BB Suspended Indefinitely

[DHawk]

Even if the two entities are separate and the reporting arm cannot be held accountable, the information being reported on, which it would seem to me is PHI (PHI is any information held by a covered entity which concerns health status, provision of health care, or payment for health care that can be linked to an individual) and it's a big no no to share (or inadvertently expose) PHI.

Do we have any attorneys in the house that can speak to this? It's a stretch for me to speak to this so I should tread lightly.

This information would be protected health information as it was received by an employer from the drug tester (health provider) and relates to the past physical condition of the individual.

However, as far as I know, the NFL is not a "covered entity" pursuant to the HIPAA Privacy rule, and the Privacy Rule would not dictate confidentiality requirements. (If the drug tester released this info, then HIPAA would apply, but not in the case of the Employer releasing the info).

In this case, the ADA would be applicable, as I believe it deals with how an employer can handle the results of a drug test. However, if I remember correctly, (it's been awhile since I dealt with issues like this), the ADA does not protect an employee's privacy in relation to illegal substances. Since weed is still an illegal substance pursuant to federal law, I believe Browner would not have a right to privacy in relation to these disclosures, at least not under the ADA. There may be other laws I forgot or the CBA which would provide this right.

Separate issues, as a lot of posters have already raised, are potential breaches of the CBA, and the NFL's arbitrary and capricious manner in interpreting and enforcing their own administrative rules. I believe Mr. Browner could have a reasonable basis in fact or in law if he decided to proceed with litigation on those issues. Without facts, or a copy of all relevant documents, I could not give a rational opinion however.

Also, hello everyone, long time lurker, first time poster. Washington native, fan since 1990ish. GO HAWKS!

Great first post! This whole thing is gonna get really interesting.

 

[VivaEfrenHerrera]

Even if the two entities are separate and the reporting arm cannot be held accountable, the information being reported on, which it would seem to me is PHI (PHI is any information held by a covered entity which concerns health status, provision of health care, or payment for health care that can be linked to an individual) and it's a big no no to share (or inadvertently expose) PHI.

Do we have any attorneys in the house that can speak to this? It's a stretch for me to speak to this so I should tread lightly.

This information would be protected health information as it was received by an employer from the drug tester (health provider) and relates to the past physical condition of the individual.

However, as far as I know, the NFL is not a "covered entity" pursuant to the HIPAA Privacy rule, and the Privacy Rule would not dictate confidentiality requirements. (If the drug tester released this info, then HIPAA would apply, but not in the case of the Employer releasing the info).

In this case, the ADA would be applicable, as I believe it deals with how an employer can handle the results of a drug test. However, if I remember correctly, (it's been awhile since I dealt with issues like this), the ADA does not protect an employee's privacy in relation to illegal substances. Since weed is still an illegal substance pursuant to federal law, I believe Browner would not have a right to privacy in relation to these disclosures, at least not under the ADA. There may be other laws I forgot or the CBA which would provide this right.

Separate issues, as a lot of posters have already raised, are potential breaches of the CBA, and the NFL's arbitrary and capricious manner in interpreting and enforcing their own administrative rules. I believe Mr. Browner could have a reasonable basis in fact or in law if he decided to proceed with litigation on those issues. Without facts, or a copy of all relevant documents, I could not give a rational opinion however.

Also, hello everyone, long time lurker, first time poster. Washington native, fan since 1990ish. GO HAWKS!

Welcome! Great first post! This whole thing is gonna get really interesting.

Agreed on this, and meant to post something. Thanks for the insight, Tupps. Please post more!

 

[Sports Hernia]

I'm totally behind suing and embarrassing the league over this stage 1 vs stage 3 mishandling.

The part I can't get behind is when the league is painted as if they're violating basic human rights for drug testing for weed. Come on, an employer can fire you if you don't wear a blue polo to work if it's the company uniform and it's in the contract. You sign what you sign. If it violates your moral code that your workplace drug tests you, stay unemployed.

Drug testing for weed isn't the issue. The issue is the requirement that you be yield to drug tests while not employed by the any team in the NFL and not living nor employed in this country and failing to do so yields discipline. Separately that the league claims these tests remain confidential, yet the league itself spreads false and malicious reports through their own media outlet about PED usage that they knew to be false.

If you expect 100% compliance from the player, the league must be held to the same 100% standard. Which, coincidentally, is exactly the same argument Richard Sherman used to successfully overturn his suspension.

BINGO!

 

[irocdave]

We all know Browner wasn't going to be a hawk next year as he would have been looking to cash in. Nothing wrong with that. I find it funny how fans of some " other" teams go out of their way to bash the guy. These same people would love to have him in their teams uniform. That being said, I think Browner is getting screwed if I understand the events and time line correctly. My opinion is the same weather or not he is Hawk next year. I also don't think he is the key to a successful Hawks playoff run this year although it would be nice to have him especially against SF or Carolina.

 

[Sports Hernia]

[Except the NFL is playing with fire. If it's determined by a Federal Judge that one or more terms in the CBA (or a signed contract) violate a worker's rights, then that term of the CBA is void. You can not be held (even by a CBA or contract) to an unfair labour practice....and Browner's case sure looks like an unfair labour practice.

You may be right, but the NFL is run by a lawyer and has I imagine a zillion or so lawyer's working strictly on labor relations, and evidently that's a fight they believe they will win.

He is a lousy lawyer though.

The very wealthy corporation I work at has lawyers, but still tends to lose just about every case our union has brought against them in the 20 years I've been working there. Having lawyers don't mean jack if they are bad or cannot see straight because their ego or the corporations ego is blinding them to the reality of the law.

I'm no expert but if I'm Browner's legal team I find away to go after the NFL's anti-trust exemption as well.