\n<\/p>\n
In recent years, the National Football League has fought and lost high-stakes court battles trying to force claims by coaches Brian Flores and Jon Gruden into a Commissioner-controlled arbitration process.<\/p>\n
The NFL\u2019s arbitration process also gives the Commissioner a leading role in claims by less-visible club employees. That proved fatal to the Los Angeles Rams\u2019 attempt to force a lawsuit brought by former employee Brittany Todd out of a California court and into arbitration.<\/p>\n
For more than a century, courts were deferential to the authority of sports leagues commissioners to take actions they determined to be in the best interests of their leagues. In doing so, courts turned aside legal challenges from players, team owners, and others. In recent decades, those courts have affirmed the authority of commissioners \u2013 particularly in the NFL \u2013 to be the arbitrators in disputes involving players, teams, team personnel, owners, and others within the leagues\u2019 structure.<\/p>\n
That edifice has recently come crashing down<\/a>. In August 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit<\/a> ruled that Brian Flores did not have to arbitrate his claims of race discrimination against several teams and the league. That same month, the Supreme Court of Nevada ruled that Jon Gruden also did not have to arbitrate his claims that the NFL tortiously interfered in his employment relationship with the Las Vegas Raiders. In both cases, the arbitrator would have been NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell.<\/p>\n Ms. Todd made the same objection to arbitrating her claims. The court found in her favor, but said it did not need to rely on the Flores or Gruden cases to make its decision under California law.<\/p>\n Ms. Todd was employed by the Rams from July 2017 until March 2026, servicing the team\u2019s VIP ticket members and premium club spaces. She alleges that she was terminated after complaining about her supervisors\u2019 alcohol abuse during work hours and their hostility toward other employees\u2019 religions. She filed suit in April 2026, asserting retaliation, wrongful termination, harassment, discrimination, and related claims.<\/p>\n Ms. Todd admittedly signed the Rams\u2019 employee handbook, which had an arbitration provision. Like most such provisions, it required that any dispute related to employment, or separation from employment, be resolved exclusively through arbitration.<\/p>\n Less typical was the Rams\u2019 chosen arbitration process. The handbook provides that any dispute is to be resolved in accordance with the NFL\u2019s Dispute Resolution Procedural Guidelines.<\/p>\n Here is where the Commissioner comes in.<\/p>\n The NFL\u2019s Guidelines dictate that \u201cfootball-oriented\u201d disputes are to arbitrated before the Commissioner or his designee. Disputes that are not football-oriented \u2013 including \u201cclaims of discrimination, retaliation, termination and compensation\u201d \u2013 are directed to JAMS, a national alternative dispute resolution provider. The Commissioner, in his sole discretion, decides whether a dispute is football-oriented or not.<\/p>\n Ms. Todd argued that this process made the arbitration agreement unconscionable and thus unenforceable.<\/p>\n The whole of California government has a longstanding antipathy toward forced arbitration of employment-related claims. The legislature has enacted numerous laws that have been struck down by federal courts<\/a>, including the U.S. Supreme Court, as infringing on the contractual right to arbitration as expressed in the Federal Arbitration Act.<\/p>\n Nonetheless, the California courts have imposed what are generally considered the nation\u2019s strictest standards for enforcing arbitration agreements. Under the guidance of the California Supreme Court, arbitration agreements may be found unenforceable when they are procedurally and substantively unconscionable.<\/a> A low level of procedural unconscionability may require a higher degree of substantive unconscionability and vice versa, so long as both are present in some meaningful amount.<\/p>\n The court in Ms. Todd\u2019s case found a moderate degree of procedural<\/em> unconscionability. The arbitration agreement was an \u201cadhesion\u201d contract, meaning that Ms. Todd had no choice but to sign it as a condition of employment. On the other hand, she was given adequate time to review and consider it, and the agreement itself was \u201conly three pages and in an easily readable font size.\u201d<\/p>\n However, the court found it unfair that the agreement incorporated by reference the NFL Constitution and Bylaws but did not provide those documents or direct Ms. Todd to where she could find them.\u00a0 The Constitution and Bylaws contained \u201ccrucial terms that would decide whether the NFL Commissioner or JAMS would hear the dispute\u201d and thus should have been provided.<\/p>\n The court then found a high level of substantive<\/em> unconscionability by failing to \u201cprovide for a neutral arbitration.\u201d Here, the court did not mince words in its disapproval:<\/p>\n The Court finds unconscionability permeates the Arbitration Agreement. The NFL Commissioner\u2019s gatekeeping role is fundamental to the arbitration procedure created by the Arbitration Agreement. The Arbitration Agreement was clearly drafted to place a thumb on the scales in the employer\u2019s favor and to obstruct the employee\u2019s access to a fair arbitration. Defendant inexplicably listed claims that were clearly not \u201cfootball-oriented\u201d (claims of discrimination, retaliation, termination and compensation) but stopped short of simply stating that those claims would be exempt from the NFL Commissioner\u2019s review and would be sent directly to JAMS. The defects in the Arbitration Agreement indicate that Defendant engaged in a \u201csystematic effort to impose arbitration on the weaker party not simply as an alternative to litigation, but to secure a forum that works to the stronger party’s advantage.\u201d<\/p>\n (Citation omitted.)<\/p>\n As a result, the court declined to sever the offending provision from the arbitration agreement, citing the need for a \u201cdeterrent effect\u201d on employers who may \u201cattempt to overreach.\u201d<\/p>\n Importantly, the court\u2019s decision is not immediately appealable \u2013 meaning the Rams would have to see the case through adjudication before seeking appellate court review (putting aside unlikely efforts seeking extraordinary relief).<\/p>\n The NFL has proved adept at avoiding and weathering controversies in the past. Nevertheless, the league places considerable emphasis on protecting its image, which includes trying to keep unflattering issues from becoming public or, at least, to minimize the publicity (which is part of the Commissioner\u2019s role in \u201cprotecting the shield<\/a>\u201d). Similarly, the league greatly values the role and authority of its Commissioner. Both principles have now been severely undermined by these recent decisions.<\/p>\nMs. Todd\u2019s turn<\/strong><\/h2>\n
The California courts versus the Commissioner<\/strong><\/h2>\n
The NFL at a crossroads<\/strong><\/h2>\n