Super Bowl Monday Special: PA Court Says NFL Player Was Not “Seasonal” Employee

With a tip of the hat to those of you who reported to the office today — according to a recent research article by Joyce Maroney, Executive Director of the Workforce Institute at Kronos, some 17.5 million Americans won’t show your sort of diligent commitment as they will take the day off — I’ve found an NFL-branded decision that may pique your interest. Earlier this year, in Pittsburgh Steelers Sports, Inc. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Trucks), 2020 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 14 (Jan. 3, 2020), a Pennsylvania appellate court affirmed a decision by the state’s Workers’ Compensation Board that awarded TTD benefits by calculating the NFL player’s average weekly wage according to the mathematical rule found in 77 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 582(c), as opposed to subsection (e), based on the Board’s finding that the player was not a “seasonal” employee.

Background

Anthony H. Trucks (Claimant) entered into an NFL Player Contract in January 2008 with the Pittsburgh Steelers NFL team. The contract spanned two football seasons. It detailed Claimant’s responsibilities — attending “mini-camp(s), official pre-season training camp, employer meetings, practice sessions, and all pre-season, regular season, and post-season games — and provided that Claimant was to receive a yearly salary of $200,000 for the first season, and $230,000 for the second. Important to the discussion below, Claimant was further obligated to attend ten assigned appearances per year on behalf of the Steelers and to cooperate with news media in promoting the NFL. Under the terms of the contract, the Steelers were required to pay the compensation in weekly or biweekly installments over the course of the regular season.

In 2011, Claimant filed a workers’ compensation claim, alleging that he had sustained a work-related injury to his left shoulder on August 8, 2008. After a series of hearings, Claimant was awarded benefits at the maximum compensation rate ($807 per week), based upon a finding that Claimant’s AWW was $3,846.15 under Section 309(c) of the Act [77 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 582(c)]. The Steelers appealed, contending the AWW should have been calculated according to Section 309(e) of the Act since, as it argued, Claimant should be classified as a “seasonal employee.”

Court Acknowledged, but Distinguished Earlier Decisions

The appellate court acknowledged that within the context of professional sports, it had twice previously addressed whether a professional football player is a seasonal employee for purposes of Section 309(e): Station v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeal Bd. (Pittsburgh Steelers Sports, Inc.), 608 A.2d 625, 147 Pa. Commw. 512 (Pa. Cmwlth.), appeal denied, 532 Pa. 659, 615 A.2d 1315 (Pa. 1992), and Ross v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Arena Football League), 702 A.2d 1099 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997), appeal denied, 555 Pa. 723, 724 A.2d 937 (Pa. 1998). The court added that in both Station and Ross, it had found the player to be a seasonal employee.

The court noted what it considered important differences in the contracts in play with both the Station and Ross cases and those that were in effect in the instant case involving Claimant. For example, in Station and Ross, the claimants had to perform their obligations during a fixed and defined period of time, yet such a term was not present in this case.

Did Contract Require Activities Outside Game of Football?

The court stressed that in Station and Ross, the court had determined that because the football players could not play football throughout the year, they were necessarily seasonal employees. Here, however, focusing on the totality of the circumstances, the court said the contract asserted some measure of control over Claimant outside of the regular season [emphasis added]. Claimant was required to attend ten assigned appearances per year and to cooperate with the news media in promoting the NFL, requirements that were not present in Station and Ross. Based on the foregoing, the court said the Board had not erred in computing the AWW under Section 309(c) and not Section 309(e).

Comment/Query

I’m scratching my head as to why this case was so strenuously litigated by the Steelers. Math isn’t my strong suit, but I’m left wondering if, given the $200,000 annual salary, what difference did it make which subsection was used [“(c)” or “(e)”]. It seems either way the maximum compensation rate — $807 per week — would have been payable.

Pennsylvania practitioners: I have to be missing something here. What difference would the use of “(e)” have actually have made? I think I’ll reach out to Judge David B. Torrey. When it comes to workers’ compensation matters within the Keystone State (and often well beyond), he’s the fount of all legal wisdom.