Brian Flores and Jon Gruden, two high-profile coaching figures in the National Football League, just made a big move against the league’s notorious arbitration clause. This provision allows NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell to act as the final arbiter in employment related grievances, despite being named as a defendant in the case. In the past, two different courts have sided in favor of Flores and Gruden. This decision will permit them to move forward with their own claims against the NFL and its teams in court, changing the legal landscape dramatically for coaches, players and employees of the league.
The arbitration clause, embedded in the NFL’s constitution, has long been criticized for its inherent bias, particularly due to Goodell’s dual role as both arbiter and potential defendant. In a notable ruling, one court panel characterized the league’s arbitration process as “unconscionable,” while another court deemed it “unworthy even of the name of arbitration.” The U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals recently blasted that process, referring to it as “arbitration in name only.” This portrayal criminalizes the serious and pervasive efforts people take to pursue justice in the league.
These rulings have given Flores the judicial power to act. He is now free to take his claims of systemic hiring discrimination by the NFL and a number of teams to court. Likewise, in Gruden’s case the Nevada Supreme Court determined that the uniqueness of the arbitration clause made it so inherently unfair as to be unenforceable. Both rulings have the potential to usher in a sea change. These changes would increase the transparency and external scrutiny of the NFL’s practices in resolving employment disputes.
As noted by law professor Jeremi Duru, these rulings are hugely consequential. He noted that they represent a win of the “little guy.” This would be a significant step towards a “sea change” in the perpetual war of attrition between players, coaches and arbitration which usually favors the league.
“The commissioner’s power over the course of many litigations, over the course of a couple decades, has benefited from or been strengthened by his ability to arbitrate these disputes,” – Jeremi Duru.
Recently, Duru noted that this authority has been chipped away in several recent court cases. In doing so, the balance of influence accordingly tilts away from the league’s favor. Doing so might embolden even more players to fight for their rights within the NFL. No longer will they have to fear retaliation or biased arbitration outcomes.
Attorney Mike Caspino emphasized the importance of these rulings, highlighting that two prominent courts have reached similar conclusions regarding the arbitration process.
“We have two courts — prominent courts — who’ve … come to the same conclusion,” – Mike Caspino.
Caspino referred to the current arbitration clause as being “an abomination of the justice system.” He focused on its detrimental effect on those fighting for justice to simply be treated equally. He hopes this legal move will discourage people from being timid about filing claims against the NFL.
Karla Gilbride, our director of litigation, underlined the significance of these court opinions. She argues they would help inform players during future collective bargaining agreements. She explained that other players and coaches, with contracts containing similar arbitration provisions, should benefit from these rulings. They can simply sue for the unenforceability of those provisions.
“For other players or coaches or people who have contracts that incorporate the [NFL] constitution, … they’ll be able to point to these court opinions and say that those arbitration provisions can’t be enforced against them either,” – Karla Gilbride.
These decisions have potentially broad implications well beyond their individual claims. If they do take action, they’ll force NFL teams to reconsider their public-facing policies and their workplace cultures to align more with that of corporate America. Advocates and experts hope that this breakthrough will produce real change in how frontline workers are treated in the notoriously exploitative league.
Jean Kuei, another legal analyst, pointed out that while these rulings predominantly impact coaches and other employees, they may not affect players as significantly due to their collective bargaining agreements. Yet, he recognized that the rulings may lead to stronger conversations about employee rights under the NFL rubric.
Leave a Reply