Adrian Peterson Appeals NFL Suspension: Latest Details and Comments

Minnesota Vikings running back Adrian Peterson had his suspension upheld by the NFL until at least the conclusion of the 2014 season. However, Peterson opted to appeal his suspension on Thursday. Chris Mortensen of ESPN provided the details of the latest development in Peterson's unfortunate off-field saga, courtesy of the formal letter of appeal that Peterson filed: The NFLPA and Mr. Peterson appeal the indefinite suspension on a minimum of the following grounds: First, your November 18 discipline letter expressly imposes discipline on Mr. Peterson pursuant to the August 28 Policy—enacted after all of the conduct at issue occurred. Well-established principles of just cause and industrial due process require prior notice of consequences for an employee’s actions and prohibit such ex post facto punishment. Moreover, this prohibition on retroactive punishment is “law of the shop” under Article 46. Bounty Final Decision on Appeal, slip op. at 6 (2012) (Tagliabue, Arb.) (“[A] sharp change in sanctions or discipline can often be seen as arbitrary and as an impediment rather than an instrument of change. That is what we see on the record here.”) (vacating discipline); see also id. at 7-8. Because the August 28 Personal Conduct Policy cannot retroactively be applied to Mr. Peterson’s May 2014 conduct, any punishment must be assessed and imposed consistent with the Policy and practices prior to August 28. In that light, we note that not only have you suspended Mr. Peterson for the remainder of this season, plus a minimum six-game fine, but the NFL has publicly stated that Mr. Peterson’s punishment accounts for the nine (9) games Mr. Peterson has already missed while placed on the Commissioner’s Exempt List. Accordingly, Mr. Peterson’s indefinite suspension would span at least sixteen (16) weeks and fifteen (15) games, is wildly disparate from that of any previous similarly situated employee, and therefore cannot stand. See Bounty Final Decision on Appeal at 18-19 (“selective enforcement . . . does not satisfy the basic requirements for consistent treatment of player-employees similarly situated”), 3-4, 13.