Abortion Case in Texas

A black wool crepe drape hung over the chair of the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

The Supreme Court must decide if a Texas law places an unconstitutional burden on a woman’s right to an abortion.

Without Justice Scalia, this case may have a very different outcome.

Texas law House Bill 2 regulates medical facilities and the physicians performing abortions.

In Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstadt, an abortion clinic challenged the law as a burden on a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion.

House Bill 2 requires changes in facilities, medical care, and physician admission privileges.

Attorney Stephanie Toti, representing Whole Woman’s Health, argued that House Bill 2 (HB2) was developed solely to make it more difficult to provide and obtain abortions in Texas. Abortions became legal in 1973, with the U.S. Supreme Court decision in the Texas case of Roe v. Wade. In 1992, Planned Parenthood v. Casey Access allowed States to place limits on abortions for safety reasons.

HB 2 requires medical clinics performing abortion to become ambulatory surgical centers (ASC) and physicians must have admitting privileges at local hospitals.

The law also requires an elevator, registered nurse with CPR training, and retro-fitting the clinic facility to widen doors and put in ramps. Scott Keller, the Texas solicitor general, argues HB 2 was enacted to safeguard women’s health.

However, meeting the ASC requirements is an expensive process that is said to have resulted in the “closure of nearly 75 percent of the clinics in Texas since 2013, forcing some women to drive up to 300 miles one-way to obtain a safe and legal abortion care,” according to the Woman’s Whole Health Center website.

Under HB2, a medically induced abortion, which requires the taking of two pills, forced women to go to a hospital to take the pills instead of a clinic.

This means two separate visits to take each pill.

Justice Stephen Breyer noted that those two days at a hospital meant traveling 150 miles, maybe more, staying overnight, time from work, hotel expenses, and perhaps childcare.

Whether abortion clinics closed due to HB2 was a point of heated contention in Court as the Justices used their questions directed at attorneys to counter the views of their colleagues on the bench. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted that childbirth has more complications Gloria J. Browne-Marshall than abortions.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor queried why there was a need for HB2 when the American Medical Association does not require such increased medical or facility standards, demanding of Keller, had the legislature “targeted at abortion?”

Justices Elena Kagan and Sotomayor questioned the need for HB 2 when there are medical procedures with greater complications in need of legislation.

Forcing women to take a pill in a hospital as opposed to a clinic such as Woman’s Whole Health could be viewed as punitive instead of a necessary safeguard.

Under House Bill 2, physicians performing abortions must have admitting privileges at local hospitals. Few abortion doctors have been granted those privileges.

Prior to the law, physicians had working relationships allowing admission of their patients if complications occurred.

Justice Alito agreed and tried to fill the conservative void left by Justice Scalia, he questioned whether attorney Toti could provide any direct evidence that abortion clinics closed or women were denied abortions due to HB 2.

Keller argued that the Texas legislature has the power to act to make abortion safer, especially after seeing news stories about partial birth abortions.

Justice Samuel Alito reminded the Court that Texas inspectors found some abortion clinics in disrepair, holes in the floor, and unsterilized equipment. Abortion complications have occurred.

However, under questioning by Justice Sotomayor, the Texas solicitor revealed that physicians performing liposuction and colonoscopy procedures, which carry a higher risk to patients, are not required to have admitting privileges at local hospitals or renovate their facilities.

“The admitting privileges requirement, which is partially in effect [now] has been responsible for the closure of nearly half of all abortion facilities in Texas to date,” said attorney Toti.

According to U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, HB 2 is an undue burden, excessive and unwarranted compared to the need the law was created to address.

Solicitor Verrilli argued as an amicus, or friend of the Court. Women have a constitutional right to an abortion; HB 2 means “the right exists in theory but not in fact,” said Verrilli.

With only eight justices, if there is 4-4 outcome, the appellate court ruling against Women’s Whole Health will stand. The Court will decide this case by late June.

Gloria J. Browne-Marshall is a legal correspondent for AANIC (African-American News & Information Consortium) and a professor of constitutional law at John Jay College in New York City.

Read »

Obama addresses annual technology festival in Texas

"It is much easier to order pizza or a trip than it is for you to exercise the single most important task in a democracy, and that is to select who's going to represent you in government", the president said. "Technology is evolving so rapidly that new questions are being asked, and I am of the view that there are very real reasons why we want to make sure that the government can not just willy-nilly get into everybody's smartphones that are full of very personal information and very personal data".

"My conclusion so far is that you can not take an absolutist view on this", Obama said.

When moderator Evan Smith, the CEO/editor-in-chief of The Texas Tribune, raised the question of how a slow and bloated government could ever work efficiently with private sectors who are "in the business of sleek, fail-fast technology", the president turned to one of his greatest achievements and arguably one of his greatest momentary failures.

"All of us value our privacy, and this is a society that is built on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and a healthy skepticism of overreaching government", he said, noting that the Edward Snowden revelations have elevated awareness of these issues, despite the dangers to USA citizens being "vastly overstated".

The president said that while there must be some concessions to personal privacy (he cited airport security as one such existing concession) he said he was "way on the civil liberties side" of the debate.

Obama also said that he believed the eventual solution to this issue would likely emerge as a middle path that allowed a level of encryption that was "as strong as possible" with data "accessible by the smallest number of people possible".

Obama used his appearance at the decades-old festival to encourage the audience of tech enthusiasts to use their skills and imagination to "tackle big problems in new ways".

Obama was in Austin for the opening day of SXSW, a 10-day interactive/film/music gathering that draws more than 80,000 participants, including some of the country's most successful and talented tech industry leaders. "It's to say to you, as I'm about to leave office, how can we start coming up with new platforms and new ideas, new approaches across disciplines and across skill sets, to solve some of the big problems that we're facing today".

South by Southwest Interactive is part of South by Southwest, a movie, music and interactive media festival that had been held in Austin for the past 30 years.

Smith also asked Obama about the "massive digital divide" in the USA, pointing to the fact that minorities have significantly less access to the Internet, which makes it more hard for them to be engaged citizens or even do their homework.

Read »

Obama says Texas leaders 'aren't interested' in higher voter turnout

Texas' Republican leadership has stifled voter turnout, and the public sector should do more to encourage online voting and other civic engagement, President Barack Obama said in an interview Friday with Tribune CEO and Editor-in-Chief Evan Smith.

Obama's remarks at the South by Southwest Interactive festival in Austin focused on using Internet technology to encourage more civic participation, including voting.

"It is much easier to order pizza or a trip than it is for you to exercise the single most important task in a democracy, and that is to select who's going to represent you in government," the president said.

Asked about Texas' historically low voter turnout, Obama said the state's leadership was partly to blame, singling out Texas' policy that prohibits online voter registration.

That law exists "because the folks who are currently governing the good state of Texas aren't interested in having more people participate," he said.

Texas has found itself at the center of controversy over voting rights, facing criticism from the left over the state's voter ID law. That law is tied up in court after a federal judge ruled it had a "discriminatory effect" by restricting access to the polls for black and Hispanic Texans. The law requires most residents to show one of a handful of forms of allowable photo identification before their election ballots can be counted.

Obama called for bringing government and private technology companies together to streamline government services and elevate their standing in libertarian-minded states such as Texas.

"Look, Texas is never going be an early adopter of what I'm talking about here, but over time, pressure builds for us to create systems that make government more responsive and make it work better," he said.

The president said his office was working to create a "pipeline" to recruit tech-minded talent to the federal government. He said he hoped to encourage skilled workers to pursue endeavors that would improve government services.

"In an age in which people are getting information through digital platforms, through the Internet, where people's attention spans have shrunk, it is critical that all of you who are shaping this environment are spending this time thinking about how are we getting citizens engaged," he said.

Obama conceded the botched rollout of the website Healthcare.gov in 2013 was an "embarrassing" moment for his administration. But he said the White House called in a "SWAT team" of skilled workers from technology companies to help fix the website, which people use to purchase subsidized health insurance under the Affordable Care Act, the president's signature health care law. Obama touted that effort as a successful example of collaboration between the public and private sectors.

One of the lighter exchanges of the interview came after Obama said he had been able to lower the unemployment rate while president. He then paused for a moment before giving the punch line from a popular joke on social media: "Thanks, Obama."

Asked about the dispute between the Federal Bureau of Investigation and technology firm Apple over the government's access to a person's private data, Obama declined to comment on the case but said he doesn't want government "looking through everybody's phones willy-nilly."

That dispute centers on whether Apple must comply with a court order to help the FBI unlock an iPhone used by one of the shooters in last year's San Bernardino, California, attack that left 14 people dead.

The president spoke at length about the need for government to balance security and privacy. He cautioned against taking an "absolutist view" on the issue, saying, "There has to be some concession to the need to be able to get into that information somehow."

"If your argument is strong encryption no matter what, and we can and should in fact create black boxes, that I think does not strike the kind of balance we have lived with for 200, 300 years, and it's fetishizing our phones above every other value," he said.

Outside the interview venue, several hundred onlookers gathered to watch the president's motorcade arrive and leave. Among them was Erika Washington, 38, who was visiting Austin from Dacula, Georgia, for SXSW."The excitement just rushed through my body," Washington said. "You could see him waving in the window. I consider myself a sane person, but seeing President Obama in person, I just lost it. I was so excited."

The SXSW appearance was one of several stops during Obama's afternoon visit to Austin. After arriving at Austin-Bergstrom International Airport, he stopped by a South Austin Torchy's Tacos location with Mayor Steve Adler. Inside, he took photos and ordered three tacos — one named the Democrat, one named the Republican and one named the Independent. He also ordered Adler a green chile pork taco.After the interview, he spoke at a Democratic National Committee reception at the downtown Austin Music Hall.Outside, a few dozen University of Texas students and community members protested the president's lack of action on immigration reform."Obama has made some progress, but it's not enough," said Mizraim Belman, a 17-year-old student at Crockett High School in South Austin, who immigrated to the city from Mexico when he was four.The president was to speak at a private reception in a Tarrytown home and then fly to Dallas, where he was scheduled to spend the night.

Read »

Corporate campaign to ditch workers’ comp stalls

A campaign by some of America’s biggest companies to “opt out” of state workers’ compensation — and write their own plans for dealing with injured workers — was dealt a major blow Friday when an Oklahoma commission ruled the alternative system unconstitutional.

Company plans were supposed to provide equal benefits to workers’ comp. But in its unanimous ruling, the Oklahoma Workers’ Compensation Commission compared that notion to “a water mirage on the highway that disappears upon closer inspection.”

In addition, the U.S. Department of Labor said in a letter obtained Monday that it is evaluating whether opt-out plans in Texas and Oklahoma violate workers’ rights under federal law.

The opt-out effort was the focus of an investigation by ProPublica and NPR last fall, which found that the plans almost universally had lower benefits and more restrictions than workers’ comp.

Typically, when a worker gets hurt on the job, employers are required to pay for their medical care and lost wages under a state-mandated benefits system. Under this system, which has been in place for more than a century, workers give up their right to sue.

But in recent years, well-known corporations, led by Walmart and Lowe’s, have been pushing states to let them handle injuries themselves, arguing they can provide better care, higher wage benefits and a more efficient system if freed from the bureaucracy of state workers’ comp. In 2013, Oklahoma became the first state to pass a law allowing employers to opt out, joining Texas, which has never required businesses to have workers’ comp.

Last year, the corporations’ offensive appeared to be gaining steam. Tennessee and South Carolina were seriously considering bills. A national campaign drew support from Nordstrom, Whole Foods, Macy’s, Sysco and Safeway, among others. And supporters said they planned to get laws passed in as many as a dozen states within the next decade.

But months after the ProPublica and NPR story, which was republished in several news outlets, the movement appears stalled. The Tennessee bill was pulled from discussion earlier this year, while South Carolina’s bill hasn’t moved since the spring. Two other states that were expected to consider opt-out legislation this year, Georgia and Mississippi, have yet to see bills introduced. Nordstrom dropped out of the national coalition. And only a handful of firms in Oklahoma have opted out since October.

Then, on Friday, the Oklahoma commission ruled that the opt-out law had created an unequal system of justice for workers employed by companies that created their own plans. The ruling came in response to an appeal from a Dillard’s department store worker whose benefits were denied.

Bob Burke, a workers’ comp attorney who has filed 17 cases challenging the law, said the decision will “put a cold, wet rag” on the opt-out movement.

The commission, which is considered business-friendly, noted that the plans give employers significant power to deny claims by letting them define what constitutes a workplace injury. For example, workers sickened by asbestos can generally receive workers’ comp. But most opt-out plans in Oklahoma specifically exclude asbestos exposure from coverage.

The commission’s decision is likely to be appealed to the Oklahoma Supreme Court. Several legal and insurance experts who have been following the issue have already floated the argument that the commission acted outside its authority in ruling the law unconstitutional.

Such decisions are typically left to courts rather than administrative agencies like the commission. But in its order, the commission noted that the way the new workers’ comp law was written designated it as a “court of competent jurisdiction,” giving it the power to decide constitutional questions.

The case at hand involves an employee at Dillard’s department store, Jonnie Yvonne Vasquez, who said she hurt her shoulder and neck lifting various boxes of shoes at the store in September 2014. Dillard’s denied her claim as a preexisting condition.

Under workers’ comp, Vasquez’s claim might not have been denied. The commission noted that opt-out plans contain more restrictive rules for coverage when workplace injuries aggravate preexisting conditions.

Under the Dillard’s plan, Vasquez also faced other substantial differences not noted by the commission. She could only see doctors picked by the department store chain. Under workers’ comp, she would have been able to choose a doctor from a list of three provided by the company. And if she wanted a second opinion, she could have asked the commission for an independent medical exam.

Other workers have encountered additional obstacles because nearly all the company plans require workers to report injuries by the end of their shifts or within 24 hours — or risk losing all benefits. In contrast, Oklahoma workers’ comp gives employees 30 days.

In Friday’s order, the commission took aim at several benefits touted by proponents of opt-out plans.

Rather than creating a more efficient process for handling disputes, the system developed by the plans adds several layers that may actually make the process longer, the commission said.

Promoters of opt-out plans say they come with a number of checks and balances to protect workers’ rights. But the commission ruled that the opt-out law unjustly bars injured workers’ access to the courts when their accidents don’t fall under their employers’ definition of “injury.” Under the law, such workers wouldn’t have remedies under their companies’ plans, but are also not allowed to sue their employers for negligence.

In defending the case, Dillard’s argued that the opt-out law served “a legitimate government goal” by lowering the cost of doing business compared with surrounding states.

But the commission dismissed the argument as one that the business community has “annually trotted out for the past decade” to support changing workers’ comp laws.

Such arguments, the commission said, were irrelevant to whether the law treated workers equally.

“We can conceive of no rational basis,” it ruled, to create a “subclass of injured workers,” who are subject to benefit plans in which the employer “can determine when it will be liable and when it will not be liable.”

The Association for Responsible Alternatives to Workers’ Comp, the coalition pushing opt-out bills, said in a statement that the case is far from over.

“It is almost certain there will be further legal and legislative efforts,” the group said. “Option plans are resulting in better medical outcomes for injured workers compared to traditional workers’ compensation.”

Bill Minick, the Dallas lawyer who has written most of the plans, didn’t respond to requests for comment. Earlier this month, his firm PartnerSource released a statement that under opt-out plans Oklahoma employers had saved 73 percent over what they would have paid under workers’ comp.

The U.S. Department of Labor began reviewing the opt-out phenomenon after 10 high-ranking Democrats in Congress asked the agency to investigate.

“We agree that some of the trends in changes to state workers’ compensation systems are cause for concern,” Sharon Block, principal deputy assistant secretary of labor, wrote in a letter last week to Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio.

“One of the starkest developments in state workers’ compensation laws is the emergence of the ‘opt-out’ provisions that enable employers to set up their own plans, including setting their own exclusions and procedures, or to leave workers completely on their own.”

Read »

Opting Out of Workers’ Compensation Benefits Employers, Not Workers

Opting out of the Texas workers compensation system saves employers money over time, but there is a caveat to that observation. The rising number of significant jury awards may signal a change to come.

Opting out of the Texas workers compensation system, otherwise referred to as non-subscription, is still appealing to many employers, as it saves companies a lot of money. “But in reality, it may not save a company money if an attorney wins an injury case against them,” said workplace injury attorney, Brooks Schuelke, of Perlmutter & Schuelke, PLLC in Austin. “There is a very fine line involved between ostensibly saving money by not subscribing to workers’ compensation and having to possibly pay out large sums in a court case or numerous cases.”

How did Texas come to have a workers compensation system that allowed companies to not participate? The answer is over 100 years old. The system began by allowing employers to opt out, meaning they were and still are not required to provide benefits to injured workers. This lack of protection for employers leaves them open to liability lawsuits filed by injured workers not covered by workers compensation.

Today, if a company chooses to carry workers’ compensation insurance, then an injured worker is generally limited to only making claims for the workers’ compensation benefits and can’t sue the employer except in limited circumstances.

On the other hand, if an employer chooses to be a non-subscriber and doesn’t buy insurance, then the injured employee is free to sue the employer. Additionally, the employer is not allowed to present some defenses that are applicable in most cases.

Keith Rosenblum, senior workers compensation risk control strategist at Lockton Cos. L.L.C. in Kansas City, Missouri, says that if a company does opt out, it needs to offer fast and effective medical care and top notch safety programs. Without those things in place, a company potentially faces liability for injuries sustained by workers.

There are some employers in Texas that do offer some support to injured workers. They are few and far between and in the meantime, there have been a number of significant lawsuits resolved in favor of workers.

One case against Katy Spring & Manufacturing Inc. resulted in a $780,000 verdict with the jury finding the employer negligent when a worker was hit in the chest by a large-gauge wire.

Other cases, such as the one involving West Star Transportation Inc., resulted in a $5.3 million judgment in 2015, for not providing a safe workplace. In that case, a worker sustained traumatic brain injury after falling.

Consider also the case involving a former dockworker for Tyson Foods who sustained a serious lower back injury in 2013 while sorting heavy boxes. The jury handed down a $2.25 million award, citing Tyson Foods for negligence.

According to Bill Minick, president of Dallas-based PartnerSource, there were approximately 100 Lone Star non-subscribers slapped with negligence liability awards/settlements of $1 million or more in the last quarter century.

“And still, many companies opt to not subscribe in the hopes of saving money. Do these same companies offer some form of protection to their workers? Some do. Some do not. If you have been injured while on the job, contact an experienced workplace injury attorney and find out what your legal rights are,” said Schuelke.

Read »

Workers Rights & Safety in Jeopardy

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Read »

NFLPA tells agents to reject “inappropriate” language in Rams contracts

NFLPA tells agents to reject “inappropriate” language in Rams contracts Posted by Mike Florio on March 12, 2016, 11:12 AM EDT AP

The Rams apparently are staying in St. Louis. In one very specific, self-serving way.

Per a league source, contracts being offered to new players state that the laws of Missouri, not California, control the relationship. The NFL Players Association has in turn instructed all certified contract agents to reject that term as “inappropriate.”

Other language in the contract makes the purpose of this strategy clear. The Rams hope to nudge any workers’ compensation claims away from California and into Missouri.

From the contract: “The parties hereto acknowledge that this Player Contract has been negotiated and executed in Missouri; that should any dispute, claim or cause of action (collectively ‘dispute’) arise concerning rights or liabilities arising from the relationship between the Player and the Club, the parties hereto agree that the law governing such dispute shall be the law of the State of Missouri.  Furthermore, the exclusive jurisdiction for resolving Workers’ Compensation related claims shall be the Division of Workers’ Compensation of Missouri, and the Missouri Workers’ Compensation Act shall govern.”

The NFLPA strongly disagrees. “We believe that any reference to the state of Missouri is inappropriate since the Rams have relocated to California as evidenced by the fact that they have changed their name on their website to the Los Angeles Rams, are prepared to hold off-season workouts and training camp in California, and will practice and play their home games in California in 2016,” the union says in the memo to all agents.

It’s a gutsy move by the Rams, for a variety of reasons. Apart from trying to keep workers’ compensation claims out of a forum that universally is regarded as grossly pro-employee, the Rams hope to impose burdens on the administrative mechanisms of the state they have now abandoned.

Here’s the bottom line. If you move to California, you accept everything that goes along with it. And if there’s something about it you don’t like, don’t move there.

Permalink 58 Comments Latest Stories in: Los Angeles Rams, Rumor Mill, Top Stories Tweet Email

devilsmetsgiants says: Mar 12, 2016 11:17 AM How are they even permitted to draw up a contract like this? Do they still have a business connection to Missouri?

mongo3401 says: Mar 12, 2016 11:21 AM Workers comp in Missouri is a joke. They basically out you through a grinder to get it and when you do it amounts to about enough to buy groceries every other week.

rhamrhoddy says: Mar 12, 2016 11:24 AM not as many creative incentives as I had hoped when I read the headline

johnnyjagfan says: Mar 12, 2016 11:24 AM Yo Stan! If you wanted to benefit from Missouri law, you should of stayed in Missouri. What a jerk. If you’re a player looking at that contract, you already know that your physical health is a mere money and ease-of-litigation issue for your greedy, selfish owner.
Oh, and he colors his hair & ‘stache too dark and looks like a fake, too.
Same ol greedy a– Rams.

streetyson says: Mar 12, 2016 11:26 AM We, the Rams, respect our players as much as we do our fans.

hamlet423 says: Mar 12, 2016 11:28 AM It is another sad statement on the state of the NFL
The owners are always trying to find way to pay players as little as possible. To play a very dangerous game that can and has lead to life long injury and disability.
Once the player is used up, the owners and the league are done with them. What? you got hurt! you knew the Risks of playing football? Except, uh, we paid our nfl docs to hide evidence of the risk, but…still..you took our money for a few years! on the non-guaranteed contracts that we can get out of at nearly any time!
Players accept some risk when they play football. But from stupid contract tricks like this, to NFL owners that make billions but refuse to put adequate playing surfaces in their tax payer financed stadium and then complain when someone blows out a knee playing in a mud bowl that they are soft.
I think the NFL is on borrowed time. As more evidence of head injuries come out, they either will go bankrupt or have to fundamentally change football.

the610limited says: Mar 12, 2016 11:30 AM If injury happens while team plays in St. Louis, Missouri law applies. If it happens when team starts playing or working out in California, that state’s law applies. Simple as that.

jmc8888 says: Mar 12, 2016 11:31 AM Wow. Billions of dollars for the Taj Mahal Stadium in California, and yet they are trying to stiff workers and the State of Missouri.
These guys truly believe they are above the law.
Nothing new here.

lukedunphysscienceproject says: Mar 12, 2016 11:34 AM It may seem a little slimy, but I am not sure they’re legally wrong.
I worked in New Jersey for a company incorporated in Missouri and it was the same deal. Few of the company’s employees lived in St. Louis, only the owner and a few management types.
If they are incorporated in Missouri, they are a Missouri corporation. They can call themselves anything they want.
Not saying it’s the right thing to do, but I am not sure they are legally wrong.

sonoco says: Mar 12, 2016 11:34 AM “Sure, I’ll sign . . . if I get the benefit of the Missouri income tax rate.”

spartyistheclassofthenationinfootballandbasketball says: Mar 12, 2016 11:35 AM How scummy. And on a side note it’s refreshing that there are at least a few states out there like California that aren’t total backwater conservative cesspools where workers rights are constantly trampled on. Pretty soon there won’t be a middle class at all there will just be the poor and the super rich.

toybkshr says: Mar 12, 2016 11:35 AM Who’d a thot and NFL team would try n pull a fast one on their players?!!!

joker65 says: Mar 12, 2016 11:37 AM Businesses need oversight or they will take advantage of employees. That’s why unions exist. This is a perfect example of that.

moseszd says: Mar 12, 2016 11:38 AM And the Kroenke-sleaze just keeps getting sleazier. The St. Louis fans did more to support the Rams, despite 14-losing seasons and only 4-winning than the people of LA did with a dominant, routine play-off contender. And Kronke just crapped on them like it was a scat-party.
And, of course, he refuses to refund the balance of the PSLs even though he owes them close to a decade of obligation.

keithdylan says: Mar 12, 2016 11:42 AM Examples such as this are what makes me wonder when working class people tell me how evil unions are. They may not be perfect, but there has to be a counter balance to management.

harrisonhits2 says: Mar 12, 2016 11:44 AM CA has very strong worker’s protection laws so of course the league wants as few team as possible operating under them.
Scumbag billionaires in action.

patsbrat says: Mar 12, 2016 11:46 AM Are the Rams a corporation (inc) or an LLC and in what state are they filed? Wouldn’t this be the determining factor?

realtruthteller100 says: Mar 12, 2016 11:50 AM just another example of a union trying to supress free speech. sad

pack15forever says: Mar 12, 2016 11:54 AM the610limited says: Mar 12, 2016 11:30 AM If injury happens while team plays in St. Louis, Missouri law applies. If it happens when team starts playing or working out in California, that state’s law applies. Simple as that.
_________________________________________
Where did you go to law school? Trump University?

nels1959 says: Mar 12, 2016 11:55 AM This is proof of how the filthy rich got that way to begin with. I’d be willing to bet he’s also a crappy tipper. Worth 7 billion dollars but still guarding every penny. I don’t believe in heaven but I do believe every day spent with old Stan is hell

steve11blog says: Mar 12, 2016 11:57 AM Shouldn’t the NFL make them change that as they are no longer in Missouri???????

lingsun54 says: Mar 12, 2016 11:58 AM It only makes sense that the Rams would want to protect themselves from the destructive rules of the People’s Republic of California. Expect California to rule in favor of players in ways that no other state would. Such as expecting the team they play for to cover their health care costs for life. It’s coming. After that, any player that played for a California team at any time would be forced to pay.

coke4mauk says: Mar 12, 2016 11:59 AM Technically it’s legal as their offices are still located in St Louis; they’re still “looking” for a site to set up shop in LA until the stadium is built.
Kroenke being Kroenke though, he’s probably already had a site picked out for 3 years

kevpft says: Mar 12, 2016 12:04 PM Say hello to the new sleaziest team in the NFL. Starting at the top.

tremoluxman says: Mar 12, 2016 12:05 PM Workers and unions have been getting screwed over by Big Business more and more for decades. Enough is enough.

jag1959 says: Mar 12, 2016 12:07 PM Further evidence that the scum can’t be cleaned off the top of the NFL greed pond since that’s all the pond is made up of. Anyone that thinks this is emblematic of just Kroenke is delusional. Be it the players, taxpayers, fans or the NFLPA the league itself has shown their avaricious contempt time and again. They care so little they don’t even bother with subtlety anymore. Hard to believe most of the more egregious examples would have happened under Tagliabue’s watch where, if nothing else, at least appearances mattered. That stuff like this is even attempted is one more glaring example of the difference between a commissioner and a commi$$ioner. No wonder Roger still has a job

mongo3401 says: Mar 12, 2016 12:09 PM No it’s not where you get inured. Workers comp is paid according to the state where the business has physical facilities. Thus offices in LA are most certainly physical facilities. I am willing to bet the Rams will say when they had the contracts reprinted to allow for the name Los Angelos Rams, they over looked the part about the state of Missouri in the rest of the contract. This would be pinned on their lawyers reviewing all new documentation. Tony recollection the Rams have maintained an office in CA all the while they were in Missouri. It doesn’t matter, California State law will be dictated if an injury comes up. Players DO pay state tax for each state they play a game in but players do not file for workers comp in a different state where they get injured. That’s completely wrong.

trainwrecksryan says: Mar 12, 2016 12:09 PM Too many garbage franchises polluting the league anyways. Goodell should just pull the plug on these guys, the Browns, Jags, Titans, Jets, Eagles, and Lions.

mogogo1 says: Mar 12, 2016 12:10 PM Yes, and the players would like a provision in the contract saying they’re actually working in Texas so they won’t have to pay any state income tax.
Maybe I’ll draw up a contract for myself saying I’m really living and working in some country that has no taxes. These fantasy games are fun!

docboss says: Mar 12, 2016 12:13 PM As a side note, any mention of integrity, honesty, gratitude, or playoffs should be removed from Rams dialogue as inappropriate.

mongo3401 says: Mar 12, 2016 12:13 PM Rams have no offices any longer in Missouri. They moved out of the dome and earth city last month. Their lease on earth city propert expired the last day of the 2015 league year. This is something PFT should really look into.

genericcommenter says: Mar 12, 2016 12:21 PM The Redskins have been sued multiple times and lost, for insisting that all substantive work functions are performed by the players in Virginia. The games in Maryland are considered by the team to be like some occasional non-significant part of the job. Like going to a work conference, I guess. The courts agreed, until they didn’t.

justintuckrule says: Mar 12, 2016 12:23 PM Can us fans form our own league already???

meximyke says: Mar 12, 2016 12:27 PM I heard that Missouri doesn’t have a problem with workers comp, because they are all on welfare. Most don’t work, just collect off taxpayers!!

doggeatdogg says: Mar 12, 2016 12:34 PM Isn’t the move official. Why try to this year’s players because they can’t get away with this nonsense next year so the NFLPA is correct. Every thing California applies including those killer taxes, etc. My question is, what about the contracts signed prior. Once they move, do MO laws apply or CA laws. This should have been hashed out by the league before the move.

tmaczoozoo says: Mar 12, 2016 12:36 PM Probably why they ain’t signed jack noodles!

keylimelight says: Mar 12, 2016 12:40 PM sonoco says: Mar 12, 2016 11:34 AM
“Sure, I’ll sign . . . if I get the benefit of the Missouri income tax rate.” ____________________
This is a genius observation. Really, no snark.
This is as astute as you can get when looking at contract consistency.

ramfanmatt says: Mar 12, 2016 12:44 PM I guess Stan and Demoff should have thought about all of that when they left. Yes the cost of doing business is far greater in LA than St Louis. I hope Missouri steps up and says the Rams can’t do that. Screw Stan and Demoff.

yyc2phx says: Mar 12, 2016 12:46 PM NFL much like the USA is on the downward slide…Things aren’t good

hippieway says: Mar 12, 2016 12:54 PM When they say the nfl is a business, this is the kind of stuff that is included in that statement. Lawyers get big bucks because they keep track of the small money and it doesn’t take long for a lot of small money to add up to real money.

mongo3401 says: Mar 12, 2016 12:56 PM I can see the ST Louis fans still have their panties in a warm let it go Some of your remarks are getting old Starting to sound like young school children. You are the same people that lauded Kroenke when he bought the team outright and hated Georgia Held Kroenke on the highest for hiring Fisher Loved him for spending the money on FA busted Shawn But you all forget. John Shaw brought you all the GSOT.

jturney2014 says: Mar 12, 2016 1:07 PM Rams have no choice with Cal Comp, will be enforced anyways.
The last paragraph is just over enthusiastic journalism.

mmi16 says: Mar 12, 2016 1:07 PM Stan be the man to try and circumvent the law.

tomtravis76 says: Mar 12, 2016 2:29 PM It’s so hard to try and just enjoy the team you want to cheer on these days knowing how awful the league office and owners are treating the people who support the product or work for the team’s in various roles . The greed is too much, something needs to change.

jonathankrobinson424 says: Mar 12, 2016 3:04 PM ……….make Stan rework ALL the contracts for EVERY player to have CA language. That should keep his front office busy…….

theparadoxx82 says: Mar 12, 2016 4:05 PM Business finds way to pay as little as possible!!
Film at 11.
Every company that CAN do this… DOES this.
Every. Single. One.

ebdug says: Mar 12, 2016 4:18 PM Just when you think the NFL owners can’t get any sleazier.
What kills me is it’s so poorly executed. You’d think the owners would have better shysters.

granadafan says: Mar 12, 2016 4:30 PM Say what you will about California, but at least we care about the people and working conditions.

davew128 says: Mar 12, 2016 5:08 PM patsbrat says: Mar 12, 2016 11:46 AM Are the Rams a corporation (inc) or an LLC and in what state are they filed? Wouldn’t this be the determining factor? ******************************* Wholly irrelevant. Its where you’re doing business that matters.

rcali says: Mar 12, 2016 5:11 PM Well, Welcome to California Rams, the state that chases away companies everyday.

noteamforlosangeles says: Mar 12, 2016 5:17 PM Suddenly, Donald Trump may not be the worst toupee-wearing man in America anymore.

tonebones says: Mar 12, 2016 5:22 PM Smart move by the Rams. They were hoping this would makes its way into the headlines so that now, free agents will acknowledge the player-friendly environment that California has to offer.

truthinesshurts says: Mar 12, 2016 5:44 PM “Gutsy” move by the Rams ? I can think of several more appropriate adjectives. “Slimy”…”Scummy”…”Unscrupulous”…”Chutzpah-Fueled”

binkystevens says: Mar 12, 2016 6:19 PM California has the most oppressive and insane laws related to worker’s comp in the entire country. It’s no wonder the Rams don’t want to fall under the purview- it’s no wonder so many businesses actively avoid the state. No wonder it’s going bankrupt

swagger52 says: Mar 12, 2016 7:49 PM What..We are shocked that Stan is not afraid of appearances?

cubb1 says: Mar 12, 2016 8:05 PM Another NFL owner that tries to screw his players at every opportunity.

6stn says: Mar 12, 2016 10:27 PM Stank roenke is a Wal-Martian. No surprise here.

dryzzt23 says: Mar 13, 2016 12:15 AM Screw the players. It’s about time the NFL teams are allowed to protect themselves from greedy and criminal players. The players are protected by their union and the media, NO ONE protects the NFL itself or the franchises from players who enjoy drugs, alcohol, and beating women.

Read »