“Goodell also claims that Vilma’s lawsuit fails to specifically allege that the Commissioner made false statements regarding Vilma with “actual malice,””

..in much the same way that Vilma claims that Goodell acted without any actual evidence…
_____________________

Don’t you realize that you can’t sue someone for defamation and not specifically allege how they specifically acted to do this with malice. The with malice part, is the biggest key to a defamation suit.

I recommend learning the law, or watching the Masters. (As a side note, the intersection between private groups and discrimination is complex, but is statutory.)

Also, re: jakek2:
1. No. Just because it’s an intentional tort, doesn’t mean that it isn’t covered by the CBA. If the defamation claims are necessarily arising from conduct within the CBA, it will be preempted. I think it’s a pretty strong argument.

2. This is just wrong. The First Amendment protection is there expressly to get these issues away from a jury, and they are often dealt with on a motion to dismiss (and occasionally summary judgment). It is *extremely, extremely* rare for a public figure/matter of public concern defamation case to get to a jury.

3. You misunderstand what “matter of public importance” means.

“It should be easy for Vilma to at least get this to court…”

It may be easy for him to get it to court, but the question is, can he prevail – even in the Louisiana court.

If he makes it through the court system in Lousiana, the appeals court will kick it to the curb.

He’s just wasting the NFLPA’s money with all this legal wrangling.

Fair penalties and this would have all been over by the draft.

Actually, they lost a higher draft pick than you and drew large fines.

The difference is, the league hadn’t told bellichick multiple times to knock it off. They discovered it, and then destroyed all the evidence for the “good” of the league. And the Pats cooperated because they knew they were boned.

King godell needs to go!!!!!!!

1) Defamation is an intentional tort. Logically, these aren’t covered by CBA agreements otherwise bosses would sexually harass their union employees. The CBA argument is a loser.

2) Goodell’s claim that he did not act with actual malice or commit outrageous conduct is not for a judge to decide in the beginning stage of a lawsuit on a motion to dismiss. Those are issues to be resolved on motion for summary judgment and/or are best left for the trier of fact (jury).

3) Anti-Slapp – I actually think is Goodell’s strongest defense. However, I’m not sure concussions suffered by athletes making 10s of millions of dollars is a “matter of public importance”.

..in much the same way that Vilma claims that Goodell acted without any actual evidence…

dude do you really think it’s only Saints fans that are calling BS? If Goodell would have handed NE the same punishment as NO got, i would be calling BS on that too. They got a slap on the wrist and it blew over rather quickly. the lesson was learned and we all moved on. The punishment handed down to the Saints was incredibly over the top.

The CBA doesn’t give Goodell the right to defame people. He is still as accountable to the laws of our society as anybody else. So no, the players did NOT sign off on Goodell being above the law.

If you were Vilma, you’d do the same thing.

What if this were the 1960s and a private school prohibited a black student from attending class? Will you argue that this is a private school, thus this is not our business?

First, the CBA was enacted prior to Goodell’s latest and greatest overreaching with the bounty scandal. Previous to that, the biggest gripe was the inconsistent fines that were levied. The stakes seem much higher with this. I can understand how the player’s wouldn’t have been as concerned with this aspect as other aspects – Goodell hadn’t abused his power all that much (although Steelers fans might disagree).

Second, just because the CBA gives Goodell the RIGHT to be the judge, jury, and executioner, does not mean he HAS to.

A better leader would have stepped back and had an independent arbiter handle the appeals. Had that been the case, the player’s lawsuits would have gone nowhere.

As it stands now, I think the players have a chance at winning. For all intents and purposes, it seems the league convinced itself of the player’s guilt and then moved forward with that premise throughout all stages.

AND…. for the fans of teams that aren’t implicated – you should still care. Ask yourself – if your favorite player were suspended for 1/2 the year or longer on such flimsy evidence, would you care?

I’m not saying he did or didn’t in to Vilma, but that’s what this is case is showing.

Money talks, and usually wins.