Mavs owner Cuban hit with $200K fine from NBA

[A-Train]

NBA teams run in cycles. Spurs have been incredibly lucky to have a long run of excellence based on some fortuitous drafts. Show a little class while we are on "top"...we won't always be there.

Well, the ride isn't over.

[DubMcDub]

Was that before or after he propositioned you?

Excellent. Really well done. No doubt you're the comedian of the office with that razor-sharp wit.

[FromWayDowntown]

Actually, private organizations have limits when it comes to Federally protected rights. The Warren Court's interpretation of the 14th Amendment and commerce clause were intended to insure this. Even in NBA terms, there are limits.

By your argument, indentured servitude would be legal if someone were stupid enough to contract to it. Private agreement, right?

Not at all -- public policy and the provisions of modern contract law as it relates to relationships between private parties would preclude the enforcement of that sort of a contract. So would other federal acts that apply expressly to private actors -- matters like le VII for example.

There is, as far as I know, little or no limitation on the power of private en es to sanction participants in the en y for expressive behavior. That power can be limited by an agreement among the participants (say, a collective bargaining agreement that caps fines or creates a schedule for assessing fines associated with particular conduct) or some other contractual mechanism. But there is simply no Cons utional basis for Cuban to object to anything the NBA does with respect to his behavior.

[CosmicCowboy]

Well, the ride isn't over.

I hope not as well. But there is a lot of young talent in the league and #21 is 30. Enjoy the ride but remember that if you are a real Spurs fan the day is coming soon that we will be on the outside of the "elite" looking in. Mavs could actually extend their elite days because they have an owner that doesn't care if he loses money.

[Reggie Miller]

Not at all -- public policy and the provisions of modern contract law as it relates to relationships between private parties would preclude the enforcement of that sort of a contract. So would other federal acts that apply expressly to private actors -- matters like le VII for example.

There is, as far as I know, little or no limitation on the power of private en es to sanction participants in the en y for expressive behavior. That power can be limited by an agreement among the participants (say, a collective bargaining agreement that caps fines or creates a schedule for assessing fines associated with particular conduct) or some other contractual mechanism. But there is simply no Cons utional basis for Cuban to object to anything the NBA does with respect to his behavior.

I'll admit it. The involuntary servitude argument was hyperbole. There are even Federal criminal statutes that cover that situation. (Believe it or not, the Mann Act was originally intended to prevent the so-called "white slavery" of pros utes.)

However, I think we are both confusing the Cons utional law principles that apply here. First, voluntary associations have more or less of a free hand, as you describe. (The suits involving the Boy Scouts are a good example of this.) Employers do not have a free hand.

HOWEVER, I forgot that Cuban is not an employee of the NBA. That radically alters the equation. I guarantee you that it wouldn't hold up in Federal District Court if Stern did this to a league employee. Heck, the Feds overturned Jermaine O'Neal's suspension on similar grounds.

EDIT: If you're curious, I'll look up the case law on this at work tomorrow. It's a Warren or Burger opinion relating to employers in interstate commerce. I am mostly stuck doing real estate law anymore, so I can't remember the case. Hey, if you ever want to build condos in Indiana; I'm your man!

[x0xbillupsx0x]

well him whinning and complaining gets the refs on his side,
like they were earflier in the season when he complained about refs!
he does what he gets away with.
and like last nights game it clearly works to his advantage!

[A-Train]

Excellent. Really well done. No doubt you're the comedian of the office with that razor-sharp wit.

Absolutely. No doubt you're the envy of the garage with the 'ayh wunce talked to uh Mahrk Coobuhn.'.

[LEONARD]

I love how fired up the other team's fans get about Cuban...



He's greatness...

A $200k fine means he'll also give another $200k to charity...

[A-Train]

Not really fired up, more like annoyed.

[FromWayDowntown]

I'll admit it. The involuntary servitude argument was hyperbole. There are even Federal criminal statutes that cover that situation. (Believe it or not, the Mann Act was originally intended to prevent the so-called "white slavery" of pros utes.)

However, I think we are both confusing the Cons utional law principles that apply here. First, voluntary associations have more or less of a free hand, as you describe. (The suits involving the Boy Scouts are a good example of this.) Employers do not have a free hand.

HOWEVER, I forgot that Cuban is not an employee of the NBA. That radically alters the equation. I guarantee you that it wouldn't hold up in Federal District Court if Stern did this to a league employee. Heck, the Feds overturned Jermaine O'Neal's suspension on similar grounds.

EDIT: If you're curious, I'll look up the case law on this at work tomorrow. It's a Warren or Burger opinion relating to employers in interstate commerce. I am mostly stuck doing real estate law anymore, so I can't remember the case. Hey, if you ever want to build condos in Indiana; I'm your man!

I'm relatively sure that if I said something absolutely stupid and my boss wanted to either dock my pay or fire me because of what I said, I'd have no legal recourse outside of a wrongful termination case -- and I'd be unlikely to win that.

I don't mean to run this into the ground, and I'm amenable to agreeing to disagree on the legal niceties of this (since I'm not inclined to engage in any research), but I think the fact that Cuban is a franchisee and not an employee is dispositive to the legal question. Cuban has no First Amendment rights vis-a-vis the NBA and there's nothing to prohibit the NBA from fining him for the expression of ideas with which it disagrees. Cuban might have some sort of argument related to an excessive fine (though I doubt it) but he has no fundamental right to free expression in the context of his participation in the NBA.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

What I do not understand is this:

every-god-forsaken-time a player, coach, owner whines about calls in the playoffs (EVERY TIME) there is always always always always (ALWAYS) a controversially refereed game immediately afterwards.

If I had stern's yiddish ass in an interview I would keep asking him why this happens again and again until I got an answer that truely added up.

[greyforest]

What I do not understand is this:

every-god-forsaken-time a player, coach, owner whines about calls in the playoffs (EVERY TIME) there is always always always always (ALWAYS) a controversially refereed game immediately afterwards.

If I had stern's yiddish ass in an interview I would keep asking him why this happens again and again until I got an answer that truely added up.

what's not to understand?

controversy creates media attention, publicity, and therefore

money

dur.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Yes, well I would wait until Stern said that to me himself, then punch him in his disgusting face

[greyforest]

Yes, well I would wait until Stern said that to me himself, then punch him in his disgusting face

he could then have you killed, and in the ensuing trial buy his freedom.

MONEY!!! it's a gasssss...

[Cant_Be_Faded]

maybe thats why people vote conservative too

[ShoogarBear]

habeas corpus ipso facto sum

When Lawyers Collide. Can't we just rule that Cuban is a giant wanker and move on.

[greyforest]

maybe thats why people vote conservative too

uhh, doesn't matter who you vote for buddy, anyone you vote for has to have

MONNNAYYYYYYEYEAYYY

its a crimmmee!

[DubMcDub]

Absolutely. No doubt you're the envy of the garage with the 'ayh wunce talked to uh Mahrk Coobuhn.'.

Talk about forced and contrived. Not to mention utterly nonsensical.

You're trying entirely too hard.

[Condemned 2 HelLA]

When Lawyers Collide. Can't we just rule that Cuban is a giant wanker and move on.

Agreed.

[milkyway21]

alleluyah!

Cuban is an example of a rich but un-classy guys in the world of sports.

him on AT &T he's a distraction

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

But you see, when the Pistons fans arrived last season in the playoffs, a lot of them were obnoxious dumbasses too Maybe the Mavs fans will follow suit.

Right now I'm having amnesia and deja vu at the same time. I think I've forgotten this before.

[FromWayDowntown]

When Lawyers Collide. Can't we just rule that Cuban is a giant wanker and move on.

In lawyer speak, res ipsa loquitur

[bendmz]

if any of you folks listened to Charlie and Chance this morning, there was a sports writer who interviewed a referee. and said the San Antonio Spurs as a team ranked in the top 5 as most complaining in the NBA. Rasheed of course. led the way....... anyone else listen to that today?

[Reggie Miller]

I'm relatively sure that if I said something absolutely stupid and my boss wanted to either dock my pay or fire me because of what I said, I'd have no legal recourse outside of a wrongful termination case -- and I'd be unlikely to win that.

I don't mean to run this into the ground, and I'm amenable to agreeing to disagree on the legal niceties of this (since I'm not inclined to engage in any research), but I think the fact that Cuban is a franchisee and not an employee is dispositive to the legal question. Cuban has no First Amendment rights vis-a-vis the NBA and there's nothing to prohibit the NBA from fining him for the expression of ideas with which it disagrees. Cuban might have some sort of argument related to an excessive fine (though I doubt it) but he has no fundamental right to free expression in the context of his participation in the NBA.

You're not running it into the ground. Actually, we're both right. Cuban is not an employee; thus, he has no recourse. (That is 100% dispositive, no question.) His franchise agreement with the NBA would be binding in this context. Going along with your point on contract interpetation, his contract is not an "adhesion" contract. Theoretically, his bargaining position with the league would be considered more or less equal (even though we know it's not true in reality). A mere employee has the "adhesion" contract argument (i.e. only one party, the NBA, had any bargaining power, the other party was "stuck" with it.)

In terms of its own employees, the NBA would have the power to fire someone or take progressive disciplinary actions within certain limits (contracts, etc.). However, they wouldn't be allowed to fine an employee for expressing their opinion. They could fire the employee, then turn around and sue the former employee for defamation, etc.

Another interesting point would be: where is the line? Obviously, an excessive fine would also be actionable at some point for an owner or coach, if only on equitable grounds.

At any rate, the whole thing strikes me as somewhat "un-American." I can see fining an owner for what amounts to defamation, such as suggesting referees fixed games. Fining what might be perceived by the public as constructive criticism (although I think it was disingenuous in Cuban's case), isn't going to help the NBA or discourage complaining about the refs. Like you, I'm not going to do much heavy lifting on this, but I think it is not unreasonable to argue that a Court would rule that at some point, Cuban has minimal protection of his 1st Amendment right via the interstate commerce clause. For example, if Cuban were to say "maybe the NBA ought to consider a new merit system to improve officiating in the playoffs" and no more, then Stern fined him say a million, then you have a pretty good case for some minimal protection. When we leave the labor context and enter the realm of contract, it gets pretty tenuous, though.

[Reggie Miller]

I forgot to mention that if I were a Federal judge, I would probably have to side with the league on this one. From a purely legal standpoint, the fine is not excessive per se. The purpose of liquidated damages and similar concepts is to prevent harm, not only to redress actual damages. The league's agreement was (again, theoretically) created by the parties, and it addresses the league's valid policy concern that participants cannot openly question its validity. However, as ens wrote, "then sir, the Law is an ass..."