Odell files discriminaton lawsuit

[Randall]

Thurman turns to U.S.

By GEOFF HOBSON

August 16, 2007

 

 

 

With no word from the NFL or the NFL Players Association, the attorney for Bengals linebacker Odell Thurman has filed a claim of disability discrimination against the NFL. John Michels said Thursday that he has notified the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that he feels his client is being discriminated against because he is perceived as an alcoholic.

Michels said it doesn't matter that Thurman acknowledged in court that he is an alcoholic when he appeared for a DUI stemming from a Sept. 25, 2006 traffic stop. He indicated that Thurman has passed all required programs stipulated by the league.

 

"He has not had an alcoholic problem since the incident last fall," Michels said.

 

The NFLPA has not yet responded to Thurman's request to appeal to NFL commissioner Roger Goodell's July 26 decision to extend Thurman's year-long suspension for another year. Michels said if the EEOC finds for Thurman, the commission can offer such remedies as reinstatement and back pay.

 

Michels cited a recent precedent. The EEOC ruled in favor of Roy Tarpley, the former Dalllas Mavericks forward banned in 1995 for violating the league's substance abuse policy. The commission said the NBA violated the Americans with Disabilities Act when it didn't reinstate Tarpley even though he had passed all drug tests taken in the last four years.

 

Michels said the Bengals are named in the claim only because they are Thurman's direct employers. He said the claim was not a Bengals decision and that the commission is aware that the suspension came from the NFL and not the club.

 

 

http://www.bengals.com/news/news.asp?story_id=6199

[Bronco Billy]

The CBA is pretty clear and was drawn up by lawyers on both sides that I have a hunch are a hell of a lot smarter than Thurman's mouthpiece.

 

I wonder if he thinks this will help him out the next time he goes before Goodell to get reinstated?

[TheShiznit]

The CBA is pretty clear and was drawn up by lawyers on both sides that I have a hunch are a hell of a lot smarter than Thurman's mouthpiece.

 

I wonder if he thinks this will help him out the next time he goes before Goodell to get reinstated?

 

I agree...but what is the specific reason that the league gave for the extension. I didn't hear one....just that Odell's reinstatement is denied. Labor Law is a completely different animal than general lawyering. I think Odell stands a pretty decent chance of at least getting it reduced to a few games this season. IMO there was really no reason for the non-reinstatement.

[The Irish Doggy]

IMO there was really no reason for the non-reinstatement.

 

 

Yeah, no public reason anyway.

[Bronco Billy]

I agree...but what is the specific reason that the league gave for the extension. I didn't hear one....just that Odell's reinstatement is denied. Labor Law is a completely different animal than general lawyering. I think Odell stands a pretty decent chance of at least getting it reduced to a few games this season. IMO there was really no reason for the non-reinstatement.

 

Especially in professional sports leagues like the NFL, where players can be terminated with no justification in a right to work atmosphere, correct?

 

IMO, you do not know enough about the case to determine whether there is adequate reason for reinstatement or not, unless you are privvy to information that no one else outside the league offices has seen, and even if there weren't additional evidence against Thurman (and if I am not mistaken, I believe that I read where Thurman not only was involved in the 3:00 AM party incident but also missed scheduled meetings with his P.O.), I do believe that the CBA is written so that Goodell indeed does have the authority to extend the suspension as he sees fit, and that the player's only recourse is appeal to Goodell through the NFLPA.

Edited August 17, 2007 by Bronco Billy