The long-awaited ruling on whether Browns quarterback Deshaun Watson violated the NFL’s personal conduct policy was issued Monday by Disciplinary Officer Sue L. Robinson, who was appointed jointly by the NFL and the NFLPA. Watson’s case was the first under a revamped process in the NFL’s collective bargaining agreement where commissioner Roger Goodell is no longer the sole arbiter of personal conduct discipline.
The retired U.S. District Court judge suspended Watson six games for violating the policy without imposing a fine. Because the suspensions are without pay, Watson forfeits $345,000 (or 6/18ths of his $1.035 million 2022 base salary) because he makes $57,500 in each of the 18 weeks of the regular season. None of Watson’s $44.935 million signing bonus in the fully guaranteed, five-year, $230 million contract he signed in March as part of the Texans’ trade is in jeopardy because of how the contract is structured. Robinson also felt it necessary to limit Watson’s massage therapy to team-approved massage therapists for the remainder of his career.
On Wednesday, the NFL informed the NFLPA that it will appeal Robinson’s findings. The NFLPA has two business days to file a written response to the appeal. An appeal is limited as to why discipline should be modified based on the evidentiary record. Goodell or his designee will hear the appeal. The NFLPA announced it would not appeal before the decision and suggested the NFL do the same.
Robinson found that Watson violated by engaging in sexual assault, conduct that poses an actual danger to the safety and well-being of another person, and conduct that undermines or jeopardizes the integrity of the NFL in its 16 page ruling. Essentially, the NFL won its case against Watson.
The victory seems hollow because Watson’s discipline seems light to many, as the NFL was seeking an indefinite suspension where he could apply for reinstatement after a year. For example, the National Organization for Women called the decision “unacceptable, insulting and dangerous, but not at all surprising”. During settlement talks before Robinson’s decision, the NFLPA rejected the NFL’s offer of a 12-game suspension and a $10 million fine.
Robinson clearly states at the beginning of his report that his decision was based on the evidence presented to him. Although 24 different women filed civil lawsuits against Watson alleging inappropriate sexual conduct by him during massage sessions that took place while he was with the Texans, and he reportedly booked sessions with at least 66 women over a 17-month period, the NFL’s case was based on. only four of the women who sued him.
Please check the opt-in box to acknowledge that you would like to subscribe.
Thanks for signing up!
Keep an eye on your inbox.
Sorry!
An error occurred while processing your subscription.
Robinson relied on NFL precedent, which should have been expected since she is a former referee, in determining the discipline. One of Robinson’s key findings was that Watson’s conduct was non-violent sexual assault despite referring to his actions as heinous and predatory. Robinson did not explain why Watson’s behavior was nonviolent.
Because of the lack of violence, Robinson appears to be operating from the baseline of a three-game suspension as discipline. That’s because Jameis Winston was suspended three games in 2018 for violating the personal conduct policy for groping a female Uber driver, which was a negotiated settlement between the NFL and the NFLPA. It was the most severe personal conduct penalty for non-violent sexual assault.
Aggravating and mitigating factors were considered in determining discipline. Watson’s lack of expressed remorse and untimely notice to the NFL of the initial lawsuit filed against him were cited as aggravating factors. Cooperating with the NFL’s investigation, paying restitution (presumably settling 23 of the 24 civil lawsuits), being a first-time offender and Watson’s reputation in the community before the incidents were cited as mitigating factors. The serial nature of Watson’s behavior does not seem to have been given importance, as he is considered a first-time offender, while Winston’s punishment involved a single incident with one person.
Interestingly, Robinson mentions Goodell’s failure to place Watson on the commissioner’s exempt list last season in the same paragraph as aggravating and mitigating factors. Watson was a healthy scratch last season. He was on the Texans’ 53-man roster where he was paid his $10.54 million base salary, but by mutual agreement he was out of uniform for games and did not practice with the team. Once a potential trade with the Dolphins did not occur at the midseason trading deadline, it could be interpreted that Watson was effectively serving a de facto suspension for the second half of the season.
Notice, the standards of fairness and consistency were crucial to the Robinson decision. The NFL’s argument that consistency is not possible because Watson’s conduct was unprecedented, so the punishment should be unprecedented, was not found persuasive. The following passage may help shed light on Robinson’s determination of the length of Watson’s suspension.
Robinson wrote: “By ignoring past decisions because none involve ‘similar’ conduct, however, the NFL is not only equating violent conduct with non-violent conduct, it has elevated the importance of the latter without any substantial evidence that supports his position. It may be entirely appropriate to discipline players more severely for nonviolent sexual conduct, I don’t think it’s appropriate to do so without notice of the extraordinary change this position represents for the NFL and its players.” .
Robinson also noted that the NFL has been driven by “public outcry” in determining discipline, which specifically relates to the Ray Rice case in 2014. Rice was initially suspended for two games under the policy of personal conduct, but was later suspended indefinitely after his video. The incident of domestic violence against his wife became public. The indefinite suspension was overturned on appeal because Rice was being punished twice for the same crime.
Robinson apparently found some parallels in Watson’s situation where the NFL was arguing for a harsher penalty than was stated in the policy “without the benefit of fair warning” and “consistency of consequences.” It would not be surprising if there was a revision of the personal conduct policy where the punishments for non-violent sexual assault are clearly spelled out because of the Robinson decision, just as changes were made after the Rice ordeal .
The NFLPA’s argument that league ownership and management have traditionally been held to a higher standard and will be subject to greater discipline, as specifically stated in the personal conduct policy, but that they have escaped punishment for similar or worse conduct, seems to have resonated with Robinson. In a footnote, Robinson acknowledges that the policy applies equally to players, team owners and management.
The court of public opinion will clearly side with the NFL on an appeal because the consensus is that Watson’s punishment is too lenient. The NFL would return to the position it was trying to avoid by becoming the final arbiter of personal conduct discipline in the first case under the revised process. An appeal essentially undermines Robinson’s decision, as Watson’s punishment would surely increase.
The NFLPA is reportedly willing to seek recourse through the legal system in response to the appeal. In the past, the NFLPA has been able to obtain injunctive relief, which could allow Watson to start the season on the field. Ultimately, the NFLPA has been unsuccessful in overturning the discipline through legal proceedings, only in delaying the discipline.