No. 17-409369F.3d at 403 (holding the repudiation exception applied where an employerclaimed the employee “was not covered by the collective bargaining agreementand did not consider her grievance”). “An employer can obviously take a stancecontrary to that of the employee during the grievance process without beingdeemed to have repudiated that process.”
Rabalais
, 566 F
.
2d at 520. Here, itis undisputed the NFL and Elliott were engaged in arbitration as provided forunder the collective bargaining agreement. Unlike
Meredith
, where theemployer refused to consider the grievance under the collective bargainingagreement, the NFL cannot be said to have repudiated the agreement here.The NFLPA takes issue with the outcome and fairness of the arbitrationproceedings. However, for the repudiation exception to the exhaustionrequirements to apply, the NFL would have had to completely refuse to engagein the process.
See Meredith
, 209 F.3d at 403. Accordingly, the court finds therepudiation exception does not apply and Elliott was required to exhaust hiscontractual remedies before filing his lawsuit.When the NFLPA filed the complaint on August 31, 2017, the arbitratorhad not yet issued his decision. Although the district court issued theinjunction on September 8, 2017, and the arbitrator had previously issued hisdecision on September 5, 2017, jurisdiction depends on the facts as they existwhen the complaint was filed.
See Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain
, 490U.S. 826, 830 (1982). The district court, therefore, lacked subject matter jurisdiction when it issued the preliminary injunction.
8
Much of the dissenting opinion is devoted to examining the merits of the NFLPA’slawsuit. While these arguments and concerns about the arbitration process may have merit,they must be considered by a court with proper jurisdiction.
See Home Builders Ass’n ofMiss., Inc.
, 143 F.3d at 1010 (“When courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over a case, theylack the power to adjudicate the case.”);
Morrison v. Nat. Austl. Bank, Ltd.
, 561 U.S. 247, 254(2010) (noting that subject matter jurisdiction is “an issue quite separate from the questionof whether the allegations the plaintiff makes entitle him to relief”).
Case: 17-40936 Document: 00514193815 Page: 9 Date Filed: 10/12/2017