U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff explained why he had last week denied the team’s activity to dismiss all promises in former NFL Media writer Jim Trotter’s work discrimination lawsuit in an opinion that placed constitutional weight on NFL commissioner Roger Goodell’s choice of words when responding to a question about the group and team hiring Black people.
Rakoff’s decision occurred last month in the Southern District of New York, but until now the prosecutor had never released an argument. Rakoff has refuted Trotter’s retaliation say under Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, as well as his opposition to the award-winning writer’s another five states for angry work conditions and alleged breaches of New York rules.

Trotter worked for NFL Media, the group- owned advertising shoulder, from 2018 to 2023. The NFL declined to renew his contract last year, which Trotter attributes to his vital inquiries of league officials and bosses, most notably the inspector during frequently watched Super Bowl press conferences, regarding racism and lack of diversity.
Rakoff refuted a number of the NFL’s legal claims.
Second, when Trotter questioned Goodell in press conferences held in 2022 and 2023, the group insisted that he was acting as a writer for the NFL Network and never engaged in a “protected exercise,” as the name is understood in work law. A protected activity typically entails challenging, opposing, or protesting an employment practice on the grounds that it is breaking anti-discrimination laws.
In 2022, Trotter asked Goodell,” So as a member of the media group, and as a Black man, I ask, why does the NFL and its owners have such a difficult time at the highest levels hiring Black people into decision- making positions”?
A year later he asked,” And so, I would ask you as an employee, when are we in the newsroom going to have a Black person in senior management, and when will we have a full- time Black employee on the news desk”?
Rakoff argued that the possibility that Trotter was performing his duties as part of a protected activity was n’t extinguished by the case precedent. ” Just as an]human resources ] professional’s accusations of discrimination are protected even if investigating those accusations is part of his or her job responsibilities”, Rakoff explained,” so too are a news reporter’s accusations of discrimination made as part of his reporting duties”.
The judge also found lacking the league’s argument that Trotter’s complaints were too generic to constitute protected activity. Trotter questioned Goodell about a lack of diversity in the NFL newsroom, according to the NFL, and that was not Trotter complaining about an alleged violation of anti-discrimination laws.
Rakoff concurred to a degree. He wrote that when an employee objects to gaps in diversity or insufficient efforts to attract a diverse applicant pool, those objections, by themselves, fall short of protected activity. He added that since Title VII does n’t require affirmative action, if Trotter “were simply advocating for greater affirmative action on the part of the NFL,” he would n’t have been engaged in protected activity.

But Rakoff determined “ample circumstantial evidence” indicates Trotter possessed a” good faith, reasonable belief” he was directly challenging employment practices. ” The complete absence of Black managers or news desk personnel at NFL Media”, Rakoff explained, counts as such evidence. Additional evidence includes” the fact that this dearth of Black representation was actually irrational because the player population NFL Media is reporting on is 60 % to 70 % Black, the NFL had been accused of racism in the hiring of Black coaches in the [Brian ] Flores class action, and the NFL had failed to improve despite Trotter’s repeated complaints and Goodell’s commitment to take steps to do so”
Rakoff was still persuaded that Trotter had a clear message to the NFL regarding his beliefs.
One hurdle for Trotter, Rakoff clarified, is that he did n’t use the word “discrimination” in either of Goodell’s press conferences. He instead referred to the phrase “diversity, equity and inclusion” which could signal he was pressuring the NFL to honor its promises for a more diverse workforce. As opposed to actually claiming that the employer is breaking the law, general advocacy for diversity and aspirational pleas for more diverse hiring are not considered protected activities.
Rakoff emphasized that Trotter’s assertions that he was a reporter, a media member, a Black man, and an employee were appropriate responses to Goodell.
Goodell’s choice of words in response to Trotter also swayed Rakoff to advance Trotter’s claim.
According to Goodell, the league needs to “become more effective in our policies and procedures.” Goodell’s words, Rakoff reasoned, suggest he “understood Trotter’s comment as complaining about NFL policies that may have a disparate impact on minority employees and applicants, thereby constituting an unlawful employment practice”.
Rakoff claimed that other NFL officials ‘ alleged assertions indicated Trotter was being watched for protected activities. In a national media conference call in January 2023 about diversity in coaching, Trotter questioned NFL executive vice president and chief administrative officer Dasha Smith about when the league’s media operations would employ a Black person in a manager position and when the news desk would employ a full-time Black employee. Rakoff found Smith’s alleged response relevant to the analysis.
She is quoted as saying:” Yes, Jim. You regularly inform us of this. Hopefully, you wo n’t have to ask any more questions in the coming year.
Rakoff then explained why he refuted claims made by Trotter about the hostile work environment and New York law.
Trotter claims that because he was allegedly told not to report racist remarks by two NFL owners ( Buffalo Bills owner Terry Pegula and Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones ), he was subjected to a hostile work environment. Additionally, Trotter points out that the league is allegedly not responding to his objections and that there are n’t any hiring or promotion of Black employees. Rakoff wrote that NFL owners ‘” stray comments” —even racist ones —”do not create a sufficiently pervasive hostile environment by themselves”.
The judge explained that the analysis might change if racist remarks are persistent and repeated, but only a few comments suffice to support a valid claim.
Rakoff also rebuked the notion that resentment over a lack of diversity in the workplace does not create a hostile work environment. Trotter repeatedly opposed hiring practices, but the judge emphasized that he himself was n’t subject to them and that he did n’t “identify any other specific individual who was.”
In regards to Trotter’s claims based on New York law, Rakoff rejected them because Trotter “failed to allege that any discriminatory conduct was felt in New York.” Ratoff noted that Trotter worked in a California office and is a California resident. Trotter spent some time in New York for his NFL duties, but his complaint does n’t mention any instances of “discriminatory conduct” while he was there. Additionally, his employment contract does not state that New York law applies.
While Rakoff’s ruling shrunk Trotter’s case, the case has still advanced to pretrial discovery. Trotter and his attorneys will be able to request sworn testimony from league officials and owners as well as obtain emails, texts, and other information about racial and employment-related sensitive matters.