
Benjamin Sachs is the Kestnbaum Professor of Labor and Industry at Harvard Law School and a leading expert in the field of labor law and labor relations. He is also faculty director of the Center for Labor and a Just Economy. Professor Sachs teaches courses in labor law, employment law, and law and social change, and his writing focuses on union organizing and unions in American politics. Prior to joining the Harvard faculty in 2008, Professor Sachs was the Joseph Goldstein Fellow at Yale Law School. From 2002-2006, he served as Assistant General Counsel of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) in Washington, D.C. Professor Sachs graduated from Yale Law School in 1998, and served as a judicial law clerk to the Honorable Stephen Reinhardt of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. His writing has appeared in the Harvard Law Review, the Yale Law Journal, the Columbia Law Review, the New York Times and elsewhere. Professor Sachs received the Yale Law School teaching award in 2007 and in 2013 received the Sacks-Freund Award for Teaching Excellence at Harvard Law School. He can be reached at [email protected].
I’ve been getting a number of press calls asking whether the NFL players who are sitting down during the national anthem might be disciplined by the League for doing so, or whether they enjoy legal protection against such employment action. I recommend, as a backgrounder on this issue, Michael McCann’s analysis in Sports Illustrated, which Vivian mentioned this morning. But, in my view, the players have a set of legal protections that has yet to garner much attention: namely, the protections of the National Labor Relations Act.
As McCann correctly observes, the First Amendment doesn’t do much work in the NFL context, given that the NFL is a private sector workplace. Perhaps the players could try to import the First Amendment to the private sector through a Novosel-type public policy tort (one of the great cases in the employment law canon), but that is likely a longshot. On the other hand, the National Labor Relations Act provides plausible protection here. As the Board and the courts (including the Supreme Court) have made clear, employees’ “political” activity enjoys protection under the NLRA so long as that activity concerns the employees’ status qua employee, and so long as it is concerted activity. The photos of yesterday’s games leave zero doubt on the concerted front.
So, do the protests concern the players’ status as employees; as players? Most obviously, if more narrowly, the protests are now directed in part at President Trump’s comments about concussions and the new rules meant to address that crisis: Trump called the rules “soft.” To the extent that any player is expressing political opposition to a President that denigrates league safety rules, or player complaints about safety, the political expression is unquestionably related to the players’ status as players.
More broadly, as the players’ collective bargaining agreement repeatedly acknowledges, being an NFL player – being an NFL employee in this capacity – involves both on-the-field activity and an explicitly public role. To take one example, Paragraph 2 of the agreement states that a player must pledge to “conduct himself on and off the field with appropriate recognition of the fact that the success of professional football depends largely on public respect for and approval of those associated with the game.” Because the public-facing part of the job is part of the job, a player could reasonably believe that standing up for his vision of a just society – including one that features greater racial equality, less police violence, and more respect from political leaders – is part of what it means to be an NFL player. Some owners might disagree with this vision, and some players might as well. But that’s not the issue. So long as the player involved in the protest is expressing his vision of what our public life should be like, he has a viable claim that the expression is part of his role as an NFL player.
One last note. If I’m right, and the anthem protests are NLRA protected, then when President Trump calls for players to be fired for their protest, the President is asking the League to violate federal law.
Daily News & Commentary
Start your day with our roundup of the latest labor developments. See all
April 17
Utahns sign a petition supporting referendum to repeal law prohibiting public sector collective bargaining; the US District Court for the District of Columbia declines to dismiss claims filed by the AFL-CIO against several government agencies; and the DOGE faces reports that staffers of the agency accessed the NLRB’s sensitive case files.
April 16
7th Circuit questions the relevance of NLRB precedent after Loper Bright, unions seek to defend silica rule, and Abrego Garcia's union speaks out.
April 15
In today’s news and commentary, SAG-AFTRA reaches a tentative agreement, AFT sues the Trump Administration, and California offers its mediation services to make up for federal cuts. SAG-AFTRA, the union representing approximately 133,000 commercial actors and singers, has reached a tentative agreement with advertisers and advertising agencies. These companies were represented in contract negotiations by […]
April 14
Department of Labor publishes unemployment statistics; Kentucky unions resist deportation orders; Teamsters win three elections in Texas.
April 13
Shawn Fain equivocates on tariffs; Trump quietly ends federal union dues collection; pro-Palestinian Google employees sue over firings.
April 11
Trump considers measures to return farm and hospitality workers to the US after deportation; Utah labor leaders make final push to get the “Protect Utah Workers” referendum on the state’s ballot; hundreds of probationary National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration employees were re-terminated