Odell Files Suit Against NFL

[HoosierCat]

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

I thought he might try something like this.

Thurman turns to U.S.

By GEOFF HOBSON

August 16, 2007

Comments (0) | Post a Comment

7:35 p.m.

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 Maverick 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.

[scott91575]

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

I thought he might try something like this.

Thurman turns to U.S.

By GEOFF HOBSON

August 16, 2007

Comments (0) | Post a Comment

7:35 p.m.

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 Maverick 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.

Honestly, I think Odell is stupid as hell, but Henry got 1/2 year for much more, the DE from KC only got 4 games for 2 DUI's. Odell got a DUI, skipped a drug test, and missed a probation visit. He is an idiot, but 2 years does not match the crime per my 2 other examples. Of course I am sure this has been debated a ton already, yet I hope he wins. That and he gets his life back in order.

[Spor_tees]

Good for Odell...someone needs to put Goodell and his biasness into place.

Speaking of this biasness, Joey Porter, who Goodell didn't suspend, was on the ESPN telecast of the Dolphins/Chiefs game talking about why he chose the Dolphins over Bengals in free agency. Porter said he had too much respect for his former teammates to play against them twice a year...later on Kornheiser said that he was quoted earlier as saying that he was tired of playing in a cold, dirty, boring city like the one he had been playing in.

[HairOnFire]

On NFL Total Access they showed a snippet of a rather angry Roger Goodell snapping about how the NFL has over 2000 employees that IMHO he dishonestly claimed were model citizens performing valuable service throughout their respective communities. He then chided the press for focusing on the four renegade players who had been involved in several negative incidents, pointing out to anyone who was still listening how harshly each had been dealt with. Goodell then acknowledged the ongoing Vick saga, calling it disgusting....but I noted once again that he didn't say a word about the gambling angle that few in the press seem to care about. He then made it clear that he now considers the matter of the Infamous Four to be closed, and mocked those who continued to ask questions about anything he considered unrelated to the thrilling return of exibition football.

As I watched the performance, and that's exactly what it was, all I could think of was how Thurman's punishment didn't fit the crime, how badly Mike Vick was going to burn, and how much I was going to laugh when the next big story put a few more cracks in the completely unrealistic image that Roger Goodell is trying to protect.

Last, it was noted that Goodell is currently touring as many NFL cities and training camps as possible and his tour through the midwest had ended that day in Cleveland. Kinda makes you wonder if his "Daddy's Home 2007 Tour" will visit Cincy...and what type of reception he'd get.

[BengalszoneBilly]

Kinda makes you wonder if his "Daddy's Home 2007 Tour" will visit Cincy...and what type of reception he'd get.

If I was Roger I'd skip visiting the Queen City, because I believe the reception he'll receive will be far from warm. Likely he'll see a lot of "DontPushMe's" Avatar:

[duus]

Here's hoping Odell is successful if only on some level. I don't care much for Odell as a person, but I think the case might just have some merit. Good for him. I hope this becomes a pivot-point in his life.

[bengalboomer7]

This is actually a pretty slick move if you ask me. It's probably his best chance to pull something off right now.

[Kazkal]

Honestly, I think Goodell is stupid as hell,

Fixxed,Because Odell isn't the one whos screwing a player who did everything asked of him Odell isn't the one who is having power trips with his ban stick...if Anyone on the bengals roster deserves to be suspended for 2 years it's henry and even he doesn't deserve it....

[DC_Bengals_Fan]

Honestly, I think Odell is stupid as hell, but Henry got 1/2 year for much more, the DE from KC only got 4 games for 2 DUI's. Odell got a DUI, skipped a drug test, and missed a probation visit. He is an idiot, but 2 years does not match the crime per my 2 other examples. Of course I am sure this has been debated a ton already, yet I hope he wins. That and he gets his life back in order.

Problem: A lot of the other guys weren't already in the substance abuse program (I don't believe) when they screwed up. For Odell, it's one positive test, one missed test while in the substance abuse program, one DUI while in the program (which then counts as a positive), and a blown probation visit while in the program.

As I understand it, if you aren't in the substance program, a DUI is basically just treated as an arrest. If you're in the program, I think it counts as a strike. Also, Odell screwed up twice while already on suspension. All of those things hurt him badly compared to Jared Allen of KC as well as Cheech Henry.

As far as the case, his complaint doesn't even make sense:

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.

I'd think he has to *admit* to being an alcoholic to file under disability, not just be 'perceived' as one. Additionally, punishment for the NFL was negotiated under the CBA, so I imagine the court is going to ask why his union isn't filing a grievance if this is against their contract. I have a feeling this case will go as far as Maurice Clarett's case did, and for the same reason.

[DC_Bengals_Fan]

...but I noted once again that he didn't say a word about the gambling angle that few in the press seem to care about.

PFT's been harping on that for a long time now. Apparently Mortensen started reporting on that yesterday, and the Monday Night crew (yes, I watched preseason MNF, I realize I have an addiction) finally figured out that the FBI doesn't care much about dogs, but that the main part of the case was gambling.

So the lid's finally off the gambling thing.

[agreen_112]

This is great news, I've been waiting for something like this to happen. Who would've thought? Damn, why didn't I think of this? I can't believe that with all the intelligence here on Bengalszone not one of us predicted this to happen. I'd like to see what the attorney over at... um... Is it go-bengals.com thinks??? Whoever posted that link before please find out what he's thinks Odells chances are? I'm hoping they settle this and just let the man Play THIS year.

[Spor_tees]

As far as the case, his complaint doesn't even make sense:

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.

I'd think he has to *admit* to being an alcoholic to file under disability, not just be 'perceived' as one. Additionally, punishment for the NFL was negotiated under the CBA, so I imagine the court is going to ask why his union isn't filing a grievance if this is against their contract. I have a feeling this case will go as far as Maurice Clarett's case did, and for the same reason.

Odell did admit to being an alcoholic when in court. If you read the article on Bengals.com it says it in there.

This is great news, I've been waiting for something like this to happen. Who would've thought? Damn, why didn't I think of this? I can't believe that with all the intelligence here on Bengalszone not one of us predicted this to happen. I'd like to see what the attorney over at... um... Is it go-bengals.com thinks??? Whoever posted that link before please find out what he's thinks Odells chances are? I'm hoping they settle this and just let the man Play THIS year.

I did say that he should take this to court a long time ago, but no one commented on it. I even went as far as to say that the courts could threaten to take away the NFL's anti-trust status if they do not follow the same workplace/hiring/firing guidelines that all other companies are held to by law.

[DC_Bengals_Fan]

Damn, why didn't I think of this? I can't believe that with all the intelligence here on Bengalszone not one of us predicted this to happen.

Didn't predict it because I didn't care. It doesn't impact his ability to play this year. I don't like his chances of winning for the reason that what the commissioner did is allowed by the CBA that the players signed.

I'm hoping they settle this and just let the man Play THIS year.

The suit probably won't be settled that fast unless he gets a temporary injunction. Odell has the about the same chance of playing this year as Bluto Blutarski's GPA: zero...point....zero.

You just need to get over it at this point: Odell hasn't played in 2 years. He hasn't practiced. We're already 2 games into the preseason and the season is less than a month away. Forget it.

[Spor_tees]

This was my original post in the THURMAN DENIED thread:

Eventually, if Goodell continues to make decisions like this that takes away the ability of a person to make a living despite the fact they followed the guidelines for reinstatement set forth under the contract between the NFL and NFLPA, I can see this going to court. Yes, the NFL is part of the anti-trust group that doesn't have to follow the same rules that say my employer or your employer does, that can change. In fact baseball was threatened with losing their anti-trust status when they went on strike. I think this would be brought to court under the same type of suit like the one Clarrett filed to be eligible for the draft. The only difference is, the Clarrett situation was mutual agreed upon in a contract between the NFL and NFLPA, whereas the Odell situation is in violation of the NFL/NFLPA agreement.

Basically it comes down to what others have said, 'ol Roger Dodger has it out for the Bengals and will punish them as swiftly and harshly as he can. Come on! Joey Porter a 3 games fine...Odell a 2 year suspension? huh.gif

Posted July 26th

[oldschooler]

Problem: A lot of the other guys weren't already in the substance abuse program (I don't believe) when they screwed up. For Odell, it's one positive test, one missed test while in the substance abuse program, one DUI while in the program (which then counts as a positive), and a blown probation visit while in the program.

As I understand it, if you aren't in the substance program, a DUI is basically just treated as an arrest. If you're in the program, I think it counts as a strike. Also, Odell screwed up twice while already on suspension. All of those things hurt him badly compared to Jared Allen of KC as well as Cheech Henry.

Jared Allen got 2 DUI`s in a 4 month span.

That should have entered him into Stage 2 Intervention of the Substance Abuse Policy,

which is an automatic 4 game suspension, and he should have been subjected to the

Conduct Policy for being arrested 2 times in 4 months. Instead, Allen gets a 4 game

suspension, then got it REDUCED to 2 games.

[oldschooler]

From PFT.com . . .

POSTED 8:14 p.m. EDT, August 16, 2007

THURMAN, COX PURSUE DISCRIMINATION CLAIMS

Suspended Bengals linebacker Odell Thurman and suspended Buccaneers cornerback Torrie Cox have filed discrimination claims with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Geoff Hobson of Bengals.com first reported this development as to Thurman.)

The claim arises under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The argument is that the Bengals and the Buccaneers, at the direction of the NFL, took adverse action against Thurman and Cox, respectively, based on alcoholism, either actual or perceived.

The ADA protects employees who are disabled. Alcoholism is a disability, regardless of whether an employee is actually an alcoholic or whether the employer perceives him to be one. Though an actual or perceived alcoholic can be disciplined for, for example, showing up to work while intoxicated, the argument as to Thurman and Cox is that their suspensions are based on no at-work manifestation of alcoholism.

As to Thurman, it's our understanding that the NFL refused to reinstate him after a one-year suspension because he failed to attend a couple of Alcoholics Anonymous meetings. As to Cox, he tested positive for alcohol after drinking champagne at his wedding.

The focal point of the attack is the placement of certain restrictions on players in the substance-abuse program. If a player is an actual or perceived alcoholic and if the league prohibits him from drinking alcohol at any time and if the employee tests positive for drinking alcohol on his own time, he is arguably the victim of discrimination because of his actual or perceived disability.

Thurman and Cox elected to proceed in this regard based on a recent ruling by the EEOC in a claim filed by former NBA player Roy Tarpley. We're in the process of getting our mitts on the Tarpley decision so that we can better explain the specifics on this one.

And this could get interesting, given that the EEOC can choose to convert the claim into a broader attack against the NFL's practices in this regard, eventually asserting claims on behalf of any player who recently was suspended under similar circumstances.

http://www.profootballtalk.com/rumormill.htm

[HoosierCat]

As far as the case, his complaint doesn't even make sense:

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.

I'd think he has to *admit* to being an alcoholic to file under disability, not just be 'perceived' as one. Additionally, punishment for the NFL was negotiated under the CBA, so I imagine the court is going to ask why his union isn't filing a grievance if this is against their contract. I have a feeling this case will go as far as Maurice Clarett's case did, and for the same reason.

Assuming the complaint isn't simply dismissed or somehow settled, I think the case will turn on whether Odell actually did fulfill every jot and tittle of the league's requirements during his suspension -- which obviously includes more than passing drug tests.

[DC_Bengals_Fan]

Assuming the complaint isn't simply dismissed or somehow settled, I think the case will turn on whether Odell actually did fulfill every jot and tittle of the league's requirements during his suspension -- which obviously includes more than passing drug tests.

Exactly, forgot to mention that - there was enough going on that the league can say that his alcohol 'problem' wasn't an issue - unless they were dumb enough to say otherwise in writing. There was the issue in the club (even though extortion may have played a role), and the issue with his probabation.

All he had to do was keep his nose clean. If it were me, I'd stay out of bars all year, say please and thank you to anyone in the NFL whenever I saw them, and for God's sake stay away from the idiot friends that helped get you in that spot in the first place.

[oldschooler]

Didn't predict it because I didn't care.

For someone that doesn`t care, you sure do make it a point to

comment in every Odell thread. And profess your hatred and

disdain for him.

When I don`t care about something, I don`t waste my time, energy or effort on it . . .

[HairOnFire]

All he had to do was keep his nose clean.

I can't believe I'm saying this, but if the PFT report is accurate....Thurman was denied reinstatement because he missed AA meetings. Or maybe you prefer to believe that it's due to him missing a meeting with his probation officer. Regardless, we're still talking about a player with a far longer history of missing all sorts of important appointments rather than truly failing to keep his nose clean. And in regards to that last point, if Thurman truly did pass every drug test taken I think most people would see that as a positive sign that should be rewarded. Instead, Goodell has chosen to focus on the fact that the performance wasn't perfect, and thus deserves the harshest punishment possible. That seems unfair, and possibly against the law, if the punishment truly is a result of missed appointments.

As for the idea that nobody predicted this type of legal action, it seems clear that many of us did. In fact, prior to the draft Hoosier and I had a fairly long series of debates about whether Goodell's image cleansing campaign could result in boycotted players filing lawsuits or a challenge to the NFL's anti-trust protection. Granted, in this example the spots may be slightly different, but Thurman's legal challenge is the same sort of animal.

[Kazkal]

Lol Goodell just started his job and he's alrdy fudging up big time.