Judge Bans ATP Tour From Retaliating Against Players in Major Lawsuit

A federal judge ordered the ATP Tour to not retaliate against tennis players who are suing or joining a lawsuit against the tour. 

The judge, Margaret Garnett, ordered the tour to send players a letter she wrote that bars the circuit from retaliation related to the blockbuster class action lawsuit.

The plaintiffs—12 players and the Professional Tennis Players Association—last month sought a comprehensive gag order preventing the ATP from discussing the case with its members. They had accused the tour of pressuring and threatening players in the days after the March 18 filing of the lawsuit. An ATP board member had circulated a two-sentence statement that said the signer renounced the lawsuit.

In her letter, Garnett writes, “This statement has no legal effect on your status as a potential class member or your legal rights in connection with the lawsuit. If you signed this statement, you have not waived your right to participate in this lawsuit either now or in the future, if you choose.

“Further, you are hereby informed that ATP Tour, Inc. is legally prohibited from retaliating in any way, or threatening retaliation, directly or indirectly, against you for considering participating in or ultimately deciding to participate in this lawsuit. “

Judge Garnett did not go as far as the plaintiffs wanted. She didn’t ban the ATP from discussing the case with its members, or order it to turn over all communications with players. But she did find the ATP could reasonably be viewed as coercing players—potential class members—from signing on to the lawsuit, given the power it has over the players.

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the court’s responsibility to shield prospective class members from unauthorized, misleading communications disseminated by the parties or their counsel. 

“The Court further finds that ATP did in fact leverage its power over putative class
members to directly or indirectly coerce or mislead putative class members into disavowing this action, thereby posing a serious threat to the fairness of the litigation process, the adequacy of representation, and the administration of justice generally,” she wrote. 

At a hearing last month, Vasek Pospisil and Reilly Opelka—two of the named player plaintiffs—testified about threats they said the ATP made, warning them they could lose their pensions and be saddled with onerous legal costs. The duo did not name anyone specifically making the threats, and the ATP called it hearsay and protested the judge allowing the testimony.

In her 19-page decision, Garnett wrote she gave Opelka’s testimony about an unnamed Players Council member warning him little weight because it is hearsay. But then a few lines later she described his testimony as “credible” and that it “further supports the Court’s Finding that putative class members are particularly susceptible to economic coercion by ATP and that ATP’s conduct thus far has a tendency to coerce or mislead.”

And Garnett wrote she questioned the testimony of ATP board member Luben Pampoulov. He was the one who, at the Miami Open on March 19, asked players to sign the two-sentence statement disavowing the lawsuit.  

“Mr. Pampoulov was inexplicably vague with respect to certain key aspects of the position statement, including how and why the position statement came about, all of which undermines his credibility regarding the non-coercive intent of the statement,” Judge Garnett wrote

The plaintiffs’ case also targets the WTA Tour, the International Tennis Federation and the sport’s drug testing body. The plaintiffs have not accused these other entities of coercion or retaliation.

The lawsuit charges the four tennis entities with widespread antitrust violations, including conspiring to suppress player pay and controlling them through onerous and restrictive work rules.

A lawyer for the ATP, did not reply for comment and the PTPA declined comment. A lawyer for the plaintiffs, Jim Quinn, wrote in a text message, “Obviously we are very pleased with the Judge’s well reasoned opinion and her Order protecting the potential class members.”