Leaving aside workplace misconduct -
why?
I mean, I know the reason the NFL has the personal conduct policy, and it's because of a PR need to deflect the bad press that occurs when a player (being a public figure) does something that embarrasses, by extension, the team and/or the league. But doing so out of a PR-driven desire to avoid criticism is different than "deserve to be suspended [from their job]". "deserve" is basically a moral argument.
It's also a long distance from having any articulable standard of proof that a company should use, or rules of evidence, or impartiality, or appeals, or any of the other trappings. I realize this is all collectively bargained - the league wanted it, the union was willing to agree if they got other things they wanted, they negotiated and signed it. But I find that the bloodthirsty attitude people often adopt towards wanting someone punished twice (and more harshly, given the fines involved), and punished
fast, and that accomplished by throwing any semblance of the legal system's due process out the window, to be itself a strong argument in favor of not being in that business at all.
Give the devil benefit of law, as goes a common V&N reference.
in other words, we clearly didn't learn the right lessons from the Ballghazi saga. The devil turned round on us, and the last law was down, and we had nowhere to turn. Therefore the lesson is, apparently, let's just suck it up for the time being, and then the next time we can sic the devil on someone else!