As rumors continue to swirl about a possible connection between Mauro Ranallo’s apparent exit from WWE and JBL’s alleged affinity for bullying behavior, many fans and commentators connected to WWE have been calling for WWE to cut ties with JBL. As a result, I have been asked to provide analysis as to the legal ramifications of any such action on the part of WWE.
At the outset, I do want to make a few issues clear: First, while it is safe to assume that JBL is a contractual performer with WWE, I do not have access to that actual contract and can only assume various provisions that may be included within. Second, I want to be clear that I take no position as to whether JBL in fact played a role in Mauro’s decision, whether JBL engaged in bullying behavior in the past, and if so, whether any of these activities should result in WWE terminating its relationship with JBL.
With those disclaimers out of the way, let’s address the obvious. There is nothing preventing WWE and JBL from reaching some sort of amicable agreement to cut ties with one another. A simple buy-out could be negotiated if both parties believed that a separation was in each’s best interest.
However, what if the situation isn’t mutual and amicable? If WWE unilaterally made a decision to terminate JBL’s contract, could it do so without exposing itself to a significant risk of legal ramifications?
Naturally, JBL’s working relationship with WWE likely is covered by a contract that sets forth a definite term. However, as is the case with most contracts, JBL’s agreement likely has a number of provisions that permit either party to terminate the contract legally prior to the term’s expiration if certain conditions are met. One common provision is termination for “just cause.” Another common provision is some sort of language that permits termination for conduct that places the company in a bad light. While this certainly is not an exhaustive list, WWE presumably could rely on provisions such as these in rendering the decision.
It is easy to follow the arguments that would be made if WWE made its decision for either of these reasons: Bullying past talent and bullying a current talent to the point of his apparent resignation certainly could represent “just cause” and without a doubt places WWE in a bad light. While many would applaud and understand WWE if it took action along these lines, the circumstances may not leave WWE free of liability.
Once again, I must reiterate that I have no knowledge that any such action is pending and have no opinion as to whether it should or should not occur. However, if this theoretical situation were to occur, these are few potential pitfalls (not an exhaustive list) that WWE could face.
I. Defamation/Slander
Let’s assume that WWE elects to terminate JBL’s contract under one of the provisions outlined above as a result of the allegations/rumors that have surfaced. In essence, WWE arguably would be taking a legal position that the allegations/rumors are true. In doing so, as a publicly traded company, WWE would be making a public statement that greatly impugns the professional and personal character of JBL.
The issue is that these allegations/rumors may not be true or, at the very least, may be incredibly difficult to prove in a court of law. If WWE were to go down this route, an angry JBL certainly could be within his rights to protect his reputation and WWE would be an obvious target for him to attempt to clear his name and recover his losses. While there is no guarantee that the circumstances would warrant JBL taking these steps, there definitely is risk involved with taking action based upon unsubstantiated or difficult to prove allegations.
II. Inconsistent Treatment
Let’s just assume for the pure sake of argument that the rumors about the Mauro/JBL situation are true and provable (again, I am in no way asserting that there is any truth to the rumors). Under these circumstances, would WWE be secure in terminating JBL’s contract for just cause or for putting WWE in a bad light?
Not necessarily.
WWE and wrestling in general has quite a storied history of in-fighting, hazing, and other behavior that may not be suitable in a typical workplace. The stories that do surface are consumed by the masses, but one has to imagine the trove of situations that haven’t been told for one reason or another.
Conceivably, JBL could challenge WWE’s decision as a breach of contract based upon an assertion that the type of activity in which he engaged is common place in a wrestling locker room and has been common place since wrestling locker rooms have existed. After all, how could he be terminated for placing WWE in a bad light when others have not? Needless to say, a possible trial with this argument as the focal point could have the potential to dwarf any of the bad press that WWE would receive for taking no action against JBL.
In the end, I again want to reiterate that I am in no way excusing the alleged conduct in this matter. I also am not commenting and truly cannot comment on what, if any, action should be taken as I am not privy to all of the factual circumstances surrounding the situation. However, I will say that whatever decision is made in this situation will have been made with the legal rights and obligations of all involved having been taken into consideration.
