For many years, female athletes have been expected and encouraged to compete in skimpy, revealing uniforms in the name of following “tradition” and conforming to stated rules. On November 1, 2021, the International Handball Federation announced they will no longer require female athletes to compete in bikini bottoms. This unsurprising change was due to nationwide criticism and a July 2021 protest by the Norwegian female beach handball team. The players, dismayed by the rules, made a defiant statement by wearing shorts during a championship match. The women claimed they felt uncomfortable in the bikini bottoms, the bottoms made it difficult when managing their menstrual cycle and ultimately turn away many young athletes from the sport that they love. In response to this provocative yet harmless protest, the Federation fined the team 1,500 euros ($1,728). This fine shocked many and sparked widespread disapproval of the Federation. Appalled, popstar Pink offered to pay this penalty, even publicly calling the female uniform rules “sexist.” Compared to the men’s team, whose uniform consists of shorts that are four inches above the knee, there is obvious discrimination based on the gender of the athletes who participate in this sport. The question is: why can’t the women’s team wear shorts? Norway’s Minister for Culture and Sports, Abid Raja, tweeted in response to the fine: “What a change of attitude is needed in the macho and conservative international world of sport.” Norwegian politician, Lene Westgaard-Halle, asked, “Can you please stop the forced bikini nonsense at your beach handball games? It is embarrassing, disgraceful, and sexist. You are ruining both the sport and your own reputation.” In response to this controversy and immense anger, the European Handball Federation (“EHF”) donated the collected fine to a major international sports foundation dedicated to “equality for women and girls in sports.” The team responded to this donation through an Instagram post, “Babysteps. It feels so good to know that we have EHF’s support, and we believe that a change is in motion… thank you for all the support – you are amazing.” Unfortunately, this is not solely an issue with European handball uniforms. The overwhelming sexism revolving around female sports uniforms has been an issue for ages. It became a sizable talking point at the 2020 Olympics in Tokyo. Protests over skimpy uniforms, by two women’s sport teams, occurred before the Olympic games even started. This left the Olympians, viewers, fans, and aspiring athletes wondering: why are female athletes EXPECTED to show their bodies, but men can cover up? It is understood that these uniform rules and standards are designed to highlight femineity and beauty, but what the standard fails to consider is that girls abandon their sport careers because of uncomfortable body-baring uniforms. This policy places tremendous pressure on female athletes by indirectly suggesting that women are expected to be thin, muscular, hairless, able-bodied, and period-free. Male athletes have never been subjected to this pressure. What is needed? We need more women in leadership positions in the sports world. The EHF’s uniform rule change is one step in the right direction. Other international federations have to adjust their rules to allow the female athletes to choose the uniform that suits their comfortability and preference. These changes can and will motivate young female athletes to remain in their sport and encourage participation from more conservative cultures. If we recruit more women from diverse backgrounds into leadership positions, we will surely see a beneficial change. Women should not be punished for wearing an outfit that feels comfortable, functional, and practical. Women should be allowed the freedom of participating in their sport without exposure to unwanted comments and sexual harassment. Female athletes want to be remembered for their performance and strength, not for their bodily appearance. Ariana Gonzalez is a 2L at Seton Hall University School of Law who is interning for Emily Staker Representation. She is currently working on research regarding NIL Laws and how they vary amongst universities. You can reach Ariana at [email protected] or message her on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ariana-elise-gonzalez/.

In a move that shocked the sports world, the Denver Broncos traded eight-time Pro Bowl linebacker and fan favorite, Von Miller, to the Los Angeles Rams the day before the trade deadline. Miller was one of two remaining Super Bowl 50 players on the team. He was coming up on the tail end of his six-year contract, but many did not expect him to leave Denver even after his contract was up. Fans and players, alike, debated how Denver’s big trade would affect the team. The Broncos were likely not headed to the Playoffs with their 4-4 record, but the news of one of their best players being traded mid-season was surely unexpected. When asked if he had expressed an opinion on the team’s plan for the trade deadline, Coach Fangio revealed he told Broncos General Manager George Paton to “do whatever he needs to do and we're going to coach and coach winning football with what we've got....I've not tried to influence him one way or another.” News of the trade added a match to the flame for fans who were already doubting team leadership and coaching staff’s ability. Many expected the possibility of a drastic change in leadership, but Miller was low on the list of expected casualties. Miller’s departure leaves a hole in team leadership - as the longest-tenured player on the Broncos, Miller helped lead the team on and off the field. Even current Broncos players expressed their disappointment in Miller’s trade. The news seems to have come as a surprise to Miller, as well. “When I said, 'Broncos for life,' I meant that -- it will always be in my heart,'' Miller said. However, he seems to have a positive outlook on his new team. On his new teammates, Miller said, “Great team... They got a great defense.... I'm excited, [I’ve] always been a great teammate and I'm going to continue to do that." The change of scenery and teaming up with the likes of Aaron Donald will hopefully spark Miller into an even more impressive career. In Miller’s absence, the Broncos’ salary cap opens up. With the gain of a second-round pick and third-round pick, the Broncos can sign new athletes to help rebuild the franchise. Miller’s contract was worth $114.5 million, signed after he won Super Bowl 50 MVP. Denver agreed to pay $9 million of the $9.7 million left in Miller’s contract, but refraining from re-signing Miller leaves plenty of room for the Broncos to draft up-and-coming talent with the hopes of bringing success back to the franchise. Fans have unsurprisingly come out on either side of the debate. While many mourn the loss of Miller, some think it was the best decision, not only for Miller, but for the Broncos as well. Miller will get to play for a team that is generally considered a Super Bowl contender this season and won’t have to spend another couple of years rebuilding a team he has already spent so much time on. Meanwhile, the Broncos can recruit fresh faces at a much lower cost. James Merilatt of DenverFan expressed his thoughts on the trade: “It would’ve been foolish for Paton not to make the trade... Miller is in the final year of his deal... It wouldn’t have made any sense for the Broncos to re-sign him even if he wanted to stay. The money could be spent better in other places. They need to get young players on the field.” As much as the fans will miss seeing Miller rep the blue and orange on the field, it seems they understand the need to rebuild. The Broncos dominated the Dallas Cowboys in a shocking 30-16 game this past weekend, successfully stifling Dallas’ high-powered offense. Fans worried that Denver’s season was over left with hope that things are looking up. Young leaders on the team are stepping up to fill the void left by Miller on defense and in the locker room. With a defense that ranks in the top 5 across the board, it is up to those left to keep the team united and keep moving forward. For Miller, fans will be excited to see him don his old Texas A&M jersey number as he joins the Rams on the field. As Miller said: he went to sleep 4-4, and woke up 7-1.

The settlement offer that Seth Wickersham mentioned in his ESPN article last month was revealed by A.J. Perez, senior reporter for Front Office Sports. The offer, mentioned by Jeff Pash, the NFL’s General Counsel that was “worth than more than some people in that room” was $100 million. A lawsuit that has been ongoing for 4 ½ years, and the best offer the defendants, namely Stan Kroenke, can offer the plaintiffs is $100 million. Stan Kroenke, according to Forbes, is worth $10 billion alone. Stan Kroenke is being shrewd again, trying to “buy” this lawsuit and end it, like he did when he bought the Rams and ended their time in St. Louis. Howard Balzer mentioned Kroenke helped move the Rams to St. Louis as a minority owner, but in the early 2000s, he was on the NFL to Los Angeles commission. He got his wish in 2016 when he could relocate, but it is coming at a steep price to him, hundreds of millions of dollars, possibly billions, if it proceeds to trial. He must pay all fees, or he violates the indemnification clause. Stan Kroenke is trying to avoid the indemnification mess he backed himself into, and the legal repercussions that come with it. Kroenke agreed to move the Rams from St. Louis to Los Angeles after winning the secret ballot 30 votes to 2, the two votes being Arizona Cardinals’ owner, Michael Bidwill, and former Carolina Panthers owner, Jerry Richardson, as reported by Randy Karraker of 101ESPN St. Louis. Bidwill’s father moved the Cardinals to Phoenix from St. Louis in 1988, and Richardson, deposed earlier in discovery, formerly owned the Carolina Panthers and favored the Carson Project the Raiders and Chargers brought forth in the race for L.A. back in 2015-16. He was on the Los Angeles Committee that voted for the Carson Project in favor of Inglewood, Kroenke’s project 5-1. Simply put, Stan Kroenke is paying all attorney fees and litigation matters for the defendants, the National Football League and its 32 owners. Stan Kroenke is trying to fight this clause, and he recently has threatened to sue the NFL over this clause. His actions rival Al Davis’ tactics brought forth in the early 1980s when he threatened to sue the NFL as he fought for the Raiders to be allowed to move to Los Angeles from Oakland. Stan Kroenke thought each owner would be paying their own legal fees, but he thought wrong. New York Giants owner John Mara was aghast, and he was quoted in Wickersham’s article: “[i]f we knew you would not be paying these fees, we (the owners) would not have voted for your project.” This is more than likely why the plaintiffs requested to re-depose Stan Kroenke on video a week ago. The plaintiffs hold all the cards in their hands after the Missouri Appellate Court shot down the NFL’s writ to change venues. The NFL fears St. Louis has “home-field advantage.” Stan Kroenke is afraid he will be exposed for the shrewd owner he is, for the guy who promised to do whatever it took to keep the Rams in St. Louis when he bought them in 2010 only to relocate them six years later.

One step forward, and two steps back. Though this is a common idiom in literature, it’s becoming all too real in terms of the NFL trying to perfect its image. They have taken steps towards equality since 2015, with Jen Welter becoming the first female coach in NFL history in 2015. Since then, multiple scandals have rocked the league, with the most recent (and certainly most concerning), being the handling of the Deshaun Watson case. Since it hit headlines, nothing has really happened. That is the problem. On the flip side, the MLB is dealing with an issue that is similar in nature. As the Los Angeles Times reported, Trevor Bauer was placed on administrative leave pending the result of sexual assault allegations that were pitted against him. Though the MLB decided to leave any definite punishment for the end of the season, they placed him on leave almost as soon as they could have investigated the issue, making their stance clear. The NFL, however, did not do the same. That is where the issue lies. Though the NFL has made many strides in terms of equality for women and standing up against racism, they have not made their stance very clear regarding the situation of Deshaun Watson, which has made some speak up against them. They have not made the decision to place him on the commissioner’s exempt list, which has been done in the past to players like Kareem Hunt and Reuben Foster. In the past, the NFL put players on this list, removing them from the field even before an investigation had been completed. There is one small caveat that the NFL must deal with before Watson is handed any type of punishment. Per Article 46, Section 4 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the NFL and the NFL Players Association, “the Commissioner and a Club will not both discipline a player for the same act or conduct.” Under this section, Watson cannot be punished by the Houston Texans and Roger Goodell. Though Watson has not played a game through five weeks of the NFL season, this has been listed as a “coach’s decision.” It is essentially left up to interpretation if this is considered to be a punishment because, if it is, then Watson in turn cannot be suspended by the NFL. Given that the Houston Texans never explicitly punished Watson for these allegations, it’s been left up to the NFL. Therein lies the issue, because the NFL has every opportunity to do something, yet nothing has happened to this point. This limbo that Watson has been left in was created through the poor handling of this case by the NFL, as there was a clear step that could have been taken that never was. The MLB made their thoughts on the Trevor Bauer allegations very clear, and as a result, they have caught less attention than the NFL has from the media, given that the NFL never crafted any response on how they wanted to handle this situation. Though the situation is extremely sensitive as well as still evolving, a case as serious as this, you would think, would warrant a response from a corporation as massive as the NFL. Though the company may have a lot on its plate on any given day, it should be assumed that crafting its position regarding this issue would be on the top of its agenda. Jon Trusz is a Junior at the University of Connecticut studying Political Science and Communications, and can be reached at [email protected].

The NFL has been handing out hefty fines left and right this season. One of the league’s recurring victims is Dallas Cowboys wide receiver CeeDee Lamb. Lamb has been fined roughly $46,000 since the beginning of the 2021-22 season. These fines have been the result of an untucked jersey, low socks, an illegal block, and an over $10,000 fine for waving at New England Patriots defensive back Jalen Mills after his game-winning touchdown. Lamb’s experience with the NFL’s fines may make fans believe the NFL is cracking down on its players, but with Aaron Rodgers receiving only a flimsy fine for lying about his vaccination status, the disparity exudes a more nefarious reason. Aaron Rodgers was fined only $14,650 for violating the league’s COVID-19 protocols, which seems a little low in comparison to Lamb’s. Granted, Lamb’s results from five separate fines, but imperfect attire pales in comparison to endangering your fellow teammates by disregarding the protocols preventing the spread of the pandemic. While Rodgers’ fine barely made a dent in his pocket, the Packers were stuck with a $300,000 fine after an NFL review determined that the team should have penalized Rodgers according to NFL Network’s Mike Garafolo. Rodgers did not agree with the fine he was facing, since his decision to remain unvaccinated against COVID-19 was allegedly due to Rodgers’ health concerns. Rodgers avoided answering questions at a press conference on his vaccination status, claiming he was “immunized,” but did not elaborate on the subject. He instead participated in his own “immunization protocol,” however, scientists assert COVID-19 immunity is gained via vaccinations or recovering from the virus. Rodgers' reasoning for remaining unvaccinated is not the most convincing. Rodgers stated he could not receive mRNA vaccines due to an allergy he has to an ingredient used in them. He never stated what this ingredient is, but it is possible to have an allergy to ingredients in mRNA vaccines. However, the Johnson & Johnson vaccine is not an mRNA vaccine, which makes it a viable option even for Rodgers, despite his allergy. Following the news of Rodgers’ controversial views on the vaccine, two of Rodgers’ sponsors stated they did not agree with the statements he made regarding the vaccine. Meanwhile in Dallas, CeeDee Lamb has so far been fined 3.75% of his total salary, per Adam Schefter’s calculations. Even with the stacked fines against him, and the risk of paying another $46,000 if his jersey is untucked again, Lamb has acknowledged his role in being given the fines. When asked about his uniform violations, Lamb said: “I just know for sure I’m more conscious of it... I guess I got to look down, pull my jersey down. Stuff like that. It’s weird.” Second-year player Lamb has shown he can take responsibility for accruing over $46,000 in fines, while veteran Rodgers has evaded taking any responsibility for a fine worth a fraction of Lamb’s. A question arising on social media has been if the NFL should fine veteran players more than newer players, since they have experience and familiarity with the league’s protocols. Others question why two uniform violations cost the same as risking the infection of the team with a virus that has caused world-wide lockdowns. An even larger and more worrisome question is: are fine disparities another sign of systemic racism in the NFL? One would think the health of the players would mean more to the NFL than an untucked jersey and a little wave.

In other lawsuit news, the plaintiffs motioned to re-depose Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones. Jones is the alleged ringleader among the owners that designed the Kroenke-Spanos collaboration to bring the NFL back to Los Angeles. He is Stan Kroenke’s strongest ally among the ownership group, and he is on the hook for punitive damages after Judge McGraugh ordered that he needed to hand over all financial records back in July. He is the alleged owner that stood up for Kroenke after Commissioner Roger Goodell asked Kroenke to leave the room the owners were meeting in last month to allow NFL General Counsel Jeff Pash to describe the repercussions from Stan Kroenke signing the indemnification clause to allow the Rams to relocate to Los Angeles. Jerry Jones might as well be considered the outspoken version of Stan Kroenke. All reports from the local St. Louis media and now the national media make it sound like Stan Kroenke acted on the NFL’s return to Los Angeles while Jerry Jones had to explain to the other 30 owners what this meant for not only Kroenke, but them as well in the form of profits, such as the relocation fees the Rams and Chargers had to pay. Jerry Jones is as much responsible for this unjustified relocation as is Stan Kroenke, which is why I believe the plaintiffs are seeking to re-depose Jerry Jones. Lastly, the NFL motioned to keep some files and evidence confidential earlier this week in a motion in limine. A motion in limine is a pre-trial motion asking that certain evidence is found inadmissible, and that it not be referred to or offered at trial. If the NFL is requesting this type of motion, they must know either St. Louis is not going to settle, or there is information that could harm their reputation. It sounds like, from this motion, they are trying to minimize the damage. They are like the kid who gets caught with the cookie in their mouth when the parent discovers the lid is off the jar. The NFL wants to keep confidential and hide as much information as possible from the jury when trial kick offs with opening statements on January 10th. Should the plaintiffs settle, the NFL should consider themselves lucky. As mentioned by Wickersham, Perez, and the St. Louis media, after signing the indemnification clause, Stan Kroenke has been responsible for all attorney fees the NFL owners incurred so far, and should the NFL owners either settle or lose at trial, he must indemnify the payment that each owner makes to the plaintiffs, St. Louis, the St. Louis Convention and Visitors Commission (CVC), and the Regional Stadium Authority (RSA). With the recent news that Stan Kroenke tried to settle at $100 million, the NFL has reasons to start motions in limine because they likely know they were caught defrauding St. Louis of an NFL franchise, the Rams. They never thought this lawsuit would still be afloat 4 and a half years later. Jerry Jones’ comments about partnering Kroenke and Spanos as co-tenants in Los Angeles and his public backing of Stan Kroenke may come back to haunt him.

"If the commissioner comes in and investigates to see what the f--- is going on in Phoenix, [he] would be appalled." That is how one current Business Operations employee predicts NBA Commissioner, Adam Silver, will react when he receives the findings from Wachtell Lipton, the law firm now tasked with an impartial investigation. The NBA hired the independent law firm on November 4th, just hours after the release of the ESPN article written by Baxter Holmes, exposing a disturbing pattern of inappropriate behavior by Suns majority owner Robert Sarver. Holmes interviewed 70 current and former Suns employees from various ranks who all seem to tell similar tales of abhorrent language and childish actions displayed through Sarver’s 17-year tenure as the team’s majority owner. Sarver has vehemently denied the vast majority of the allegations through a wall of attorneys and the few he does admit to; he describes as “taken out of context” or meant in a joking manner. They are not jokes when they are hurtful and made at the expense of your subordinates Mr. Sarver. Earl Watson was the head coach in Phoenix from the end of the 2015-2016 season through the early stages of the 2017-18 campaign, when he was let go by Sarver following the team’s 0-3 start. Watson’s head coaching record was very below average, but he does not believe it was wins and losses that ousted him. However, a grudge held by Robert Sarver against Watson’s representation “Klutch Sports” and its owner Rich Paul. The bitterness for Paul began when the two were having a conversation about, then Suns guard Eric Bledsoe, who was looking to attain a contract extension during the 2017-18 offseason. Sarver questioned the guard’s ability to stay healthy among other things and when Paul refuted him by stating, “We aren’t talking about tennis” (Sarver’s childhood sport) the Suns owner became irate. He told Paul he would fire Watson if he did not cut ties with his agency, when Watson got wind of the news and the outrageous ultimatum he got this from Sarver: "Yeah, I will f---ing fire you," Sarver told Watson. "You have 10 days to think about it. Don't wait too long." Watson refused to fire Paul and the agency, his time in Phoenix ended shortly after. This interaction is a microcosm of the boorish behavior that has been attributed to Sarver during his tenure as the Suns owner. Others infractions include, the use of the ‘N’ word in several instances amongst coaches and staff as well as belittling female staff members by making sexist and misogynistic comments often. NBA Spokesman Mike Bass commented publicly following the release of the article saying they had not "received a complaint of misconduct at the Suns organization through any of our processes, including our confidential workplace misconduct hotline or other correspondence." There is certainly a reason for that as well. Many employees both current and former said they felt as if Sarver “owned them” and would often ask questions of that nature to his subordinates in some sort of twisted power trip. A feeling of being trapped in this unhealthy workplace environment led over a dozen employees to seek professional help through psychologists. A current employee who works in the human resources department commented: “If something happens, don’t go to HR.” Alluding to the fact that retaliation efforts would be taken by executives. Another former HR employee recounts several instances where he took employees who were attempting to seek help outside of the team’s property so they weren’t seen by superiors speaking with HR. The constant berating and mental abuse took its toll and led one former female employee to say this regarding her time in the organization. "It wrecked my life. I was contemplating suicide." Chilling. The NBA has a serious problem here and although a few higher executives such as GM James Jones and team president Jason Rowley have stood up for Sarver. Being quoted saying things like this isn’t the man they know/work for/respect, the majority of people in far less powerful positions sing a very different tune. Could we be heading for the third NBA owner removal under Silver’s tenure? The NBA board of governors would need a ¾ vote to do so, but regardless of that, things need to change in Phoenix immediately. Crude remarks might work on a Netflix comedy special, but this behavior crosses far past that line. If ousted as an NBA owner, my advice to Sarver would be to not pursue a career in stand-up.

Dan Wallach, sports betting expert and “Conduct Detrimental” co-host, tweeted out that a member of a focus group in St. Louis that discussed the city’s interest in the Rams, or if the Rams left, spoiler they did, their support for another franchise. The article, located on insidestl.com and reported by various insidestl.com members, reports focus group member, Kip Starnes, describing the atmosphere among the fifteen members as a “tailgate” to The Hollywood Casino Press Box. Rams COO and according to Fox 2’s Charlie Marlow, “professional liar,” Kevin Demoff attended this meeting. This focus group, as described by Mr. Starnes, “looked like people were there to tailgate for the Rams, half the people in the room came in jerseys. It was pretty wild. There was passion and…people are frustrated. It [was] very difficult when you have great owners like the DeWitts with the Cardinals and Stillman with the Blues, and we [had] an owner here who [did not] give us…any hope at all. There are people who [had] a high [angst] level and it was shared among the focus group members and Rams fans.” The way Mr. Starnes described this meeting while the Rams, Raiders, and Chargers were competing in the Los Angeles relocation derby shows that St. Louis is passionate about their sports teams. The St. Louis City FC are going to kick off their Major League Soccer presence, and should the city and the other plaintiffs receive or be asked to settle with an expansion team as a settlement piece, St. Louisans are willing to welcome that team. As reported earlier, Mayor Jones is non-committal, although she is not going to finance a stadium. If the city receives an expansion team, they better settle or persuade the jury to grant them a stadium as well at no cost to them. All financing should be provided by either the defendants, or they can ask for installments in financing, one option as an installment could be private seat licenses (PSLs), season tickets, equipment, and so forth. Howard Balzer, former St. Louis football writer and guest on “Conduct Detrimental” described St. Louis as a football town. He provided Dan Wallach with some astonishing numbers (see second page for these numbers). These numbers show St. Louis supported the Rams, although from 2007-2011, the Rams went through their worst skid in history, 15-65. The Rams never made the playoffs past 2004, but St. Louis always had their backs. The Dome seats 66,000 and they averaged 60,200 in attendance while the Rams played in St. Louis. The fact that Kroenke and the other defendants stated St. Louis did not support the Rams is a farce. The NFL may not offer an expansion team because they do not want to lose another piece of the pie. The owners hate splitting up TV revenue and other sources they must split among the current thirty-two teams. However, it may be cheaper in the long-term to offer St. Louis an expansion team. Should the NFL be forced or settle to pay all expenses the plaintiffs are seeking, this could impact the league severely to the point where a quarter of their revenue may be heading St. Louis’ way. Simply put, St. Louis would support another NFL team, but be aware of the old adage: “Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.” The NFL has fooled St. Louis twice, and as most people say, the third time is usually the charm. An expansion team seems like the logical option, but is the NFL too prideful and greedy to split the pie into a thirty-third piece? Time will tell. Alex Patterson is a 3L at Thomas M. Cooley Law School in Lansing, Michigan. He played football for seventeen years as an offensive and defensive lineman. He graduated from Lindenwood University-Belleville in 2018 with a Bachelor's in Sports Management. He can be followed on Twitter @alpatt71.

(WARNING: Graphic details within this article) Henry Ruggs’s actions on the morning of November 2nd has had widespread impact. As a direct result of his driving under the influence at speeds of 156 miles per hour, the life of 23-year-old Tina Tintor was lost. The criminal charges against Ruggs have been well-explored, as he faces more than 50 years in prison. Our very own writers at Conduct Detrimental have provided great analysis by looking closely at his criminal charges1,as well as Top Golf’s potential liability2. Needless to say, it hasn’t looked well so far for Henry Ruggs. There are no wins in sight for him in criminal prosecution. What about civil litigation? Looking at possible claims, it’s obvious the deceased has various claims against Henry Ruggs, including wrongful death. There are also third parties who may have claims: the citizens who attempted to rescue Tina Tintor from her burning vehicle. In civil cases, the vast majority of states apply a rule called the “Rescue Doctrine.” Under this rule, the wrongdoer is liable for injuries caused to third parties within the commission of a reasonable rescue attempt. Could the individuals in this case recover under the Rescue Doctrine? Though there isn’t any evidence of physical injury to the rescuers, they would likely be able to recover if physical injury did occur. However, in absence of such injury, the courts will likely be faced with a different type of harm: emotional distress. Two standalone civil claims exist in Nevada as ways to recover for emotional distress: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED) and Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (NIED). Tony Rodriguez, one of the citizen rescuers, explained his tragic experience to KTNV, Las Vegas’s local news channel3. Noticing a car in flames and cries for help, Rodriguez attempted to cut Tinton free from her seatbelt. As the flames grew rapidly, he realized that his attempts were futile. He heard the breaths of the victim and noticed her blood on his hands as he decided to give up. Tinton is thought to have died shortly thereafter. Upon returning home, he prayed for Tinton and couldn’t fall asleep for over 24 hours. These events were undoubtedly very tragic for Rodriguez. No amount of money will make an individual whole following a catastrophe such as this. But does he have the ability to recover money through litigation? Looking at both claims, it may be difficult to make his case. NIED In Nevada, NIED requires either physical or emotional distress arising out of negligent conduct that is extreme or outrageous. “Extreme and outrageous” has proven to be an extremely difficult threshold to meet. However, looking over Nevada case law, it seems his conduct may fulfill this element. Instead, Rodriguez’s trouble will come from Ruggs’s state of mind. As mentioned, NIED requires the wrongdoer to have a negligent state of mind. This exists when there is a reasonable duty of care owed, but the wrongdoer fails to provide that level of care. By contrast, a reckless state of mind requires that an individual provides no care at all, despite knowledge that care is required. Ruggs didn’t just miss the mark, he completely failed to provide any care whatsoever. If Rodriguez brings an NIED claim, this may lead to a rare situation in which the defendant argues for a heightened state of fault to avoid liability. This would lead to no recovery for Rodriguez under NIED. IIED So Ruggs has a higher degree of fault, does this mean Rodriguez can’t recover whatsoever? Not quite. He still has a potential claim for IIED, which provides for recovering from reckless wrongdoers. Also, as I explained before, Ruggs’s conduct could be seen as extreme and outrageous. Nevada common law also requires that an individual suffer severe emotional distress. This requires physical proof in the form of a doctor note or something similar. As long as Rodriguez can provide this proof, a prima facie case for IIED would be established. One major problem exists for Rodriguez, however. Nevada limits IIED recovery to family members. Unfortunately, there is nothing in Nevada common law which allows rescuers to recover. The courts reason that the relationship between rescuers and individuals in peril is not close enough to warrant recovery. Both the NIED and IIED claims are unlikely to be possible recovery for the potential mental distress that was imposed upon Rodriguez and the other rescuers, regardless of the level of severity and lifelong impact. Time for a policy change in Nevada? I find the potential lack of available recovery disturbing. The fact that only family members can legally recover in this situation bothers me. It leaves open the potential of an estranged parent recovering but closes the door on Good Samaritans administering life-saving aid. It may be time for a policy change in Nevada to provide for recovery in cases similar to this. Special relationships should extend beyond family members. One could argue that an individual reasonably trying to save another’s life constitutes a relationship as special as any other. Britton Yoder is a 1L at Penn State – Dickinson Law References: 1. www.conductdetrimental.com/post/henry-ruggs-is-being-charged-with-a-dui-resulting-in-death 2. www.conductdetrimental.com/post/should-businesses-be-liable-for-henry-ruggs-accident 3. www.ktnv.com/news/a-young-womans-life-gone-in-an-instant-her-final-moments?_amp=true

One month after resigning as head coach of the Las Vegas Raiders, Jon Gruden is fighting back against the NFL. Gruden is suing both the NFL and commissioner Roger Goodell in Nevada district court, according to NFL Network reporter Tom Pelissero. The introduction of the lawsuit alleges that “through a malicious and orchestrated campaign, the NFL and Commissioner Roger Goodell sought to destroy the career and reputation of Jon Gruden.” The lawsuit brought forth by Gruden has direct ties to the NFL’s investigation of the Washington Football Team. Gruden’s lawyers are arguing that the NFL and Goodell are punishing Gruden as a distraction from their controversial handling of the WFT investigation. The discriminatory emails were disclosed as part of the NFL’s investigation on the WFT, a probe that did not directly involve Gruden. The investigation involved over 650,000 emails and at least 150 witness interviews, but the emails have not been released by the NFL to the public. Through Gruden’s lawsuit, however, there is a chance that the court would order the release of the emails—which members of Congress have pushed for—through discovery. Specifically, the lawsuit accuses the NFL of leaking discriminatory Gruden emails to major news outlets, including the Wall Street Journal and New York Times. First, the suit alleges that defendant’s leaked a 2011 email to Wall Street Journal, in which Gruden made racially discriminatory remarks about DeMaurice Smith, who was president of the NFL Player’s Association at the time. When this email did not lead to Gruden’s firing or resignation, the defendants “ratcheted up the pressure” by leaking another set of emails, this time to the New York Times. The second batch of emails included more discriminatory language—including misogynistic, homophobic and racist remarks—and led Gruden to resign that same day. Gruden sent the emails to former Washington Football Team President Bruce Allen. WFT fired Allen in 2019, and the NFL conducted a yearlong private investigation on the team which resulted in a $10 million fine. Gruden’s lawyers explicitly compare the NFL’s handling of the WFT investigation to their actions against Gruden. Specifically, “in contrast to the formalities of the Washington Football Team investigation, Defendants’ treatment of Gruden was a Soviet-style character assasination” with “no warning or no process.” Further, the defendant’s held on to the emails for months, and waited to release them in the middle of the NFL season to “cause maximum damage” to Gruden. In addition to Gruden stepping down as the Raiders’ head coach, the Buccaneers removed Gruden from their Ring of Honor, Gruden lost his endorsement deal with Skechers, and EA Sports removed Gruden from the “Madden NFL 22” video game. Gruden is seeking massive damages, as he was in his fourth season of a 10-year, $100-million-dollar contract he signed with the Raiders back in 2018. Brendan Duggan is a 1L at Brooklyn Law School. He is also the founder of Sideline Views, a sports and entertainment multimedia brand. You can follow him at @SidelineDuggs.

Seven even years ago Donald Sterling was forced to sell the Los Angeles Clippers after audio of racist remarks to his girlfriend, V. Stiviano, were made public. In the audio you can hear Sterling upset with his girlfriend for “publicizing [on her instagram] that she associates with Black people” and pleading with her to no longer “bring Black people to my games”. The leaked audio created a firestorm throughout the league. After a contentious battle involving Sterling, Sterling’s wife Shelly, NBA commissioner Adam Silver, and attorneys on all sides; eventually Donald Sterling was banned from the NBA and forced to sell the Clippers to Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer. Now the NBA finds themselves in a similar uncomfortable situation involving Phoenix Suns’ owner Robert Sarver. Two weeks ago ESPN reporter Baxter Holmes released a story that details allegations of sexual harassment, racism, and misogyny in the Phoenix Suns organization since Sarver became the owner in 2004.[1] The length of the piece (over 7,000 words) speaks to the number of allegations against Sarver and his staff. Some of the major allegations include using racial slurs in front of a former Phoenix Suns head coach, bragging to employees that his wife performs oral sex, and mockingly asking a player if he shaved his pubic region because the player did not have hair on his legs. The story describes Sarver behaving in ways you could only attribute to an immature middle schooler. Nevertheless, Sarver is a 60-year-old man who is the figurehead of an NBA franchise. In a league that is filled with predominantly Black players, the NBA is constantly looking to increase their number of Black head coaches. In 2013, Sarver took a step that was likely appreciated by the league at the time when he hired a Black head coach in Lindsey Hunter. For his reasoning behind the hire, Sarver reportedly told another staffer, “These [N-Words] need a [N-Word] and someone that could speak their language”. To say the allegations against Sarver are disturbing would be an understatement. Sarver, through an attorney, has denied the allegations against him including using racial slurs in the workplace. So what comes next? On the heels of the ESPN story, the NBA has announced they will hire the outside law firm Wachtell Lipton to launch an independent investigation into Sarver’s allegations.[2] This process could take months and Sarver’s fate in the league ultimately depends on the outcome. There’s one major difference between the situations involving Robert Sarver and Donald Sterling: with Sarver there is no proverbial “smoking gun”. While the allegations are deplorable, as of now that’s all they are – allegations. Some sources in the ESPN story were willing to go on record and attach their name such as former Suns head coach Earl Watson, but many remained anonymous. However with Sterling, his time as owner of the Clippers was over the second TMZ got their hands on the infamous audio tape and released it for the world to hear. There’s still a lot that must be uncovered for Sarver to meet the same fate as Sterling. He will likely have a sufficient legal team fighting this every step of the way. But his wife, Penny Sanders, seemingly ignored all advice from anyone who has ever opened a law school textbook when she sent text messages to former Suns employees condemning them for their role in the ESPN story after it was published.[3] If Sarver wants to keep his team, step one should be monitoring his wife’s phone activities to assure no more retaliatory text messages are sent. If this independent investigation discovers truth behind these allegations, the NBA will attempt to remove Sarver just as they did Sterling. But how would the league go about doing that? The NBA could rely on the public pressure and outrage against Sarver being so extreme that he willingly waves the white flag and voluntarily sells the Suns. The league’s hope would be Sarver feels backed into a corner to the point that he wants this process to end as quickly and quietly as possible. But if Sarver drags this process out creating a legal minefield, then the league will have to take matters into their own hands. They could employ a similar approach taken against Sterling when he was “banned from all team activities for life” by commissioner Adam Silver. This measure strips the enjoyment of being an NBA owner and inviting all of your wealthy friends into your luxury box to sip champagne. Sarver could very easily take this all as a challenge and respond, “over my dead body”. That’s where matters could get complicated. Under Articles 13 and 14 of the NBA Constitution and By-Laws (dated 2012, there may be an updated version not publicly available), if an owner is found in violation of the aforementioned document, they can be removed by a three-fourths vote of the remaining owners in the league. In Article 35A one of the reasons cited for discipline of an owner is “guilty of conduct prejudicial or detrimental to the Association.”[4] Conduct detrimental ­– hence the name of this blog site. It’s important to note the human element in all of this. It may seem like a no-brainer for the other owners to cut ties with Sarver and remove this headache from the league. But the men casting the vote to decide Sarver’s fate are in the position to own an NBA team for a reason. They are all acute businessmen constantly trying to protect their own franchise and investments. Accordingly, they never want to set a low precedent for an owner to be removed because they may have skeletons in their own closet. They realize they could be the next ones on the chopping block. In 2014 Mark Cuban, the owner of the Dallas Mavericks, was adamantly against removing Donald Sterling as the owner of the Clippers, characterizing the move as a “slippery slope”.[5] Just four years later in 2018 the Dallas Mavericks were under investigation for a hostile workplace centered around sexual harassment.[6] During this investigation there was never any true momentum for Cuban to be removed as owner of the team. If Sarver is going down, he could attempt to bring other owners down with him. He could plead that he isn’t the only owner acting in a horrific fashion and this is just par for the course. Therefore, he’s being severely punished for conduct that only warrants a slap on the wrist. There’s still a long way to go before Sarver faces the steep punishment of being forced to sell the Suns. But if it gets to that point, we must ask if this would really be a punishment at all? In 2004 Robert Sarver purchased the Phoenix Suns for $400 million. Currently, the Suns are valued at $1.7 billion. If a forced sale occurs, Sarver is set to make a large profit despite these unsettling allegations. There will be more to this story in the coming months. Matt Netti is a 2021 graduate from Northeastern University School of Law. He currently works as an attorney fellow at the Office of the General Counsel for Northeastern University. You can follow him on twitter and instagram @MattNettiMN and find him on Linkedin at https://www.linkedin.com/in/matthew-netti-ba5787a3/. [1] Baxter Holmes, Allegations of racism and misogyny within the Phoenix Suns: Inside Robert Sarver's 17-year tenure as owner, ESPN (last visited Nov. 14, 2021) https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/32440987/phoenix-suns-robert-sarver-allegations-racism-misogyny. [2] Baxter Holmes, NBA launches investigation into Phoenix Suns owner Robert Sarver over racism, sexism charges, ESPN (last visited Nov. 14, 2021) https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/32551930/nba-launches-investigation-phoenix-suns-owner-robert-sarver-racism-sexism-charges. [3] Joseph Salvador, Report: Robert Sarver's Wife Sent Former Suns Employees Messages Amid NBA Investigation, Sports Illuastrated (last visited Nov. 14, 2021) https://www.si.com/nba/2021/11/09/penny-sarver-messages-former-suns-employees-investigation. [4] Michael Hiltzik, Donald Sterling and the NBA: Your guide to the looming legal morass, Los Angeles Times (last visited Nov. 14, 2021) https://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-donald-sterling-20140502-column.html. [5] Tim MacMohan, Cuban not in favor of booting Sterling, ESPN (last visited Nov. 14, 2021) https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/10854381/mark-cuban-dallas-mavericks-rails-donald-sterling-not-favor-kicking-owner. [6] John Wertheim, Exclusive: Inside the Corrosive Workplace Culture of the Dallas Mavericks, Sports Illustrated (last visited Nov. 14, 2021) https://www.si.com/nba/2018/02/21/dallas-mavericks-sexual-misconduct-investigation-mark-cuban-response.

Yesterday, two former Brooklyn Nets’ equipment attendants sued the franchise in United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, alleging they were wrongfully terminated and discriminated against based on their race. Specifically, plaintiffs bring this lawsuit to recover money damages, as well as for declaratory, equitable, and injunctive relief to redress the Nets’ alleged violation of Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the NYC Human Rights Law. The plaintiffs are Edward Bolden, Jr. and Juwan Williams. The complaint can be reviewed here: The underlying facts of the complaint have already been known, as the two released a public statement earlier this year on Instagram. They said “[m]yself and my colleague have reason to believe that we were terminated due to racial bias, as well as for our beliefs and stance on the Black Lives Matter movement." "There have been numerous inconsistencies in the reasoning behind our termination as well as acknowledgment of improper handling by the franchise.” However, at that time, they only hinted at the possibility for litigation. Instead, they had hoped to find redress through a partnership with the National Basketball Players' Association ("NBPA") to form a labor union for attendants and ball boys. The Nets denied that Bolden and Williams' termination had anything to do with race. “The decision on whether or not to rehire seasonal part-time employees is an organizational matter that is carefully and thoughtfully evaluated,” a Nets spokesperson said in a statement. “We are entirely comfortable with our decision not to rehire these two individuals.” It appears that Bolden and Williams were not satisfied with the results of their public statement, as they have now filed suit in the Eastern District of New York. According to the complaint, Bolden and Williams both began their employment with the Nets as ball boys, one in 2012 and the other in 2014. They stayed with the Nets and were eventually promoted to manager and co-team captain of the equipment team. The two allege that their supervisor, Joe Cuomo, made it clear that they would never progress past their roles but went out of his way to help white employees. The plaintiffs, who are black, were told on March 8, 2020 (the Nets’ final home game of last season) that that was their last day ever working for the Nets or at the Barclays Center. While the plaintiffs were not given a reason for their termination, they strongly believe the decision was motivated by race. “Throughout the entirety of Bolden's employment, he was vocal about cultural racial disparities – specifically, around police brutality. Williams also participated in these discussions and was vocal on these issues. Whenever Bolden mentioned these issues in front of Cuomo, he received significant push-back. Cuomo also expressed his discontent when Williams and others, including NBA players, engaged in a peaceful form of protest against racism by wearing the hood on their hoodie before games.” The plaintiffs included some of Cuomo’s social media posts in the complaint, in an effort to show that he has made some of his anti-social justice movement sentiments public: In the complaint, plaintiffs say they were shocked to learn of their termination as they had fulfilled all obligations in 2020 prior to the suspension of the NBA season and they were among the Nets’ longest tenured team attendants. They claim Nets’ team members and other staff were equally stunned to learn that the plaintiffs had been let go from their employment. Plaintiffs took the issue directly to the Nets’ General Manager, Sean Marks to convey their concerns. On November 30, 2020, Marks told plaintiffs they were a joy to be around and asked if he (Marks) could conduct an independent investigation into the termination decisions, including speaking to Cuomo. Ryan Gisriel, Nets’ Director of Basketball Operations shared the results of the investigation with plaintiffs. Gisriel explained that, after the investigation and speaking to Cuomo, the terminations decisions were being upheld. Gisriel further shared that Cuomo justified the decisions not to have them employed going forward by labeling – for the first time – plaintiffs as “lazy” and stating they were unable to follow directions. Plaintiffs claim to have never been called lazy once during their time as employees, and had been praised with compliments of the exact opposite. Bolden further alleges that Cuomo or someone within the Nets organization retaliated against him after the end of his employment with the Nets by seeking to blacklist or prevent him from working for another NBA team. According to the complaint, in late-September 2021, Bolden reached out to the equipment manager at another NBA team about working there as a team attendant. In response to plaintiff’s inquiry, the equipment manager for that NBA team stated in writing as follows: “Let me check with my GM over here. With the way stuff went down on your way out of Brooklyn I have to run this by the powers that be over here.” Thereafter, plaintiff never heard back from that equipment manager or NBA team. Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury on all issues of fact, their claims, and alleged damages. In their prayer for relief, plaintiffs demand a declaratory judgment that the Nets’ conduct and practices violated U.S., NYS, and NYC laws. They seek an injunction and order permanently restraining the Nets from engaging in such unlawful conduct. They also seek an order directing the Nets to take affirmative action as is deemed necessary to make sure unlawful employment practices are eliminated moving forward. They demand reinstatement as employees. Bolden and Williams further demand an award of punitive damages and compensatory damages for pecuniary losses, emotional distress, pain and suffering, and other nonpecuniary losses as allowable. Finally, the seek costs and attorneys’ fees for this litigation. Could this case be the next pin to fall in the accountability era? We have seen organizational shakeup in Portland, as an investigation was launched into the Trail Blazers’ workplace environment under President of Basketball Operations, Neil Olshey. That has, thus far, led to the resignation of team President of Business Operations, Chris McGowan. There are also allegations of sexual harassment, racism, and misogyny in the Phoenix Suns organization, centered around team owner Robert Sarver. Now, we have the Brooklyn Nets and allegations of racial discrimination. Granted, this controversy stems out of the equipment team, as opposed to ownership or the front office, but management does oversee all operations and conducted an internal investigation. Conduct Detrimental will track this case in anticipation of the Nets' answer. Jason Morrin is a third-year law student at Hofstra Law School in New York. He is the President of Hofstra’s Sports and Entertainment Law Society. Additionally, he is a Law Clerk at Geragos & Geragos. He can be found on Twitter @Jason_Morrin.