Former AEW wrestling announcer Kevin Foote (aka Kevin Kelly) and the Tate Brothers (aka The Boys) have filed an appeal to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals on their lawsuit which was dismissed this past June.
From MPO post last year:
Kevin Foote (known as Kevin Kelly) was a television commentator for Ring of Honor which is owned by AEW. The Tate Twins (formerly known as The Boys in ROH) appeared in AEW but mainly performed in Ring of Honor.
The plaintiffs signed a Talent Agreement with AEW of which ROH is described as a subsidiary. The Agreement requires the talent to provide services only to AEW and/or precludes talent from providing services to other pro wrestling companies without AEW approval. A portion of the redacted copy of the lawsuit states that talent could not challenge the validity of the Agreement.
Kelly and the Tate Twins were terminated due to “budget cuts” per the lawsuit.
For the Tate Twins, Khan indicated at a press event that they did show up for events which was the reason for their release.
The causes of action relate to their termination. This includes alleging that the arbitration clause found in their Talent Agreements was invalid.
The Arbitration Clause, like most, means that any legal disputes must be referred to arbitration rather than through filing a lawsuit. There are obvious pros and cons with going to arbitration versus going to trial. But in this case, the plaintiffs are arguing that the clause is void.
Specifically, plaintiffs argue that the Arbitration Agreement does not contain a severability clause. They were also given a “take it or leave it” deal thus the agreements were “unconscionable and unenforceable.” They also claim that the Arbitration location is in Florida per the Agreement although the residents are in Pennsylvania and Tennessee.
The appeal focuses on voiding the Arbitration clause in their talent contracts. The trial court found the clauses valid and when moved to compel arbitration by AEW, the court sided with the wrestling promotion.
Plaintiffs argue that the Arbitration Clause is unconscionable. Plaintiffs, argue that state law in Florida presides here when defining the term unconscionable. The law indicates that it is contract “that is so unfair or unreasonable that no rational person in their right mind would agree to it, and no fair and honest person would accept it. They argue that if the terms of the contract are unnegotiated or one-sided to the benefitting party, its unconscionable.
Plaintiffs bring up specific instances in which the contracts were unconscionable including the fact that the Agreements are “used industry-wide.” Also, the talent arguments include they were not afforded the opportunity to negotiate the arbitration provisions, not provided a copy of the rules and procedures of Arbitration, the arbitration provision indicates that it take place in Florida although residents live in Pennsylvania and Tennessee.
Additionally, Plaintiffs point out several provisions that are procedurally unconscionable including the lack of a severability clause, the contracts were standardized, the Tate Brothers were told not to complain and they were not notified of the costs of Arbitration
Payout Perspective:
Plaintiffs also argue several other technicalities in the Arbitration Agreements contained in the AEW contracts. The context of the further arguments suggest that the Court did not consider specific issues related to the Arbitration Agreement. AEW has yet to respond to the brief but one would assume that it would argue that the trial court did the right thing in its analysis of the contract. There is a policy to treat arbitration clauses like any other contractual provision. And while federal law favors arbitration clauses, Plaintiffs emphasize that this case is based on state law. The argument of unconscionability of contract is rarely won in contract cases. But, if Plaintiffs want some hope, a state court in California overturned a trial court ruling that Manny Pacquiao had to pay Paradigm Sports Management for breach of contract when it was determined that the contract was illegal and unenforceable. While that case involved different facts, the context is that the court evaluated the contract in its entirety. If the appeals court believes that AEW contract was unconscionable, it would go back to the trial court for further proceedings. MPO will continue to follow.
Leave a Reply