In two recent articles, I discussed a Nevada state court’s denial of a National Football League motion to compel arbitration of a lawsuit filed by the former Raiders head coach from Las Vegas, Jon Gruden. The first message examined the Court’s apparent disregard for case law upholding the power of sports commissioners to arbitrate disputes within their leagues. THE second message explained how the NFL’s confusing arbitration provisions made his position difficult.
A little over a month later, the NFL gets another chance. In February, Former Miami Dolphins head coach Brian Flores sued the NFL, Dolphins, New York Giants and Denver Broncos, alleging racist hiring policies and practices. Steve Wilks and Ray Horton, two other NFL coaches, joined Mr. Flores’ trial in April.
On June 21, the NFL and the defendant clubs filed a petition in federal court for the Southern District of New York demanding arbitration. In its brief, the NFL makes the same arguments as in the Gruden case: first, the plaintiff coaches agreed to broad arbitration provisions, which require any dispute to be submitted to the commissioner; and second, courts have historically deferred to the management of the internal affairs of sports leagues.
Will the NFL do better this time?
Arbitration provisions
The NFL’s motion to compel is based on the coaches’ various employment contracts — specifically, Mr. Flores’s 2019-24 deal with the Dolphins, Mr. Flores’s 2016-2018 deal with the New England Patriots, Mr. Wilks’ 2018-22 deal with the Arizona Cardinals, Mr. Wilks’ 2022-24 deal with the Carolina Panthers, and Mr. Wilks’ 2014-17 deal. Horton with the Tennessee Titans. The NFL maintains that these arbitration provisions are broad enough to encompass all claims against the NFL and any of its member clubs.
The arbitration language of most of these agreements is available here.
Will the NFL succeed this time?
The NFL’s motion to compel arbitration in the Flores case could suffer the same fate as that suffered in the Gruden case. The NFL lost its motion to compel in the Gruden case, at least in part because the Nevada court determined that the arbitration provision covered only disputes between Mr. Gruden and the Raiders, not between Mr. Gruden and the NFL. The Flores, Wilks and Horton arbitration agreements also all appear to be limited to disputes between the coach and the club. Mr. Wilks’ agreement with the Panthers refers to “the NFL,” but it is unclear whether it refers to arbitration disputes with the NFL itself or just with the “directors, officers , employees” of the league. or one or more agents. »
It is, however, possible that the court in Flores will consider the term “arising out of” more broadly in coaches’ arbitration agreements to also include disputes between coaches and the NFL.
Location is also important here. The Nevada state court did not address the issue of courts’ historical deference to leagues’ internal management and dispute resolution. Indeed, no Nevada court has ever addressed this issue. On the other hand, the federal court for the Southern District of New York, before which the Flores case is pending, and the United States Court of Appeals for Second Circuithave abundant case law.
Additionally, unlike the Gruden case, three clubs were sued in the Flores case: the Dolphins, the Giants and the Broncos. It would appear difficult for Mr. Flores to escape his agreement to arbitrate potential disputes with the Dolphins. Yet neither Mr. Flores, nor Mr. Wilks, nor Mr. Horton ever had an arbitration agreement with the Giants or the Broncos. Thus, the Giants and Broncos are not well positioned to compel arbitration if the NFL cannot make its case that the relevant arbitration provisions should be interpreted broadly. But the case could become fraught if claims against the Dolphins go to arbitration while other claims remain in federal court. It’s possible the Dolphins will waive their right to arbitration to allow for a more effective defense.
The NFL may of course still prevail in the suit against Flores even if the case remains before the courts. But the league would certainly prefer to be in arbitration to avoid sensitive issues in the dispute being made public. Regardless, as I explained in a previous article on Mr. Gruden’s case, the NFL would be wise to review – and expand – the scope of its arbitration clauses.
