for years. The team and its owner
have caused very real
and very serious
harm and then lied about it to dodge accountability and to
continue
to rake in profits
so far. They seem to have gotten away with it
but that stops today.
Today we're filing a consumer Action
lawsuit, a civil lawsuit
against Dan Schneider, the Washington commanders.
The National Football League
and the NFL, commissioner,
Roger Goodell
for colluding to deceive residents of the District of
Columbia about their investigation
into a toxic workplace culture
that impacted employees
especially with. Amon
all of that deception,
was done to protect their profits
and their image.
Is it very creative and aggressive effort by Karl
Racine and his staff. It's not a criminal case, it's a civil
case,
it arises under the authority,
that is vested in them by the DC laws to pursue
consumer protection rights. And
the argument basically is this
by taking the Beth Wilkinson investigation.
That was conducted in two
years of misconduct in the workplace with the Washington
Anders
and brushing it all under the rug and covering it all up, and
hiding the facts from the consumers of DC who are
passionate fans and devote time and money and attention
to the local NFL team that that rises to the level of some sort
of an infraction that justifies monetary damages, which
probably wouldn't be much. But ultimately, what Racine wants
to do is force
everything that Beth Wilkinson found into the public eye. This
is an effort to you. The legal system Shireen
to force the NFL to release
the report. That's what it is,
whether it's successful or not. We'll see.
But that's what he's trying to do.
I have so many questions for you on this Mike but I'll start
with the fact that if the NFL had requested Beth Wilkinson to
provide a written report and release that publicly they
wouldn't be where they are right now. But they are here
I guess my first question to you and I was talking to
somebody a guy came up Up to me in the gym knew who I was
randomly but he said, you know what? Whenever there's
something legal that happens in the NFL, I quickly click on to
PFT because I want to know what Mike Florio thinks about
this and it's true you're the best at this type of situation.
My first question is
Washington. The commanders are not based in d.c. they don't
plan DC their training facility is not a DC. Did they have a
a chance to get this dismissed?
Cuz they aren't in d.c.
well and that's one of the threshold legal questions that
gets raised any time a case gets filed. There are potential
defenses, unrelated to the actual merits of the claim.
Whether or not the person has a case based on the facts
standing is one of the arguments that gets
made does the DC Attorney General have standing to sue
the Washington commanders in d.c. because They don't do
business there. The argument is
they cater to the
consumers in, d.c.
people who live in d.c., go to the games, watch the games on
TV, spend money time and effort on the team, that's going to be
the argument. And whether or not
the court system
allows it to proceed or not. That'll be determined by
whichever judge handles the case. But this is what makes
the Commander's response
to the lawsuit. So compelling to me, even Even though this
won't be binding in court, although, if I was Karl Racine,
I would use it against them in every Court filing
that I make consider what
the commander set.
Over two years ago.
Dan and Tanya Snyder acknowledged that unacceptable
workplace culture it existed within their Organization for
several years and they have apologized many times for
allowing that to happen.
We agree with Attorney. General Racine on one thing. The public
needs to know the truth.
Although the lawsuit repeats, a lot of innuendo, half-truths
and lies. We welcome this opportunity, to defend
the organization for the first time in a court of law and to
establish once. And for all
what is fact, and what is fiction,
Shereen the Thing that screamed off the page to me when I saw
that. Is
there ready to go
on the merits? They don't want to hide behind
standing or any other procedural defense, that would
further the argument that you're making, which is a good
argument. What business does anyone in d.c. have
when it comes to complaining about anything a business that
isn't even in DC. It's name for it but it isn't. There has
done. They basically drop that bye.
Aang, we welcome the opportunity to separate fact
from fiction and the public needs to know the truth.
Hey, if the public needs to know the truth release,
the damn report, then we'll know the truth. That's what this
lawsuit is trying to do scratch out the names of the people who
want to remain anonymous
makeup, name's Jane Doe, John do this, do that do. And here's
the report that they should have done that from
the beginning, but they hid it because they wanted to protect
Snyder.
They want to protect the other owners.
Against a similar situation and they brushed it all under
the rug. So I was stunned by the Commander's response because
even though it's not a legal and Technical and binding,
waiver of their right to these other defenses,
they're basically saying
we don't care about those other defenses. We're ready to go
defend this case based upon the merits of the allegations being
made.
And which case, then you wouldn't file for a dismissal,
you would want to go to court, and if that's truly how you
feel. I think the Commander's this week Mike are going to set
a record for the most statements issue. They actually
issued one arm of the organization issued a statement
in the other arm issued another statement diffusing what
the first statement said. So they may yet set a record on on
statements
this week. Here's my other question for you Mike. This
obviously
I think is bad for the NFL,
it's bad for the Commander's
it's bad for Dan Snyder
and By the way, this could factor into a sell something
that they're going to have to take into account. Because
Racine says, it's not a matter of Snyder. Sells the team,
we're going forward with this thing.
Who is this worse for
I think it's worse for the league
because
if they go all the way to the bottom of the rabbit hole and
get emails and they take Discovery and they questioned
people under oath and they find out why like what was
the decision-making process that resulted in this if they can
get to the truth
and as they always say, a cover-up, is worse than
the crime. That was first really brought to light with Watergate
in d.c.
There could be a way that the facts unravel.
In a manner that makes the NFL look really, really bad
for how it handled this and that there was an affirmative
effort potentially to hide and conceal as a way, not to
protect Dan Snyder,
but to protect the other owners from having a precedent like
this used against them. So you know, Snyder's all
start is already going to sell the team.
The end result of the Wilkins investigation,
the recommendation that was never put in writing because they
asked her not to or didn't ask her to was
she would have said
Ed in writing, he should be forced to sell the team
so you can't do anything worse to Snyder.
hit, subscribe for the latest news and Analysis from pro
football talk.