Brian Flores vs. Miami Dolphins Case Will Stay Out of Court
Arguments offered by attorneys for Minnesota Vikings defensive coordinator Brian Flores and the NFL were bluntly rebuffed in a 17-page ruling by Judge Valerie Caproni of the Southern District of New York on Tuesday, denying motions from both sides to reconsider her March 1 ruling.
As Sportico detailed in March, Caproni dispatched Flores’ racial discrimination and retaliation claims against the Miami Dolphins, as well as claims brought by co-plaintiffs Steve Wilks and Ray Horton against their former employers (the Arizona Cardinals and Tennessee Titans, respectively), to an arbitration process overseen by NFL commissioner Roger Goodell. The judge, however, allowed Flores to continue to bring claims against the New York Giants, Denver Broncos and Houston Texans.
More from Sportico.com
Snyder Awaits NFL Sale Vote as White Report, Lawsuits Linger
Snyder Demands Cover as Gruden NFL Suit Hinders Commanders Sale
Monday’s decision means the most explosive portion of Flores’ case—his claims that the Dolphins and owner Stephen Ross treated him worse on account of his race—won’t be heard in court and will instead be decided in a private forum overseen by Goodell.
But it also means the league’s constitution and coaches’ employment contracts do not automatically send workplace claims to arbitration, and thus out of court and away from the reach of pretrial discovery.
Both sides faced long odds in their petitions.
Under the applicable legal standard, Flores and NFL had to convince Caproni that in her March ruling she had overlooked a key decision or data point, that there had been an intervening change in controlling law or that she must “correct a clear error.”
Caproni left no doubt that Flores and the NFL fell well short of reaching this high hurdle.
Regarding Flores, Caproni reasoned he’s asking her for a special, favorable rule that the law doesn’t offer. Flores, the judge wrote, engages in “speculation that the NFL commissioner will necessarily be biased as an arbitrator.”
Caproni said the problem with this argument is the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which governs the Southern District of New York, already considered and rejected it in Tom Brady’s Deflategate case against the NFL. Caproni is bound by Second Circuit precedent.
Brady, who was suspended for four games by Goodell as commissioner, argued that Goodell, later serving as arbitrator in the case, violated the law. The Second Circuit reasoned that Brady, through the NFLPA, had accepted Goodell’s right to serve as arbitrator in the CBA. Brady was therefore bound by what the controlling contract says.
Caproni stressed that even when Goodell “acts as the sole arbitrator” to review his own decisions, it’s not illegal. Unless a contract says otherwise, Goodell has the right to “adjudicate the propriety of his own conduct.”
Caproni went on to say the NFL constitution grants Goodell “the unilateral power to set and amend all NFL rules and regulations” and “to promulgate other arbitration-related rules in the future that would bind Mr. Flores.” She added there are many reasons why coaches “rationally could have consented to select the NFL Commissioner as arbitrator,” including that the commissioner “possesses unique subject-matter expertise on matters related to the NFL.”
Caproni was just as critical of the NFL, which asked her to compel arbitration for Flores’ claims against the Broncos, Giants and Texans—teams that interviewed, but didn’t hire, Flores.
The NFL argued, among other points, that Flores’ contract with the Steelers to serve as a defensive coach in 2022 contained an arbitration provision. The arbitration provision could only become valid if approved by Goodell. The version the league submitted to the court had left Goodell’s signature line blank, even though the league admitted they had possessed a signed version when it sought to compel arbitration.
Although Caproni wrote she acknowledges the NFL’s “statement of regret” for not supplementing the record with the signed version, the league can’t now “use a motion for reconsideration” as a “means to mend holes in the record with neglected evidence.” The version of the arbitration agreement which Caproni can consider is therefore neither valid nor binding.
Caproni was similarly unpersuaded by the NFL’s attempt to claim Flores’ contract with the New England Patriots, for whom he served as a defensive coach from 2008 to 2018, should send his claims to arbitration.
The league insisted an arbitration agreement contained in the NFL constitution was incorporated into Flores’ Patriots contract. But Caproni reasoned the clause is unenforceable under Massachusetts law, because the NFL retained the unilateral right to change it, and Massachusetts treats such contracts as illusory.
Flores’ litigation, which began on Feb. 1, 2022, could remain in court for years unless the two sides reach a settlement. No trial date has been set yet, and any trial ruling would be subject to appeal to the Second Circuit.
