of Hanson’s contract was attached to Cable’s paperwork in support of an order compelling arbitration. The contract states that Hanson agrees to abide by the NFL’s constitution and bylaws. And the NFL’s constitution and bylaws give the Commissioner full authority to arbitrate all disputes between coaches.
Here’s the potential problem, as we see it. As a general rule, a court will be reluctant to impose upon an employee a duty to arbitrate claims absent a clear indication that the employee has agreed to do so. A general statement to abide by the NFL’s constitution and bylaws possibly isn’t enough, especially if Hanson didn’t receive a full copy of the NFL’s constitution and bylaws contemporaneously with the contract, along with an opportunity to read the entire thing.
The far better approach would have been to include a simple, one-paragraph arbitration clause in the contract. Though the Raiders and Cable possibly will still prevail regarding the existence of a duty to arbitrate, the failure to include express language to that effect in the contract means that the Raiders and Cable will have to deal with an issue that possibly could result in the case remaining in state court.
The difference in forums could be very significant. Before the Commissioner, the playing field tilts toward the team. Before a jury of folks with no connection to either side, Hanson has a much better chance of prevailing.