If the case gets to the 2nd, those 4 judges opinions, IMO, won't matter or carry nearly as much weight as the 2nd's decision in Brady, just last year.Of course it doesn't. But Zeke has 4 federal judge opinions (Mazzant twice, Graves and Crotty) that side with him and state that fundamental fairness applies to the NFL arbitration process. That matters and it weighs on future judges who hear the case.
Not true. The 4 opinions above do matter as they serve as confirmation and guidance. CA2 doesn't have to agree, but they will not ignore them. But CA2 never foreclosed on fundamental fairness as applicable to NFL arbitration in their ruling. They merely said fundamental fairness doesn't apply to collateral witnesses such as Pash.
This is clearly shown in the fact that Crotty read the CA2 ruling and then ruled for Zeke. In his opinion, he stated the NFL was wrong for assuming that CA2 ruled that fundamental fairness didn't apply.
Again, you are misconstruing the 2nd's ruling in Brady. They didn't "merely say fundamental fairness doesn't apply to collateral witnesses." They said:
bolded emphasis is mine, but this is not "merely saying fundamental fairness doesn't apply to collateral witnesses." You've been stating that over & over, and ignoring the fact that this is not all that decision said.Nor is it our role to second‐guess the arbitrator’s procedural rulings. Our obligation is limited to determining whether the arbitration proceedings and award met the minimum legal standards established by the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 141 et seq. (the “LMRA”). We must simply ensure that the arbitrator was “even arguably construing or applying the contract and acting within the scope of his authority” and did not “ignore the plain language of the contract.” United Paperworks Int’l Union v. Misco, Inc., 484 U.S. 29, 38 (1987). These standards do not require perfection in arbitration awards. Rather, they dictate that even if an arbitrator makes mistakes of fact or law, we may not disturb an award so long as he acted within the bounds of his bargained‐for authority.
The 2nd could (again, if they get this case) decide that they were wrong in Brady & rule differently, but I'd be more willing to bet that they decide that the district judges mis-applied/mis-interpreted their ruling & will affirm it.
If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong. Won't be the first time, won't be the last. I think we've both stated our piece, and I'm not sure that re-stating the same things over and over again is necessary.