Attorneys debate if minor leaguers are employees

Attorneys for Major League Baseball and players argued Friday before a federal magistrate judge in San Francisco for dueling motions for summary judgment in a class action alleging MLB violated wage and hour laws.

The issues discussed were: whether minor leaguers were considered employees, were still considered employees during training, were jointly employed by MLB and the MLB clubs, were considered working during travel to and from away games and training seasons, or were classified as "creative professionals" and exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act or fall under the "seasonal and amusement" exemption of the act.

Former MLB player and minor league pitcher Garrett R. Broshuis of Korein Tillery LLC represents the plaintiffs, a class of players in Arizona, California and Florida. Elise M. Bloom of Proskauer Rose LLP represents MLB, with U.S. Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero presiding.

Plaintiffs alleged in complaints that "The defendants have preyed upon minor leaguers, who are powerless to combat the collusive power of the MLB cartel. MLB continues to actively and openly collude on many aspects of minor leaguers' working conditions, including, but not limited to, wages, contract terms, drug testing, and discipline."

According to plaintiffs, most minor leaguers earn $3,000 to $7,500 for the entire year, despite frequently working more than 50 hours a week. The players receive no overtime compensation and no wages at all during training and instructional time.

Plaintiffs allege this is because the minor league players have no union, and the major leaguers' union does not represent them. As a result, minor leaguers live in poverty, they said.

Broshuis argued Friday that plaintiffs were in fact employees, and if the judge agrees with this assertion, the players are protected by the federal law. If Spero rules in favor of plaintiffs on this point, the class of minor leaguers essentially win the case.

Bloom argued that minor league players are only employees during the baseball season. Broshuis countered by accusing defendants of attempting to segment the employment status of the minor leaguers, even though their contracts state they provide their services for the entire year.

Broshuis continued by saying that players should be considered jointly employed by MLB and the MLB clubs, which would hold them liable for any alleged offenses.

Broshuis said that players should be compensated for the time they take to travel while Bloom asserted that if the players have the possibility to use their personal vehicles and instead of the team bus to travel, it should be considered a commute. Spero pointed out the defendants did not submit a single piece of evidence on the record showing that a single player used his own vehicle to travel.

Bloom contended that as long as there is a possibility of that scenario occurring, her argument holds merit.

The last points that were discussed were the "creative professionals" and "seasonal and amusement" exemptions of the FLSA. Bloom argued that professional baseball players were considered something similar to artists because their athleticism cannot be achieved by just repetition and practice, it requires special talent and their performance is an art form. Moreover, she asserted minor leaguers are entertainers that do not perform throughout the entire year, which would classify them as exactly seasonal and for people's amusement. Both parties and the judge had a lively back-and-forth on these matters but ultimately concluded that there is no strict criteria to determine who falls under these categories.

Spero did not rule in favor of either party on any of the points discussed and the arguments will continue on Wednesday. Senne et al. v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball, et al., 3:14-cv-00608, (N.D. Cal., filed Feb. 07, 2014).