[Show/Hide Left Column]
[Show/Hide Right Column]


Facts: Maurice Clarrett, a superstar running back in his freshman year at The Ohio State Univeristy wanted to leave college after his freshman year in order to play in the NFL. He was widely regarded as one of the best players in teh draft and would have been drafted early and made a lot of money. There was a rule in the NFL that madated that all player be 3 years removed from high school in order to enter its draft. Clarrett Challenged this rule.

Issue: Was this rule a mandatory subject of bargaining, and thus exempt from anti-trust analysis via the labor exemption?

Holding: District court= NO, Appeals Court = Yes

reasoning: The court determined that, age to be employed constituted a mandatory subject of bargaining (wages, hours etc.) The Labor exemption at issue here states that if the term is a mandatory subject of bargaining, and the union bargains it away, during arms length bargaining, and the plaintiff is a covered entitiy of the union, then this term cannt be anylized under anti-trust. Ths court found that incoming rookies were coverd by the union because they were bargaining many other terms for them as well. Clarrett was not allowed to play in the NFL, and ended up going to prison.

Contributors to this page: bohen .
Page last modified on Wednesday 06 of May, 2009 17:16:22 GMT by bohen.
The content on this page is licensed under the terms of the Copyright License.

Portions © 2006-2011 by Michael Risch, Some Rights Reserved | Copyright Notice| Legal Disclaimer