The NFL Players Association has gone to bat for Adrian Peterson by filing a lawsuit against the football league in U.S. District Court in Minneapolis in hopes of getting the suspended Minnesota Viking star runner back on the field.
Peterson hasn't played since September when he was indicted on felony charges of reckless or negligent injury to a child. Police charged he hit his 4-year-old son with a switch.
The lawsuit filed on Monday challenges arbitrator Harold Henderson, a former league employee, who upheld NFL commissioner's Roger Goodell's season suspension of Peterson on Friday,
according to Sports Illustrated.
Peterson was suspended for the season in November after he pleaded no contest to misdemeanor reckless assault and cannot be reinstated before April 15.
USA Today reported that the lawsuit asked the court "vacate the arbitration award in its entirety and grant such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper, including an order declaring that Mr. Peterson is entitled immediately to be reinstated as a player in the National Football League because he has already served far more than the maximum two-game suspension that could have been imposed under the CBA."
In Friday's ruling, Henderson called Peterson's actions against his son "arguably one of the most egregious cases of domestic violence" in Goodell's nine-year term with the NFL and that the star had not showed enough remorse for actions.
"Public comments do not reflect remorse or appreciation for the seriousness of his actions and their impact on his family, community, fans and the NFL, although at the close of the hearing he said he has learned from his mistake, he regrets that it happened and it will never happen again," Henderson said in his ruling.
ESPN legal analyst Lester Munson said the courts have rarely wanted to get in the middle of decisions made by arbitrators and the union may be fighting a losing battle.
"The U.S. Supreme Court made it clear in 2001 in a decision on a Steve Garvey claim for collusion damages: In an 8-1 decision, the high court ruled that when an arbitrator makes an 'improvident, even silly' decision, the errors in the decision do 'not provide a basis for a court to refuse to enforce' the arbitrator's decision," Munson wrote for ESPN.
Related Stories:
© 2025 Newsmax. All rights reserved.