Trump's Nfl Antics: Lawful Or Unlawful?

In 2017, Donald Trump, then President of the United States, publicly advocated for NFL owners to fire players who refused to stand for the national anthem at football games. This raised the question of whether it would be unlawful to fire an employee for refusing to do so if the basis were to protest perceived societal racial injustice. While Trump did not explicitly ask the NFL to break the law, his comments sparked a debate about the legality of firing employees for their political or social views. The NFL itself stated that it would not dismiss protesting players. This incident is part of a larger pattern of tension between Trump and the NFL, dating back to the 1980s, including Trump's failed attempts to become an NFL team owner and his involvement in a lawsuit against the league while he owned a team in a rival league.

Did Trump's comments on firing NFL players who knelt violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

In 2017, then-President Donald Trump publicly advocated for NFL owners to fire players who refused to stand for the national anthem at football games. This raised the question of whether Trump's comments violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, religion, gender, and national origin.

The question of whether NFL players who choose not to stand during the national anthem are engaged in protected activity is complex. On the one hand, one could argue that their actions do not constitute a complaint about discriminatory employment practices within the NFL itself. However, courts have broadly construed the anti-retaliation provision of Title VII to ensure that the remedial intent of the law is accomplished.

Additionally, one could argue that refusing to stand for the national anthem is an opposition to a good faith perception of an unlawful employment practice. For example, if a player believes that the national anthem represents oppression of people of color, then they may perceive their employer's decision to play the anthem as support for racial injustice. As long as this belief is held in good faith, it could be considered an opposition to a perceived discriminatory employment practice, and therefore protected activity under Title VII.

While the law is unclear in this area, NFL teams should be cautious about retaliating against players for protesting during the national anthem, as it could potentially lead to protracted litigation. The NFL has publicly stated that it will not dismiss protesting players, but the issue has sparked ongoing debate and discussion.

Can NFL players be fired for kneeling during the national anthem?

In 2016, a number of National Football League (NFL) players began kneeling instead of standing during the national anthem in protest of racial inequality and police brutality. This act of dissent proved to have negative career consequences for the players who kneeled. The first to take a knee, San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick, opted out of his contract the following year and has yet to resume playing in the league.

In 2017, President Donald Trump publicly advocated for NFL owners to fire players who refused to stand for the national anthem at football games. This raises the question: would it be unlawful to fire an employee for refusing to do so if the basis were to protest perceived societal racial injustice?

The question then becomes whether NFL players who choose not to stand during the national anthem are engaged in protected activity. One could argue that an NFL player who refuses to stand during the national anthem is not engaged in a protected activity because they are not complaining about any discriminatory employment practice. However, courts have broadly construed the anti-retaliation provision of Title VII, and it is not clear that a player's refusal to stand would not be considered protected activity.

While it is not explicitly stated that NFL players can be fired for kneeling during the national anthem, the act of kneeling has had negative career consequences for players, and the owners' decisions to release or trade these players may be related to their participation in the protests.

Did Trump's comments constitute an abuse of power?

In 2017, then-President Donald Trump publicly advocated for NFL owners to fire players who refused to stand for the national anthem at football games. This raised the question of whether Trump's comments constituted an abuse of power or a violation of the law.

Trump's comments were seen as racially charged against the primarily African American athletes who were protesting. Some analysts viewed his comments as part of his continued feud with the NFL, dating back to the 1980s when he tried unsuccessfully to become an NFL team owner. Trump's advocacy for firing players who protested during the national anthem sparked debate about the legal rights of employees to freedom of speech and whether NFL teams, as recipients of public funding and tax breaks, could be considered public actors.

While the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees constitutional free speech rights for public employees, NFL players' freedom of speech depends on a variety of factors, including the nature of their employment contracts and the motivation behind their protests. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on race, religion, gender, and national origin, and it also protects employees from retaliation for opposing discriminatory conduct. The question arises as to whether NFL players who protest during the national anthem are engaged in "protected activity" under this law. Courts have broadly construed anti-retaliation provisions, but the specific circumstances of the protests and the reasons for any potential disciplinary action by team owners would be crucial in determining whether an unlawful retaliation had occurred.

Trump's comments as president carried significant weight and could be perceived as influencing team owners' decisions on player discipline. This dynamic complicates the public-private analysis of NFL teams and raises questions about whether teams could be seen as instruments of the government if they fired players to appease the president. While there is limited legal precedent for such a scenario, constitutional free speech protections are intended to prevent the government from intruding on personal expression, especially when it relates to government speech.

In conclusion, the debate surrounding Trump's comments and their potential impact on NFL players' employment status is complex and involves the intersection of constitutional rights, employment law, and the unique dynamics of professional sports. While Trump's comments may not have constituted a clear-cut abuse of power, they certainly tested the boundaries of free speech and raised important legal and ethical questions.

Did Trump's comments contribute to a culture war?

In 2017, Donald Trump, then President of the United States, publicly advocated for NFL owners to fire players who refused to stand for the national anthem at football games. This was in response to players kneeling during the national anthem to protest police brutality and poor race relations. Trump's comments were seen as elevating the protests from a small issue within the NFL to a part of the larger culture war between liberals and conservatives in the United States.

Trump's comments were also seen as a continuation of his feud with the NFL, which began in the 1980s when he tried and failed to become an owner of an NFL team. Trump's actions during this time, including leading a lawsuit against the NFL, have been viewed as a major factor in the dissolution of the USFL (United States Football League). As such, some analysts interpreted Trump's comments as an act of retribution against the NFL.

Trump's call to fire NFL players who refused to stand for the national anthem raises the question of whether it would be unlawful to do so. This is a complex legal issue, as it depends on various factors, including the laws that employee freedom of speech derives from and the distinction between public and private actors.

While NFL teams are likely private actors, there are arguments that substantial public funding for NFL stadiums and tax breaks for NFL clubs could convert certain clubs into public actors. Additionally, Trump's repeated calls for NFL teams to fire players may further complicate the public-private analysis.

The NFL collective bargaining agreement may also provide protections for players with respect to contractual free speech. NFL players are hired for a term of years and cannot simply be fired for exercising political speech unless it violates the terms of their contract. Any team punishment is also subject to internal arbitration, giving players the right to challenge any punishment.

As of 2017, it remained unclear whether an NFL team could legally fire a player for refusing to stand for the national anthem.

Did the NFL ban Trump from owning a franchise?

In 2017, Donald Trump, then the President of the United States, publicly advocated for NFL owners to fire players who refused to stand for the national anthem at football games. This raised the question of whether it would be unlawful to fire an employee for refusing to do so if the reason was to protest perceived societal racial injustice.

In the case of NFL players refusing to stand during the national anthem, the players were expressing a protest against societal racial injustice or support for those who make such protests. However, it was unclear whether this specific action fell under "protected activity" as defined by the law.

While Trump did not own an NFL franchise, he did own the New Jersey Generals, a USFL team in the 1980s. He was also a driving force behind an antitrust lawsuit against the NFL, which the USFL ultimately won but was awarded only $3.76 in damages. This effectively ended the USFL.

During this time, Trump expressed his desire to own an NFL franchise. According to Leslie Schupak, senior managing partner at KCSA Worldwide (the USFL's marketing and public relations firm), then-NFL commissioner Pete Rozelle stated that Trump would never be allowed to own an NFL franchise. However, this statement was not codified or enforceable as an NFL rule, and it is unclear whether the NFL officially banned Trump from owning a franchise.

Frequently asked questions