In papers filed in U.S. District Court in New Orleans on Monday, Vilma said NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell engaged in a “farcical review” of his previously vacated disciplinary action before ruling last week that the Saints linebacker would remain suspended for the full season.
Although Vilma has an appeal pending within the framework of the NFL’s labor agreement, the linebacker said that Goodell has continued to abuse his power and demonstrate bias, leaving no hope for a fair process that would respect Vilma’s “industrial due process rights.”
“The commissioner of a professional sports league is not exempt from the requirement that he or she be impartial when serving as an arbitrator, and courts vacate arbitration awards when a commissioner falls short of the required standard of impartiality in considering a particular matter,” the new legal papers said. “Most fundamentally, Vilma has not and could not receive a fair hearing as long as Goodell presides. The supposedly fair and neutral arbitrator at the Appeal Hearings has prejudged the evidence, publicly proclaimed his conclusions in advance of the Appeal Hearings, and so vehemently endorsed the allegations against Vilma publicly and in advance of the Appeal Hearings that he could not possibly have acted in a fair and neutral manner.”
Vilma is facing the longest suspension of four players punished in connection with what the NFL has said was a pool that rewarded Saints players with improper cash bonuses for hits that injured opponents. Saints defensive end Will Smith was docked four games, free-agent defensive lineman Anthony Hargrove seven games and Cleveland linebacker Scott Fujita, a former Saint, one game.
Smith’s punishment also remains unchanged from what Goodell initially handed down. Hargrove’s suspension was reduced by one game and he was given credit for five games missed as a free agent. Fujita’s ban was reduced from three games.
The NFL Players Association is representing Smith, Hargrove and Fujita. Vilma has his own lawyers, Peter Ginsberg and Duke Williams.
A three-member appeals created by the NFL’s labor agreement vacated the initial suspensions on Sept. 7 and told Goodell he needed to clarify the basis for his rulings. The panel noted that punishments should not have anything to do with cash paid out of the Saints‘ pay-for-performance pool, because an arbitrator other than the commissioner is supposed to handle such salary cap violations.
Vilma’s latest legal filing points out that Goodell has repeatedly mentioned pay-for-performance allegations as part of the basis for the initial punishment, and that the commissioner’s decision to maintain the same suspension for Vilma highlights the lack of fairness in the process.
Saints coaches and players have acknowledged the existence of a pool that both fined players for penalties and offered rewards for big plays, including big, non-penalized hits that may have resulted in opposing players leaving games for a play or longer.
Goodell has stated that in their acknowledgement of the pool, the Saints have admitted they encouraged hits that were shown to have injured opponents. Regardless of intent, Goodell said, such a program is intolerable because it sends the message that hits that hurt opponents deserve a reward, and that can affect how players on team approach subsequent games.
Vilma initially filed suit in July, but the matter was placed on hold when the NFL appeal panel vacated the initial player suspensions on technical grounds and the disciplinary phase started over.
_That Goodell’s public statements before the initial suspensions had been handed down offer proof that he had pre-determined Vilma’s guilt