Flores v. The National Football League
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:22-cv-00871
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 9
In Flores v. The National Football League, Judge Caproni denied plaintiffs’ motion for discovery related to arbitration, finding they offered no evidence challenging the agreement.
The ruling affected Brian Flores, Steve Wilks, and Ray Horton by denying their request for discovery before responding to the defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. It also set briefing deadlines for that arbitration motion; the opinion did not resolve whether arbitration would be required.
What happened
In Flores v. The National Football League, Brian Flores, Steve Wilks, and Ray Horton alleged that the National Football League and several teams discriminated against minority coaches under federal and state laws. The defendants asked the court to require arbitration and pause the case.
The plaintiffs asked for documents about their arbitration agreements, arbitration rules, the proposed arbitrator’s relationship with the league and prior decisions, and the league’s relationship with its teams. They argued that the discovery was needed to respond to the request for arbitration.
Judge Valerie Caproni denied the motion for discovery. She said the plaintiffs did not provide facts or evidence placing the arbitration agreement’s validity in question, and that the requested materials were not needed to decide whether the league could enforce the agreements. The court set deadlines for the plaintiffs’ response and the defendants’ reply on the arbitration motion.
The detailed version
- Flores v. The National Football League · No. 1:22-cv-00871
- Valerie Caproni
- Aug. 4, 2022
Background
Brian Flores, Steve Wilks, and Ray Horton, described in the opinion as coaches in the National Football League, brought a putative class action against the league and several teams. They alleged systemic racial discrimination in their employment relationships, including claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. Flores also alleged retaliation for filing the lawsuit.
The defendants moved to compel arbitration and stay the court proceedings, relying on arbitration provisions in the plaintiffs’ employment contracts and in the NFL constitution referenced by those contracts. The plaintiffs then moved for discovery before responding to the arbitration motion. Their requests sought documents concerning the parties’ arbitration agreements, applicable arbitration policies, the proposed arbitrator’s relationship with the NFL and history of arbitration rulings, and the relationship between the NFL and its teams.
Legal standard
The court explained that discovery connected to a motion to compel arbitration is not granted automatically. It is appropriate when the party opposing arbitration offers reliable evidence, beyond a bare assertion, that it did not intend to be bound by the arbitration agreement, even when the pleadings appear to show an agreement. The court may also consider defenses recognized by contract law, including unconscionability, meaning that an agreement is so unfair that it should not be enforced.
Court’s analysis
The court held that the plaintiffs did not meet this standard. They did not dispute that they agreed to be bound by arbitration provisions in their employment agreements and did not allege a specific ground making those agreements invalid. The court viewed their request for additional agreements that might show a later contract had replaced the arbitration agreement as an impermissible fishing expedition because the plaintiffs should know what contracts they entered.
The court also rejected discovery requests aimed at showing bias by the proposed arbitrator. It distinguished cases involving unusually one-sided arbitration systems from the allegations presented here and noted that the Federal Arbitration Act provides a way to challenge an arbitration award for evident partiality or corruption. The court said the plaintiffs could argue that the proposed arbitrator was biased, but they did not need discovery to make that argument.
The plaintiffs also sought discovery about whether the NFL could enforce arbitration agreements to which it was not a signatory. The court stated that this question generally could be decided from the pleadings and that the requested documents were neither required nor useful for evaluating whether the NFL could compel arbitration based on its relationship with the teams.
Disposition
The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for discovery. It did not decide the defendants’ motion to compel arbitration in this opinion. The court ordered the plaintiffs to respond to that motion by August 19, 2022, and the defendants to file their reply by August 26, 2022.
Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.