Will Ezekiel Elliott’s suit become landmark case to topple NFL’s authority on discipline?
Harold Henderson didn't allow Ezekiel Elliott the opportunity to face his accuser while the Dallas Cowboys star appealed his domestic violence suspension. Nor did Henderson, the Roger Goodell-assigned arbitrator for the case who once headed the NFL’s management council, even allow for notes of investigators to be submitted into the record.
Yet for all of his ties to the NFL’s labor apparatus, Henderson is not exactly Dr. No.
Henderson did permit for the testimony of Kia Roberts, the NFL’s lead investigator into the case. And Roberts’ testimony — including the conclusion that she was not on board with a suspension, due to credibility issues with the accuser — is the smoking gun that the NFL Players Association hopes will make a huge difference for Elliott’s case.
While multiple reports in recent weeks raised questions about the accuser’s veracity — and the NFL admitted upon announcing the six-game suspension on Aug. 11 that she lied in contending she was yanked from a car by Elliott — the revelations linked to a figure as key as Roberts is an essential component to the federal lawsuit the NFLPA filed to vacate the suspension.
More: NFL roster-cut tracker 2017: Which players have been released?
Trade: Patriots trade QB Jacoby Brissett to Colts for WR Phillip Dorsett
More: Broncos expected to pursue Brock Osweiler as backup
So here we go again.
Another NFL vs. NFLPA court battle to kick off the season. It’s become tradition, the fifth time in six years that some major legal drama dampens the buzz heading into Week 1.
You may know the deal: The NFL has an almost ironclad advantage when it comes to disputes involving Goodell’s broad power for dishing out discipline, as Tom Brady can attest. The commissioner’s power is spelled out in Article 46 of the labor pact, which the players have agreed to in one form or another for more than a half-century.
Courts typically don’t supersede what’s been negotiated through collective bargaining. Yet, given semantics and interpretation, the union is undoubtedly hoping this will be the landmark case that wins against long odds because that very labor deal references “credible evidence” as part of a fair process.
The NFL, in crafting and executing its own personal conduct and domestic violence policies, now has its own investigative wing, which flows into Goodell’s justice system. The Elliott case, though, illustrates just how difficult it can be to pull off its own investigative branch (with no subpoena power, mind you) for the purpose of feeding a credible system for discipline. It may sound good on paper, but in a practical sense the NFL looks silly trying to run its own court system without allowing for a fair process that includes basics such as the accused facing his accuser or a legitimate discovery process.
Already, though, the tables have been turned on the appeals process.
With the union’s surprise move of going to court before a decision was rendered on the appeal, there’s material already part of the public record that allows for some serious Monday morning quarterbacking of whatever ruling comes from Henderson.
This probably won’t influence Henderson’s professional approach to handling the high-profile case, but it seemingly adds more layers of pressure as details of the inner workings of the NFL discipline process have been exposed — and are ripe for second-guessing.
Henderson’s ruling is expected to come as early as Monday; a hearing is set for Tuesday regarding Elliott’s request for a temporary restraining order that would halt the suspension until legal options are exhausted.
At the core, it’s a he said/she said case, with the NFL essentially maintaining that photographic evidence outweighs Elliott’s claim of innocence amid multiple theories of how and when the accuser was bruised.
According to the NFLPA’s federal court petition in the Eastern District of Texas, Roberts’ opinion about Elliott’s accuser was silenced — or at least seriously muffled — as she was not involved in meetings with the outside panel of consultants the NFL tapped or with Goodell, who ultimately levied the suspension. It was Lisa Friel, NFL senior vice president and special counsel for investigations, who recommended a suspension, who was involved in the key meetings that excluded Roberts.
Friel and Roberts were co-authors for the massive, 130-page NFL report into the matter.
Just think if Henderson had not allowed for Roberts to testify at the three-day appeals hearing. What if Henderson pulled a Goodell and took Friel’s word for the essentials of the case — which could have been, well, watered down — rather than hearing concerns straight from the source?
It appears that rather than seeking a victory as the NFL and NFLPA attorneys are so hyped to do in these situations, Henderson is seeking the truth about the process, at least, if not the bigger picture.
The NFL contends that Goodell was aware of Roberts’ opinions as he decided to suspend Elliott. Maybe so. But that explanation only carries so much weight, given the eroded trust in the NFL’s judicial process. Why wouldn’t Goodell want to hear from the woman who interviewed the accuser? Has he not learned enough from Ray Rice, Bountygate, Deflategate, Adrian Peterson and Josh Brown? It was a 13-month investigation with Elliott. Enough time to break through any internal walls and carve out some time with the lead investigator.
That’s common sense, Roger. There’s no need to be sloppy with it.
In the real world of justice — not to be confused with the NFL’s system — it is not uncommon for prosecutors and investigators to disagree on whether to pursue a case. That may apply here, too.
Yet in this case, it’s clear that if Roberts’ voice was previously silenced, suddenly it now packs more punch than ever.
***
Follow NFL columnist Jarrett Bell on Twitter @JarrettBell