US Supreme Court declines to review decision finding NFL arbitration process unenforceable

The litigation commenced with discrimination claims advanced by Minnesota Vikings coordinator Brian Flores accusing the league and its teams of systemic discrimination in hiring and promoting Black coaches and front office officials, and claiming that the Giants conducted a sham interview with him for a head coach job in 2022 that already had been decided in favour of another candidate; conducted to satisfy what is known as the League's Rooney Rule, which requires teams to interview minority candidates for open positions.  The Giants denied the allegations. The NFL moved to compel arbitration in the case as the NFL has an employment arbitration as part of its constitution, and the process appoints the NFL’s top official as the arbitrator. The NFL argued that the contracts signed by Flores and other coaches are governed by the league's constitution and the arbitration clause contained therein.

In 2023, US District Judge Valerie Caproni ruled that the portion of the suit involving the NFL, Giants, Texans, and Broncos would stay in federal court, while the portion involving three other teams would go to NFL arbitration, which, according to league bylaws, granted Commissioner Roger Goodell full authority over the process. 

The NFL appealed the decision to the Second Circuit, which held that: “Flores' agreement under the NFL constitution to submit his statutory claims against the Broncos and the NFL to the unilateral substantive and procedural discretion of the NFL commissioner – the principal executive of one of Flores' adverse parties – provides for arbitration in name only and accordingly lacks the protection of the Federal Arbitration Act.”

The Second Circuit went on to conclude that the NFL's arbitration process was unenforceable as the NFL's arbitration program lacked the “requisite independence between parties and arbitrators 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).   

The Appellants  contended that the Second Circuit's "unprecedented decision is irreconcilable with the text and history" of the FAA. The NFL and the teams argued in their petition that the arbitration clause nevertheless fits within the scope of the Federal Arbitration Act, and the courts should allow organisations like theirs to enforce their own arbitration procedures.

In October 2025, the Second Circuit denied the NFL's request for an en banc (full court) hearing and the Supreme Court denied cert.  The ruling has ramifications beyond the NFL since several pro leagues entrust their commissioner with authority to oversee disputes involving teams and their employees and to arbitrate related employment and contractual claims. 

---

Leslie A. Berkoff is a Partner at Moritt Hock & Hamroff LLP and Chair of its Dispute Resolution Practice Group. She concentrates her practice in the areas of Dispute Resolution serving as a mediator and arbitrator, as well as, Corporate Restructuring work working in both arenas nationally and internationally. Leslie is also Regional Chair North America of the GGI Debt Collection, Restructuring & Insolvency (DCRI) Practice Group.