Rice could still pursue grievance against Ravens

AP

Before Ravens owner Steve Bisciotti considers giving Ray Rice another job, Bisciotti may want to wait to see whether Rice tries to extract more cash for the job Rice already has had.

Per multiple sources, Rice still may pursue a grievance against the Ravens for terminating his contract in the hours following the release of the notorious elevator video.

The argument would mirror the position Rice and the NFLPA will take regarding the indefinite suspension imposed by the league office.  Rice already had received a punishment for the assault on his then-fiancée, now wife.  When Commissioner Roger Goodell imposed a two-game suspension, both the team and the league knew or should have known all relevant facts regarding his off-field misconduct.

The knee-jerk reaction from both the team and the league after video evidence of what they’d already known he’d done — knocked out Janay Palmer Rice — may have been the right move from a P.R. standpoint, but under the labor deal both moves arguably constitute a second punishment.

Rice was due to earn a base salary of $4 million this year.  With $470,588 deducted for the two-game suspension he didn’t appeal, Rice would be eligible for the remaining $3.52 million — if he prevails on the pending grievance attacking his indefinite suspension and if he wins on an eventual grievance challenging the team’s decision to cut him loose.

While Rice had only three days to appeal the indefinite suspension imposed by the league, Rice has at least 50 days to appeal the Ravens’ decision to cut him loose.

Some of you may be saying, “Wait, isn’t he allowed to collect the balance of his salary as termination pay, since he’s a vested veteran?”  Because he was never on the active roster for the Ravens on or after Week One of the 2014 season, Rice isn’t eligible for termination pay.

So, instead, he’ll have to challenge his termination in order to get paid.

If Rice prevails, he will have pocketed $29 million in three seasons from the Ravens, an annual average that running backs rarely realize in today’s NFL.

52 responses to “Rice could still pursue grievance against Ravens

  1. One would think there is language in the contract that allows a team to terminate a contract for conduct detrimental to the organization without any type of penalty,,,,,,,,,

  2. They need to stop with the “he was punished twice” argument. What difference does that make? It’s not a court of law. He was suspended 2 games. If the video was available and viewed at the beginning of all this, the “2nd punishment” would have been carried out & he would have missed those same 2 games. In my view, he wasn’t punished twice.

  3. And here I thought a team is allowed to cut a player whenever they want for any reason. Shows what I know.

  4. Really?
    RICE is the PERP! He shouldn’t have any right whatsoever to file anything against his employer since HIS actions brought negative publicity upon his employer. Rice should be forced to pay damages to the Ravens and the NFL for the negative publicity that they have had to suffer because of his actions.

  5. He will not win against the team.

    However he will win losses and punitive damages against the NFL.

    He should clear 20 million more.

    The NFL can’t prevent someone from earning a living without due process.

    They violated due process and for that they will pay.

  6. I’m so sick of all of this…….. How about instead of all of the grevance’s you players feel you have you try this out for a change: Don’t hit your wife, don’t beat your child, don’t do drugs or associate yourself with people who do, don’t drive drunk, don’t kill people, don’t do things that are going to jeopardize your playing career.

    Just like the regular guy working 9 to 5. Don’t do something that would possibly get you fired. It’s as simple as that.

  7. Rice should win the suspension appeal because he already received the punishment of a two game suspension. Regarding being cut, I think he loses. He wasn’t cut for beating his wife. He was cut because he was a public distraction to the team. The second video caused a huge public uproar and THAT is why he got cut.

  8. What has gotten the league, club owners and Commissioner Goodell into the bind they find themselves, is that instead of having hard and fast policies they stand behind, they’ve left them open ended, so they can try to spin every situation differently. The result has been inconsistent and uneven administration that has backfired – and left themselves open to justifiable criticism from fans, media and the general public.

  9. This may not be politically correct considering the public out cry and advocacy groups weighing in. However Ray Rice will play in the NFL again, the termination was wrong. This will not be a criminal proceeding but this double jeopardy is not right and basic fairness should prevail in the end for Rice. He is sick to have done what he did but should be paid for the termination and have a chance to resume his career. Michael Vick was sick to do what he did also and is back even though he’s a convicted felon.

  10. mnvikingsfan says:
    Oct 8, 2014 8:11 AM
    One would think there is language in the contract that allows a team to terminate a contract for conduct detrimental to the organization without any type of penalty,,,,,,,,,
    ———-

    Even if there was, that doesn’t change the facts. The argument is that he was punishes twice for the same crime. The Ravens and the NFL are acting like they didn’t know the facts when they handed down their initial punishment, when they very likely did. His argument will be that he was banned indefinitely and cut because of the public response to the video . He may very well have a point.

  11. It’s really pretty simple: when you have a job that most guys can only dream about and are making a boatload of money,don’t punch your wife in the face and knock her out,especially when there is A CAMERA recording it. I hope this moron gets zero.

  12. Rice was given a 2 game suspension as punishment. He NEVER served the punishment as the video released before he sat out a game.

    Therefore, it was not double jeopardy. It was imposition of a harsher penalty than the one previously imposed, but never served.

  13. I could never be in this position with my work.

    However. If my work came to me and suspended me a week for doing something and a month later they came back and FIRED me because hey, we saw a video of what happened and even though we knew it happened, it just looks terrible so we’re firing you.

    I would sue and I would win.

    I’m not saying the Ravens or the NFL shouldn’t have kicked him out. That is the right thing to do.

    They just have to be prepared to pay for it. Sometimes doing the right thing is harder, and more expensive, than just trying to cover your ass.

  14. I would like to file a grievance against the ravens for cutting me because I got caught on tape punching my wife in the face and knocking her unconcious. Say that into a mirror several times before you actually file so that you can hear how terrible it sounds. Then don’t file and quietly disappear and enjoy the money you have already made.

  15. gayforbrady says:
    Oct 8, 2014 8:38 AM

    The NFL can’t prevent someone from earning a living without due process.

    They violated due process and for that they will pay.
    ___________________________________
    You are confusing the actual legal system with the NFL negotiated CBA. There is no violation of due process that needs to be followed. A suspension can be granted without actual legal ramifications if the league deems it necessary. Best example is Big Ben being accused by 2 women of rape, never made it to court and he still got slapped with a 6 game suspension.

    Also the argument that the NFL is preventing Rice from earning a living is erroneous. They are simply saying you can’t work for us until you are reinstated. By all means if Rice wanted to go make his nut working at a Dunkin Donuts or selling cars a la Josh Gordon during his suspension he can. But violation of the rules agreed upon via CBA was his undoing.

    Blame the NFLPA for signing off on it, especially since there is no true double jeopardy clause despite what people think. Go ahead and reread the One Punishment clause. It states that a team and the league cannot punish the player twice for the same incident. Says nothing about the league increasing the penalty based on new facts. Or you could relate back to the Personal Conduct Policy that states during a players probation period (during suspension) if any other incident occurs that is detrimental to the shield, the league may assess an extension of the suspension/fines. The league walks away unscathed on this one and the NFLPA looks like completely incompetent idiots.

  16. FinFan68 says:Oct 8, 2014 8:47 AM

    Rice should win the suspension appeal because he already received the punishment of a two game suspension.

    He did not receive punishment in a court of law. Therefore he is not protected by double jeopardy laws.

  17. Using the rationale that you people have proposed, Rush Limbaugh should sue ESPN for firing him b/c they KNEW his political views before they signed him to a contract and yet they fired him specifically b/c he dared to voice his political opinion as it relates to NFL football players.

  18. I knew that when the Patriots won big all the “Brady is toast” articles would dry up and we’d be back in Rice land. Sorry folks.

  19. Ray Rice could likely win a grievence against the Ravens. If he files it, however, he’s accepting that he is out of the league for good. He’s far better off trying to have the suspension either reduced or lifted, accepting the loss of money, and making some serious contributions to domestic violence prevention. He has a lot better chance finding his way onto another roster if he doesn’t try to grab money after being such an embarassment to his former team.

  20. mancave001 says: Oct 8, 2014 9:20 AM

    mnvikingsfan says:
    Oct 8, 2014 8:11 AM
    One would think there is language in the contract that allows a team to terminate a contract for conduct detrimental to the organization without any type of penalty,,,,,,,,,
    ———-

    Even if there was, that doesn’t change the facts. The argument is that he was punishes twice for the same crime. The Ravens and the NFL are acting like they didn’t know the facts when they handed down their initial punishment, when they very likely did. His argument will be that he was banned indefinitely and cut because of the public response to the video . He may very well have a point.
    =======================
    Wouldn’t Rice have to prove the Ravens and the NFL had the elevator tape before a lawsuit against either of could be winnable.

    In that case, any lawsuit Rice files could hinge on the outcome of Meullers(sp) investigation

  21. The team can cut him any time they want even if he’s healthy, playing well and hasn’t done anything illegal.

    The league on the other hand per the CBA can’t keep repunishing people, especially if the punishment Goodell gives is greater than what was agreed to in the CBA. Goodell unilaterally modified the CBA by changing the penalties for domestic violence from what the CBA states.

    If De Smith wasn’t so spineless and afraid of the public backlash from speaking out against Goodell’s moves they would never have been able to impose the 2nd suspension. The only justification for that is if Rice lied to the league which it seems he did not.

  22. dryzzt23 says:
    Oct 8, 2014 9:46 AM

    Using the rationale that you people have proposed, Rush Limbaugh should sue ESPN for firing him b/c they KNEW his political views before they signed him to a contract and yet they fired him specifically b/c he dared to voice his political opinion as it relates to NFL football players.
    ====================

    He wasn’t fired for his political views, he was fired for what he said about McNabb

  23. the baltimore circus,you are right.The Greatest Show on Earth.. see you all in February!!!!

  24. ridingwithnohandlebars says:

    Oct 8, 2014 8:23 AM
    And here I thought a team is allowed to cut a player whenever they want for any reason. Shows what I know.

    ————————————————
    As you say, a team can cut a player anytime they want for any reason. However, they must still pay out the remainder of that players contractually agreed upon pay. So this is going to come down to a case of contract law. Isn’t football today exciting!

    If I wanted to be involved in following legal battles I’d watch reruns of Boston Legal.

  25. mnvikingsfan says:
    Oct 8, 2014 10:26 AM
    dryzzt23 says:
    Oct 8, 2014 9:46 AM

    Using the rationale that you people have proposed, Rush Limbaugh should sue ESPN for firing him b/c they KNEW his political views before they signed him to a contract and yet they fired him specifically b/c he dared to voice his political opinion as it relates to NFL football players.
    ====================

    He wasn’t fired for his political views, he was fired for what he said about McNabb

    ————————————————-
    He didn’t really say anything about McNabb either. He said the MEDIA was hell bent on having an elite black quarterback and so the MEDIA promoted McNabb as such even though his stats made him just ‘very good’ but not elite.

  26. mancave001 says:
    Oct 8, 2014 9:20 AM
    Even if there was, that doesn’t change the facts. The argument is that he was punishes twice for the same crime. The Ravens and the NFL are acting like they didn’t know the facts when they handed down their initial punishment, when they very likely did. His argument will be that he was banned indefinitely and cut because of the public response to the video . He may very well have a point.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    I think the two are separate issues. The 2 game vs indefinite suspension by the league and the second, being cut by the Ravens. He has a point on #1 and no chance on #2. Look at Denver’s ex kicker. He was suspended 4 games, served it and as soon as he was ready to come back Denver cut him. Not much different from the Ravens/Rice situation. The newly released video only added the urgency to get rid of him.

  27. Eutaw’s Finest says:Oct 8, 2014 9:37 AM

    Blame the NFLPA for signing off on it, especially since there is no true double jeopardy clause despite what people think. Go ahead and reread the One Punishment clause. It states that a team and the league cannot punish the player twice for the same incident. Says nothing about the league increasing the penalty based on new facts. Or you could relate back to the Personal Conduct Policy that states during a players probation period (during suspension) if any other incident occurs that is detrimental to the shield, the league may assess an extension of the suspension/fines. The league walks away unscathed on this one and the NFLPA looks like completely incompetent idiots.
    ___________________________________

    There were no “new facts”. The NFL and the Ravens chose to make their initial decisions on Ray Rice’s “one incident” without viewing the video. That’s on them.

  28. Eutaw’s Finest says:
    Oct 8, 2014 9:37 AM

    Go ahead and reread the One Punishment clause. It states that a team and the league cannot punish the player twice for the same incident. Says nothing about the league increasing the penalty based on new facts. Or you could relate back to the Personal Conduct Policy that states during a players probation period (during suspension) if any other incident occurs that is detrimental to the shield, the league may assess an extension of the suspension/fines.
    ————————————-

    The problem with that argument is that there may not have been any new facts. Rice contends the NFL and the Ravens were fully aware of what the video showed when he was suspended two games. At this point, all indications are that the NFL and the Ravens took secondary action based on the visceral public reaction to the video, not new facts per se. That’s where Rice may have a point (and understand, I fully support them indefinitely suspending him and cutting him either way).

  29. Rice will win. Both the team and the NFL screwed the pooch big time by punishing him twice for the same infraction. They did it publically. The video was not new information, it was just ignored until the public outcry.

  30. johnodocks says:
    Oct 8, 2014 10:49 AM
    Eutaw’s Finest says:Oct 8, 2014 9:37 AM

    Blame the NFLPA for signing off on it, especially since there is no true double jeopardy clause despite what people think. Go ahead and reread the One Punishment clause. It states that a team and the league cannot punish the player twice for the same incident. Says nothing about the league increasing the penalty based on new facts. Or you could relate back to the Personal Conduct Policy that states during a players probation period (during suspension) if any other incident occurs that is detrimental to the shield, the league may assess an extension of the suspension/fines. The league walks away unscathed on this one and the NFLPA looks like completely incompetent idiots.
    ___________________________________

    There were no “new facts”. The NFL and the Ravens chose to make their initial decisions on Ray Rice’s “one incident” without viewing the video. That’s on them.
    ______________________________________
    No new “facts” per se, but the video came to fruition and as far the league and Ravens have stated, this was the 1st time they saw it. Unless Rice and his lawyer can actually prove otherwise, they don’t have a leg to stand on. So based on that alone, without any way to prove intent, nobody “chose” to not watch it. I know Biscotti said they could have forced Rice’s lawyers hand, but they had tried several other avenues to obtain a copy and got nothing. And if this were the court of law (which it’s not) a video tape of an incident would absolutely be introduced as new evidence, so on that basis, this tape would warrant a new penalty by the league.

  31. mancave001 says:
    Oct 8, 2014 11:02 AM
    Eutaw’s Finest says:
    Oct 8, 2014 9:37 AM

    Go ahead and reread the One Punishment clause. It states that a team and the league cannot punish the player twice for the same incident. Says nothing about the league increasing the penalty based on new facts. Or you could relate back to the Personal Conduct Policy that states during a players probation period (during suspension) if any other incident occurs that is detrimental to the shield, the league may assess an extension of the suspension/fines.
    ————————————-

    The problem with that argument is that there may not have been any new facts. Rice contends the NFL and the Ravens were fully aware of what the video showed when he was suspended two games. At this point, all indications are that the NFL and the Ravens took secondary action based on the visceral public reaction to the video, not new facts per se. That’s where Rice may have a point (and understand, I fully support them indefinitely suspending him and cutting him either way).
    ________________________
    I get your point, he will just have a hell of a time proving it. Another angle- Rice shot himself in the foot a few weeks ago. How you ask? Remember when Rice said the video was doctored and altered? But he claims that based on the same video, the Ravens and the NFL were told every last detail? How can it be both? Is the video legit? And if not and it was doctored, how can you validate it? On top of that, I don’t believe he told the league and team everything- the spitting, the multiple swings, standing over her lifeless body- and any facts omitted will favor the team and league because he withheld details- no matter how small- derailing his case. You could also say the Ravens never suspended him 2 games, and are fully within reason to cut him whenever they want and did so out of PR necessity, so there was no double jeopardy there.

  32. So what PFT advocates then is a zero tolerance policy for NFL players where punishments should be extreme just in case any other evidence comes to light that would mandate a harsher punishment.

    Assume the worst of NFL players should be the policy from now on.

    So the worst NFL players are making the other 97% look really bad. But none of them speak up, and the NFLPA certainly has no issues with this b/c their lawyers reap the benefits of all this legal chaos.

  33. He has no recourse against the Ravens.

    The Ravens did not discipline him in any way.

    They released him. They are allowed to release him for any reason they like. Its in the CBA that Ray Rice himself agreed to. Dont like it? Dont hire an imbecile like D Smith to negotiate your next bargaining agreement.

  34. dryzzt23 says:Oct 8, 2014 12:09 PM

    Why are all of you people defending a fool who beats women

    No one here defended him being a woman beater. Just debating his chances of winning a grievance.

  35. “RICE is the PERP! He shouldn’t have any right whatsoever to file anything against his employer since HIS actions brought negative publicity upon his employer. Rice should be forced to pay damages to the Ravens and the NFL for the negative publicity that they have had to suffer because of his actions.”

    Boy, those equal protection and due process clauses sure are pesky sometimes, huh?

    I have no desire to Rice back in the league. But I have less desire to see a man’s rights trampled because Goodell screwed up the investigation and punishment.

    Mr. Rice needs to be accountable for his actions.
    Mr. Judge/Jury/Executioner needs to be accountable for his actions.
    And teams need to have enough moral sense to not bring in Rice for a workout, let alone offer him a contract.

  36. It’s past time for the NFLPA to negotiate fairer contracts for its employees that share the overwhelming amount of money annually pocketed by the NFL. Given the amount of permanent life injuries a retired player has to cope with there’s no way NFL players shouldn’t have no cut contracts. The players burden all of the risk.

  37. The NFL gave him a 2-gamer, BUT
    I don’t know if the Ravens actually did anything but follow the league’s orders.

    Therefore, whatever the Ravens did next WAS HIS FIRST PUNISHMENT FROM THE TEAM!

  38. I seem to recall bringing up all of these points when Mr. Florio was clamoring for all of these punishments to come out. That there would be numerous legal challenges against the NFL and the Ravens. Of course since lawyers will be making out like bandits throughout all these processes I guess that might be okay from a certain person’s perspective.

  39. Eutaw’s Finest says:
    Oct 8, 2014 11:08 AM

    I get your point, he will just have a hell of a time proving it. Another angle- Rice shot himself in the foot a few weeks ago. How you ask? Remember when Rice said the video was doctored and altered? But he claims that based on the same video, the Ravens and the NFL were told every last detail? How can it be both? Is the video legit? And if not and it was doctored, how can you validate it? On top of that, I don’t believe he told the league and team everything- the spitting, the multiple swings, standing over her lifeless body- and any facts omitted will favor the team and league because he withheld details- no matter how small- derailing his case. You could also say the Ravens never suspended him 2 games, and are fully within reason to cut him whenever they want and did so out of PR necessity, so there was no double jeopardy there.

    ______________

    The problem here is it’s up to the NFL and the Ravens to detail these “new facts,” or so I would think. Neither has done so.

  40. No new “facts” per se, but the video came to fruition and as far the league and Ravens have stated, this was the 1st time they saw it. Unless Rice and his lawyer can actually prove otherwise, they don’t have a leg to stand on. So based on that alone, without any way to prove intent, nobody “chose” to not watch it. I know Biscotti said they could have forced Rice’s lawyers hand, but they had tried several other avenues to obtain a copy and got nothing. And if this were the court of law (which it’s not) a video tape of an incident would absolutely be introduced as new evidence, so on that basis, this tape would warrant a new penalty by the league.
    —————————-

    They don’t need to prove anyone saw the video. All they need to show is that the NFL and Ravens failed to produce the new facts their secondary action was based upon. So far, those new facts have not been detailed for anyone. It’s clear that they did this based on the public reaction, and nothing else. That’s fine, but it might not be legal.

  41. mrone50 says:
    Oct 8, 2014 9:40 AM
    FinFan68 says:Oct 8, 2014 8:47 AM

    Rice should win the suspension appeal because he already received the punishment of a two game suspension.

    He did not receive punishment in a court of law. Therefore he is not protected by double jeopardy laws.
    ~~~~~~~
    It isn’t double jeopardy and I didn’t say it was. (Double jeopardy is simply being tried twice in the legal system for the same crime) This is a poor judgment call by the league. They already punished him for two games and then their perception of what he did changed so they suspended him indefinitely. That’s the reason the league has been trying to imply Rice lied, so it looks like they were misinformed initially (to technically void the initial punishment) and the indefinite suspension “rights a wrong”. This is similar to a parent who punishes a child for breaking the neighbor’s window and then punishing the child again after finding out the window costs more than initially believed. That’s wrong and so is the Rice punishment.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!