The U.S. Supreme Court gave a key victory to players on minor league teams, clearing the way for them to sue to be paid the minimum wage while they’re in spring training in Arizona.
Without comment Monday, the justices declined to disturb an appellate court decision that says the players may pursue a class-action lawsuit to show that the 15 teams that train here were not obeying minimum wage laws. Arizona law currently mandates that all employees get at least $12 an hour.
An attorney for the players, Bob King, called the high court decision “great news.”
“After almost four years on appeal, the players can now return to the trial court to ensure that Major League Baseball and team owners comply with minimum and overtime wage laws, a welcome development for minor leaguers in a very unusual year,” he said in a statement.
The Cleveland Indians visited Tucson for spring training each year from 1947 to 1993.
Garrett Broshuis, who also represents minor league players, has said he did not know how much money is at stake in terms of missed pay for work already done.
“You have players that are required to report to spring training every spring and they have to work for no pay there,” he said. “We believe that is fundamentally unfair and that no worker should be forced to work for free.”
He said part of the focus now is changing the rules for future players. The financial hit to teams with payrolls of more than $100 million a year should not break them, Broshuis added.
In a prepared statement, MLB said it does not comment on litigation. But the organization also suggested the lawsuit was unnecessary.
“MLB had long planned to increase minor league player salaries as part of our next agreement with minor league clubs,” the statement said, saying players will receive salary increases ranging from 38% to 72% for the 2021 season.
And the organization said it is focused on efforts to “enhance” the experience for players, including “renovated facilities, reduced travel, and improved daily working conditions.”
Central to the dispute is that most major professional sports in this country have their own “farm system” to develop talent. For baseball, according to court records, it’s an extensive minor league system with nearly 200 affiliates across the country employing about 6,000 players.
All minor league players are required to sign a seven-year uniform player contract, a contract that spells out that first-year players are paid a fixed salary of $1,100 a month during the regular season.
But beginning in early March, the minor league affiliates conduct spring training in Arizona and Florida. And appellate Judge Richard Paez, writing for the majority in last year’s ruling by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, said that contract “strongly indicates” participation is mandatory.
Virtually all players are not paid during the four-week period, with some players saying that training entails working seven days a week.
There also are “instructional leagues” after the regular season.
“And just as with spring training, players are virtually never paid for participation in the instructional league,” Paez wrote.
In fact, Paez said that of the 21,211 players who participated in spring training between the 2009 and 2015 seasons, only 11 were paid a salary.
That led to the class-action lawsuit against major league baseball and all the teams, charging them with violating labor laws in Arizona, Florida and California, with more than 2,200 current and former minor league players opting in.
Attorneys for the league and the teams sought to quash the class-action move, contending in part that players from teams across the country should not be able to argue they are entitled to the protections of Arizona’s laws, which have a higher minimum wage than required under federal laws. Paez rejected that contention.
“The laws of Arizona and Florida should apply to the work performed wholly within their respective boundaries,” he wrote.
Monday’s Supreme Court ruling clearing the way for the class-action lawsuit does not mean the players ultimately will win.
Paez, in issuing the appellate ruling, said the case will come down to two questions: Are they employees, and do the activities they perform during those times constitute “compensable work.”
