Flores v. The National Football League

Background

Brian Flores, Steve Wilks, and Ray Horton, three Black men who are current or former NFL coaches, alleged that NFL teams and the NFL discriminated against them in hiring and employment decisions. Their amended complaint asserted 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 alleged, among other things, that the Denver Broncos and Tennessee Titans conducted interviews to satisfy the NFL’s “Rooney Rule” despite already intending to hire white candidates; that the Miami Dolphins fired him after he refused requests concerning game losses and player recruitment; that the New York Giants had already selected another candidate when they interviewed him; and that the Houston Texans retaliated against him for filing this lawsuit. Wilks alleged that the Arizona Cardinals hired him as a temporary “bridge coach,” then fired him before hiring a white coach. Horton alleged that the Titans interviewed him after deciding to hire a white candidate.

The defendants moved to compel arbitration and to pause the court proceedings. Each plaintiff had employment agreements with teams that included dispute-resolution provisions. The NFL was not a party to those employment contracts, but the contracts incorporated or referred to NFL rules and the NFL Constitution in various ways.

Court’s analysis

The court applied the Federal Arbitration Act, which generally requires enforcement of valid arbitration agreements according to their terms. It considered whether an agreement to arbitrate existed, whether the claims fell within its scope, and whether the agreements were enforceable.

For Flores, the court held that his claims against the Miami Dolphins were covered by and had to be arbitrated under his Dolphins contract. The court also held that his claims against the Broncos fell within the scope of an arbitration provision incorporated into his contract with the New England Patriots. But it found that provision unenforceable as applied to the Broncos claims because the NFL and its member clubs could modify the NFL Constitution without providing notice, making the arbitration promise illusory under Massachusetts law.

The court held that Flores’s contract with the Pittsburgh Steelers could not supply an arbitration agreement for his claims against the Giants and Texans because the contract required approval by the NFL Commissioner and the submitted version lacked the Commissioner’s signature. The defendants therefore did not establish that a valid arbitration agreement was in effect when Flores was considered by those teams. Flores could litigate his claims against the Giants and Texans and his related claims against the NFL in federal court.

For Wilks, the court held that his Cardinals agreement covered his claims and clearly assigned the arbitrator the authority to decide questions about whether the agreement was void or unenforceable. The court rejected his arguments that the defendants waived arbitration or that Commissioner Roger Goodell’s possible bias made the agreement unenforceable. The court similarly held that Horton’s agreement with the Titans was a valid and sufficiently definite arbitration agreement covering his claims.

The court also held that the arbitration provisions could be enforced against the NFL even though the NFL was not a party to the employment contracts. It relied on the plaintiffs’ allegations that the NFL and the teams acted together and were treated as a single unit in the alleged misconduct. Under the applicable state-law principles, the court concluded that the plaintiffs could not rely on the NFL’s status as a non-signatory to avoid arbitration.

The court rejected arguments that possible bias by Commissioner Goodell or limits on discovery made the arbitration agreements unenforceable. It stated that concerns about the Commissioner’s impartiality could be raised when seeking judicial review of an arbitration award, and that speculation about future discovery limits was insufficient to invalidate the agreements.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion to compel arbitration except that it was denied as to Brian Flores’s claims against the Denver Broncos, New York Giants, and Houston Texans, and his related claims against the NFL. The court denied the request to stay the claims that could proceed in court and granted the request to stay all claims that had to be arbitrated. The court scheduled a pretrial conference for March 24, 2023, concerning the remaining litigation and arbitration proceedings.

Judge Valerie Caproni’s order addressed arbitration and case-management issues; it did not determine whether the plaintiffs proved their discrimination or retaliation allegations.