"The removal of his mode of employment"??? Explain that please. Since you state there are NO legal grounds for what is being done, please post the NFLPA standard players' contract and the personal addendums to Vick's contract while you're at it. I'd like to see them. You're trying to sound like you're a contract law attorney - are you? Law degree from where?SuperHornet wrote:The removal of his mode of employment without due process could be seen as a violation of his civil rights, even if he IS paid. Had this "order" occurred AFTER a conviction, legal grounds to bench Vick would then exist. As things stand, there are NO legal grounds for this, NFLPA complicity or no. We all know how credible Gene Upshaw is right about now, anyway.lifesapuntreturn wrote: Lawsuit for what? He's going to continue to be paid while the NFL investigates the charges against him in the indictment of last week. He's being arraigned later this week. I don't know what the league's personal conduct code says but when the league commissioner says he's investigating Vick's behavior in relation to the league's personal conduct code, I think it's reasonable to assume the commissioner has discussed the matter at length with league attorneys to determine whether there is any legal exposure for the league or the Falcons in doing so. The updated article on NFL.com also says the NFLPA was consulted and I would imagine the Falcons ownership and management were consulted as well. It's not a suspension like some of the other players who have been disciplined by Goodell recently. It's basically a paid leave of absence.
I'm not an attorney nor do I play one on tv but it's my understanding that there has to some sort of legal "injury" that has occurred in order for there to be the possibility of legal action between two or more parties. How has Vick been injured at this point? What's the basis for a lawsuit at this time? I don't see it.
BTW, this isn't a "racial" issue, IMO. It's merely the NFL kowtowing to a bunch of pansy-waist wanna-be animal-rights activists. Does that make animal fighting right? [Bleep] no. But to take this action without a conviction could well be seen in courts as ludicrous. Most of those seen on TV picketing weren't the usual PETAns, anyway. They were just anti-football folk who were jumping on the bandwagon to try to discredit football in general. I didn't see any of those "usual" actresses who think that their stardom gives them credibility and a platform to blather their idiocy like those who "stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night" and bared it all on a billboard. (Of course, that wouldn't have increased their credibility, either.) Just a bunch of anti-football idiots mugging for the camera, IMO.
The simple fact remains that the NFL is exploring whether or not Vick has violated its code of conduct. Explain to me why they don't have the right to do that, backed up by the contract documents. If it were illegal according to the contract for the NFL to being doing this, I doubt they'd be doing it and doing it publicly.
If he has violated that conduct code, and I suspect the NFL investigation is going back several years, then it's Vick who will likely have the legal problem. He could be forced to return all previously paid signing bonus money and/or salary and other bonuses earned while in vioation of the code of conduct. It's called a breach of contract. Regarding Upshaw, he only has as much credibility as the players union gives him, which is apparently quite a bit given that he's been in that job for about 20 years now.
If there's going to be any lawsuit here, it'll likely be the Falcons vs Vick, not the other way around.