Flores vs. The NFL?
Photo courtesy of Sky Sports.
Nearly one year ago, in February of 2022, Brian Flores filed a class action lawsuit against the NFL and three of its teams (Dolphins, New York Giants, and Broncos) for discriminatory employment practices. Flores claims that Black coaches are paid less, fired quicker, and routinely passed up for positions they are qualified for. Flores alleged that his racial background was integral to his firing from the Miami Dolphins and that the interviews he engaged in with the Giants and Broncos were shams to skirt the Rooney rule. Under the Rooney Rule, NFL teams must interview at least one black candidate for coaching and front office vacancies.[i]
A few months after bringing suit, former defensive coordinator Ray Horton and previous Panthers interim head coach Steve Wilks joined the lawsuit, claiming they faced similar discrimination from the Titans and Cardinals. The addition of these two coaches gave credence to Flores' allegations of systematic discrimination within the NFL, but it also created additional obstacles for the plaintiffs.
Coach Wilks’ contract with the Panthers included a binding arbitration clause which delegates the choice of court to Commissioner Roger Goodell. If Goodell were given the opportunity to choose arbitration, which he undoubtedly would, he would act as the arbiter between the two parties. The plaintiffs contended that the defendant’s waived the argument by not arguing it earlier in the suit. In fact, neither the Cardinals nor the NFL raised the argument. Rather it was the presiding judge who noticed the arbitration clause and requested further information from each party on it.[ii]
The issue of whether the case should be transferred to arbitration has delayed the court for the last several months. The judge had to determine if there is clear and obvious bias from Commissioner Goodell that would prevent him from administering justice equitably. It is both clear and obvious that the answer is yes.
Regardless, the league staunchly argued that the commissioner would be able to act impartially, claiming that it would be in their own best interest to address racism and uphold the sanctity of the NFL’s system of internal dispute resolution. The defendant’s attorneys also point to previous disciplinary decisions from Commission Goodell that are at odds with the interests of the NFL’s member clubs as evidence of Goodell’s ability to act impartially. Such rulings include the recent decision to confiscate the Miami Dolphins’ first round pick for legal tampering and Tom Brady’s four-game suspension following Deflategate. Fundamentally, the defendant’s argued that “Plaintiffs' arguments relate at most to a speculative 'appearance of bias,' which is insufficient to disqualify an arbitrator.”[iii]
Attorneys for Flores argued that Goodell’s previous decisions are not compatible with the issue he would be presiding over in this case. The decisions referenced by the defendants solely revolve around issues relating to players or individual teams. They claimed the NFL has not previously been hesitant to punish players or teams for wrongful acts because it is in the League’s best interest to protect the NFL brand. The NFL must punish these individual actors to protect its image. Meanwhile, this case deals with subject matter that speaks directly to the NFL as an institution. To rule against the NFL in this case would be to determine that “the NFL as an institution and its member clubs have engaged in longstanding discriminatory conduct towards an entire class of Black coaches and executives."[iv] Such a decision would negatively impact the NFL’s reputation and current standing with players and fans alike.
On March 1st, Judge Caproni ruled that only the claim of systematic hiring discrimination against the NFL, Broncos, Texans and New York Giants will proceed in federal court.[v]Suits against the Dolphins, Titans and Cardinals that are related to previous employment will be transferred to arbitration. The judge would not rule on whether Goodell should be allowed to act as the arbiter for such proceedings, so it is up to the NFL to determine who will fill the role.
It is unthinkable that the NFL commissioner could be neutral in a case which threatens the league’s status quo. Commissioner Goodell is paid an annual salary of roughly $64 million from the league’s owners.[vi] The team owners determine who is elected as commissioner and regularly vote on whether or not to replace them. Three of these owners have been named in the lawsuit headed to arbitration. Goodell could not be impartial. Nor should he want to be. Losing this case would shine a bright light on the NFL’s history of marginalizing coaches of color and bring attention to just how little Goodell has done to address it.
In the meantime, the sports world awaits the NFL’s decision and maintains hope that Flores’ claim of discriminatory hiring practices will garner enough attention to act as an impetus for change.
[i] Examining Brian Flores Bias Suit Against the NFL, HARVARD, Christina Pazzanese.
[ii] Judge Inches Toward Ruling on Whether Claims in Brian Flores Lawsuit Must Go to Arbitration, NBCSports, Mike Florio.
[iii] Brian Flores Discrimination Lawsuit: Attorney’s for For Fired Dolphins Coach Argue NFL Arbitration Process Bias, Jonathan Jones, CBSSports.
[iv] Id.
[v] Brian Flores Lawsuit Allowed to Proceed in Court, USAToday, Tom Schad.
[vi] Where Things Stand in the Racial Discrimination Lawsuit Filed By Brian Flores, ANDSCAPE, Jason Reid.