The NFL and Minnesota Vikings defensive coordinator Brian Flores discussion whether a national trial judge had the right to support his race-discrimination and reprisal claims against the Denver Broncos, New York Giants, and Houston Texans, as well as related says against the NFL in new fighting files at the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
In a Sept. 13 brief, the league uses its most recent victory to support its claim that Flores, like Gruden, must resolve disputes through an arbitration process led by NFL commissioner Roger Goodell before the coach can go to federal courts. The NFL believes that the Gruden case advances league arguments, even though it is from a different court and is not binding precedent at the Second Circuit.

Last year, U. S. District Judge Valerie Caproni rejected the NFL’s assertion that Flores ‘ claims against the Broncos, Giants and Texans should be dismissed to an arbitration process detailed in the league constitution. Flores claims those organizations gave him” sham interviews” before denying him coaching positions.
As only a job candidate, Flores never signed employment contracts with those teams. Although Flores ‘ employment agreements with the New England Patriots and Pittsburgh Steelers had arbitration clauses, Caproni argued that those agreements did n’t apply to his dealings with the Broncos, Giants, and Texans. On the other hand, Caproni dispatched Flores ‘ claims against his former employer, the Miami Dolphins, to arbitration since his employment contract with the Dolphins contemplated arbitration.
The NFL argues Caproni erred in several ways, including when she concluded that under Massachusetts case precedent, the arbitration clause—as contained in the league constitution and referenced in Flores ‘ Patriots contract—was “illusory and unenforceable”.
Caproni argued that Flores could not literately change the clause and other sections of the constitution without his consent.
But the clause, the NFL insists, is enforceable since it was part of Flores ‘ agreement with the Patriots, with whom he willingly negotiated a contract. According to that line of reasoning, Flores arguably knew or should have known that the arbitration clause could also change as a result of the constitution’s potential amendments. The Nevada Supreme Court agreed with the league’s claim that the incorporation of subsequent amendments to the NFL Constitution does not invalidate the Constitution’s arbitration provisions in the Gruden case.
Goodell’s default arbitrator position in a dispute involving the NFL is accused of misconduct also appears in the NFL’s filing. The league refutes Flores ‘ claim that Goodell’s appointment as arbitrator would be unconscionable and contrary to the effective-vindication principle, which states that an arbitration clause cannot be enforced if it prevents a party from being able to uphold their constitutional rights.

The league maintains that” Mr. Flores is a veteran coach” who, over an extensive career on the sidelines, has entered into multiple employment agreements with different teams, and his contracts contained the arbitration provision. As the NFL sees it, Flores should n’t be able to argue “unfair surprise” since he accepted the clause in multiple contracts. The league also invokes the Gruden case in this case, noting that the Supreme Court of Nevada rejected” a former NFL head coach’s similar unconscionability defense to arbitration under the NFL Constitution.”
But in their Sept. 13 brief, attorneys for Flores insist these NFL arguments are unpersuasive.
The attorneys for Flores attempt to challenge the Gruden decision’s application to the client’s case. They also contend a dissenting opinion by Nevada Justice Linda Marie Bell “is more persuasive” as she wrote,” Goodell acting as arbitrator is outrageous”.
According to Flores ‘ attorneys, Goodell as arbitrator would rob their client of his legal rights. ” To say Mr. Goodell is biased would be an understatement”, they write, since he “enjoys his job as NFL Commissioner … at the leisure of NFL team owners”.
Flores ‘ attorneys point out that Massachusetts law governs his Patriots contract and that, as Caproni ruled, it only allows the enforcement of arbitration clauses when “it could be unilaterally modified without notice.”
The case, which started in 2022, could go on trial for years as the Second Circuit weighs the arguments and might send it back to Caproni.