Round 2 - Where's the justice Mr. Goodell (HR Perspective)? First Ben, now Deebo

Well, I am going to give this another try even though I am not a "normal" contributor so I will probably get ripped because I post in the wrong spot or something.  Regardless, I have been personally interested in Roger Goodell's actions concerning discipline from a human resources perspective. 

Part I - Violating Working Rules

Goodell is using HR rhetoric as his basis for handling these situations (i.e. violating The Personal Conduct policy).  He is essentially referring to the "working rules" section of the NFL employee handbook and stating a player has violated a working rule just as you or I might face at any of our respective companies.

I do not wish to belabor the Big Ben suspension, but was irritated by the suspension when it was levied given the fact Ben was neither convicted nor formally charged with anything unlike Braylon Edwards, Cedric Benson, Vince Young, so on and so forth as we have all discussed endlessly.  The original Personal Conduct Policy was enacted late 2006/early 2007 and focused on criminal activity (see sample of policy from old ESPN article: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2798214) and then case interpretations led to the current, more hazy interpretation of harmful activity (see updated ESPN post from April 2010:  http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/21598/nfl-personal-conduct-policy#comments).

Now, Old Man Farve will probably get off with a stiff talking to about sending inappropriate pictures.  If that is the case, as a privately held corporation/trade association that is subject to national labor laws like any other corporation, the NFL would be running a risk of establishing inconsistent progressive discipline strategy.  Apparently, a national business periodical (Forbes) feels the same way . . . http://blogs.forbes.com/sportsmoney/2010/10/13/roethlisberger-farve-and-the-nfls-personal-conduct-policy/ (I also find the union/collective bargaining commentary in this article interesting).

Legally, I'm sure a lawyer can explain why their situations (Ben's & Brett's) are different and therefore not subject to the same discipline, but the NFL is still beginning to establish a line of inconsistent enforcement of rules.

Part II - Disciplinary Actions & The Investigative Process

Now, moving on to James Harrison - Goodell/the League is also stating there was a violation of working rules (in a basic sense) that results in a need for disciplinary action to "improve performance" (as a normal company might state).  However, Deebo was not the only "employee" to violate the exact same working rule in the exact same manner (i.e. Robinson & Merriweather).  However, for a seemingly similar violation, Deebo recieves a $75,000 fine for a hit that was while the two other individuals only received $50,000 fines.

HR policies primarily focus on establishing consistent, documented practices to ensure "the company" handles violations in a similar manner.  Whenever there is a violation, common practice is to conduct an investigative process that begins with fact finding, interviewing the employees involved, documenting everything along the way, and then determining discipline based on the facts.

In this situation you have three seemingly identical "violations".  I would be very interested to learn the quantitative measures that were implemented and the investigative process that the NFL used to determine and justify why Deebo's hit was $25K more valuable than the others.  Watching all three hits, I would have an incredibly hard time pinpointing FACTS that differentiate a difference.  Some might say he established "a pattern" after the hit on Cribb's earlier, but that was a legal hit that was not a violation of working rules or subject to discipline.  To use this would be the same as heresay or speculation if you are conducting a factual investigation.

Conclusion

Regardless of how you personally feel about Big Ben or Deebo, if the commish or "the company" is going to discipline on a violation of policy, an investigative process that focuses on facts, and punishment should be consistent for ALL employees. . . at least, that would be how you have to legally apply it at any normal company.  From a policy standpoint, this appears to be an extremely inconsistent application of rules and, if it was my company, I would be ethically upset.  And, well, I am ethically upset as a fan of the game (not just of the Steelers).