Supreme Court Rejects Reinstatement of the NFL’s Employment Arbitration Program

The U.S. Supreme Court allowed Minnesota Vikings defensive coordinator Brian Flores to take his discrimination claims against the National Football League and three teams to a court, rejecting the original defendants’ request to enforce the league’s employment arbitration program.  New York Football Giants Inc., et al. v. Flores, No. 25-790.

The nation’s top Court this morning declined to hear the petition for certiorari from the league and the New York Giants, Denver Broncos, and Miami Dolphins. According to the Supreme Court's order, available here, Justice Brett Kavanaugh would have voted to hear the case. 

The matter, begun four years ago, had involved other league personnel, and some points were arbitrated. 

But the crux of the case stalled over major discrimination claims by Flores that included allegations that the Giants conducted a sham interview with him for a head coach job in 2022 that already had been decided in favor of another candidate.

Flores alleged the Giants’ interview was conducted to satisfy the NFL's Rooney Rule, which requires teams to interview minority candidates for open positions.  The Giants denied the allegations, and said that Flores—who produced misdirected texts he received allegedly sent to the Giants’ hire, Brian Daboll, from then-New England Patriots head coach Bill Belichick, congratulating Daboll on getting the job--had bad information.

The NFL, an unincorporated alliance of the teams, embeds employment arbitration in its constitution. The process appoints the NFL’s top official as the arbitrator.

After Flores challenged Commissioner Roger Goodell’s service as arbitrator in the case, the league shifted and brought in a high-profile lawyer, Peter Harvey, of counsel in New York's Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler and a former New Jersey Attorney General, to arbitrate the case.

The discrimination case has barely moved, and has been at the Supreme Court since early January on the arbitration issue.  The lawyers for the NFLA and the teams sought to overturn a Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals opinion that eviscerated the arbitration program, which stated that  

. . . [A]n arbitration  agreement  that prevents  parties from submitting  their disputes to an independent arbitral forum, and that instead compels one  party to  submit its  disputes  to  the  substantive and  procedural authority of the principal  executive  officer  of  one  of their  adverse parties,  is  an  agreement  for  arbitration  in  name  only.  At  a  structural  level,   it   lacks   the   requisite   independence   between   parties   and   arbitrator that is fundamental to the FAA’s conception of arbitration.

Flores v. N.Y. Football Giants Inc., et al., No. 23-1185 (2d Cir. Aug. 14, 2025) (available at https://bit.ly/47nnJBP). See also Stephanie Argueta, “Flores Can Go to Court as Second Circuit Slams the NFL’s Arbitration Scheme,” CPR Speaks (Nov. 14, 2025) (available here).

Litigation finally stirred in March when New York U.S. District Court Judge Valerie Caproni pushed case management orders to move the case along in the wake of the Second Circuit’s remand—and despite the pending Supreme Court action. See Sasha Hill, “The NFL & Flores: Litigation Begins While Supreme Court Readies Arbitration Review,” CPR Speaks (March 25) (available here).

The litigation is contentious, even ahead of today's refusal by the Supreme Court to hear the case.  Last week, Flores and his legal team amended their federal court claim to request hiring and employment information from nearly all of the NFL's teams.  Matt Moret, "Brian Flores subpoenas 25 NFL teams to delay discrimination lawsuit, league alleges," N.Y. Times (May 20) available here).

For background on the failed Second Circuit arbitration arguments, see Russ Bleemer, “NFL Files #Scotus Appeal to Overturn Brian Flores' Win that Struck the League's Arbitration Process,” CPR Speaks (Jan. 7) (available here).

Two arbitration cases have been heard by the Court in the current 2025-2026 term.  Jules v. Andre Balasz Properties, No. 25-83, was decided two weeks ago, holding that federal courts may retain jurisdiction over Federal Arbitration Act Sec. 9 moves to confirm an award, and Sec. 10 filings to vacate arbitration awards, after there has been a stay requested in federal court under FAA Sec. 3.  See Caroline Hillier, "Supreme Court Rules Federal Arbitration Act Litigation Stays Provide Jurisdiction to Confirm Awards," CPR Speaks (May 15) (available here). 

Still awaiting decision is Flowers Foods Inc. v. Brock, No. 24-935, on the extent of the exemption from arbitration under FAA Sec. 1.  See Sasha Hill & Russ Bleemer, “Today’s SCOTUS Arguments on Limiting the Federal Arbitration Act Sec. 1 ADR Exemption,” CPR Speaks (March 25) (available here).

* * *

The author edits Alternatives to the High Cost of Litigation for the CPR Institute.

[END]