Document Type

Blog Post

Publication Date

12-8-2025

Abstract

Former Miami Dolphins head coach Brian Flores and two other former NFL coaches filed a punitive class action in Manhattan federal court against the NFL in 2022, alleging the league engages in racially discriminatory hiring and retention practices. The NFL moved to compel arbitration pursuant to the provision in its employee contract that incorporates the NFL’s constitution, which includes an arbitration clause. In March 2023, U.S. District Judge Valerie Caproni held that the NFL failed to meet its burden demonstrating that Flores entered an enforceable agreement to arbitrate; therefore, Flores could pursue his claims in federal court, while his two co-plaintiffs were required to arbitrate. The District Court denied the parties’ cross-motions for partial reconsideration of the March 2023 decision; both parties appealed. On August 14th, 2025, the second circuit panel affirmed the District Court’s order denying reconsideration, as well as the underlying March 2023 order. The second circuit held that the NFL’s arbitration provision, which grants the NFL commissioner unilateral substantive and procedural arbitrational authority over statutory claims, provides “arbitration in name only and accordingly lacks the protection of the Federal Arbitration Act.” This unilateral discretion vested in the commissioner, “the ‘principal executive officer’ of . . . [the] adverse part[y],” violates the guarantee of effective vindication of federal claims in the arbitral forum, and was therefore unenforceable.

The print edition of the issue has also been released. This post was originally published on the Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution website on December 8, 2025.

Download
Archived Link

Share

COinS