Minnesota Vikings protective coordinator Brian Flores requested that a test judge’s ruling be confirmed by the appellate judge in a registration to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit last Thursday, along with other claims against the NFL, include allegations of race prejudice and retaliation against the Denver Broncos, the New York Giants, and the Minnesota Vikings.
However, Flores requests that the appellate court rule for a reason the trial judge rejected: Arbitration may be unlawful because Roger Goodell, the defendant’s chief executive officer, would be the arbitrator. In advancing this argument, Flores attempts to address the Second Circuit’s 2016 decision in the Deflategate situation, which stated Goodell you decide disputes involving league conduct.

Many of Flores ‘ simple reviews innovations during a now two-and-a-half centuries old dispute. All black public professionals, head coaches, coordinators, quarterback coaches, and other dark candidates who applied for those positions during the statute of limitations time are eligible to receive certification for a group. Next year U. S. District Judge Valerie Caproni sent Reyes ‘ claims against the Miami Dolphins, for whom he served as head coach from 2019 to 2021, to an arbitration process overseen by Goodell. He did it mostly because he had an arbitration clause in his work contract with the Dolphins.
However, Caproni rejected arbitration for Flores ‘ claims against teams that did n’t hire him and who he claims gave him” sham interviews” in an attempt to obfuscate the Rooney Rule of the NFL. Caproni argued that Flores was n’t under contract with those groups and that she had rejected group claims that his work agreements with the New England Patriots and Pittsburgh Steelers permitted mediation.
To explain, although Flores ‘ job deal to offer as Patriots linebackers manager referred to an arbitration clause in the league’s constitution, Caproni held that under Massachusetts case law, this arbitration clause was false and illegal. The league could unilaterally change the arbitration process without Flores ‘ consent or giving him notice, but the clause only bound one party ( Flores ), which the league could only do with one party.
But Flores disagrees with Caproni refusing to find the amendment’s arbitration provision itself was inexcusable. He claims that Goodell’s troubled role as an arbiter makes Flores ‘ “rights” under the anti-discrimination laws “effectively cease to exist.”
More precisely, Flores contends Goodell “is generously paid to guard” the league and teams who face his prejudice says.
” To declare Mr. Goodell is biased would be an understatement”, Flores writes. ” He is professionally and financially beholden to the NFL and its teams, he enjoys his job as NFL Commissioner–the pinnacle of power and prestige–at the leisure of NFL team owners ]and ] he is personally represented by the same attorneys representing Defendants”.

Flores also stresses that after he sued in February 2022, the commissioner’s office publicly blasted his claims as “without merit” —a move, Flores contends, reveals would-be arbitrator Goodell had prejudged his case. Additionally, Flores contends that the arbitration agreement is unjustifiable because it “does not demand any presidency preside over judicial proceedings in an independent manner, does not provide any rules of procedure, and does not even need that the Commissioner preside over judicial proceedings in an independent manner.”
The legal problem for Flores, as his brief acknowledges, is a case involving a game in which he served as safeties coach under Patriots head coach Bill Belichick. Tom Brady was charged with throwing slightly overinflated footballs during the AFC championship game between the Patriots and the Indianapolis Colts on January 18, 2015. The controversy sparked federal litigation to determine whether Goodell, who Brady claimed was biased and muddled fundamental science, could arbitrate whether the commissioner, who also included Goodell, correctly found Brady at fault and permitted him to be suspended. Although many commentators found it nonsensical, even illegitimate, that Goodell reviewed Goodell, the Second Circuit deemed this procedure permissible because Brady’s union, the NFLPA, had accepted it in the CBA.
Flores argues the Deflategate case is n’t an applicable precedent. Brady did not challenge a contract clause, despite Flores using the unconscionability doctrine to do so. Brady’s case instead involved an appeal from a district court judge, Richard Berman, vacating Goodell’s decision for inadequate notice, denial of access to investigative files and barring Brady from questioning a lead investigator.
Flores also makes note of the fact that Brady’s case involved the interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement between management and labor ( the NFL management council ) regarding a disciplinary issue involving an employee. Flores ‘ case does n’t involve a CBA or alleged employee misconduct. Instead, it’s about whether an employer has the authority to decide whether it’s broken anti-discrimination laws.
Should the Second Circuit agree with Flores, the ruling would call into question whether any of his claims–including those against the Dolphins–should be sent to arbitration. The NFL insists that Flores ‘ entire case should be brought to arbitration because he consented to working for the league, which the league claims is that the league’s employees are subject to the league constitution. In the former Las Vegas Raiders head coach Jon Gruden’s lawsuit, which has been sent to arbitration, the NFL has so far prevailed on that claim.
In Johnson v. NCAA, Flores, 43, is represented by Wigdor LLP, the same law firm that represented Jim Trotter in his retaliation case against the NFL and college athletes.