NFL intends to file motion to dismiss Jim Trotter's lawsuit
The NFL has responded to the lawsuit filed in September by former NFL Media reporter Jim Trotter.
In a four-page letter sent Friday to U.S. District Court Judge Paul Crotty, former Attorney General Loretta Lynch explains that the NFL intends to file a motion to dismiss Trotter's case. The letter also provides a glimpse into the league's overall position regarding the termination of Trotter's employment.
"In March 2020, after an initial two-year contract, the NFL renewed Plaintiff’s contract for another three years," Lynch writes. "In March 2023, Plaintiff’s contract expired and, as part of a broader cost-cutting measure and strategic shift away from traditional broadcast journalism and towards interactive media, the NFL made the decision not to renew the contracts of several reporters, including Plaintiff. That reasoning was communicated to Plaintiff and is well documented."
Whether the league has indeed shifted "away from traditional broadcast journalist and toward interactive media" (whatever that means) is irrelevant for now. However, it sheds light on how the league will try to defend the case.
Trotter claims the decision was motivated in whole or in part by discrimination and retaliation, under federal, state, and local law.
Lynch contends that Trotter's complaint is "fatally deficient" on its face. She writes that Trotter "does not plausibly allege that he engaged in any protected activity supporting" a claim for retaliation.
"Plaintiff does not allege that he complained, including through his reporting, about any such [discriminatory] practice by the NFL," she explains. "His generalized allegations — that he questioned what he viewed as a 'lack of diversity' and was 'skeptical' of the NFL’s initiatives to promote diversity — do not suffice."
She downplays Trotter's questioning of the Commissioner at a February 2023 press conference regarding persistent lack of diversity in the newsroom at NFL Media by stating Trotter "concedes that he posed the exact same questions to the Commissioner at a prior conference — and remained employed for more than a year afterward."
Of course, his contract did not expire for more than a year afterward.
The letter also attacks in broad terms Trotter's discrimination claim, and it contends that he cannot state claims under New York State or New York City law, because he was a California resident working in California. (California law undoubtedly affords equal, if not greater, employment protections than New York law.)
She concludes by explaining that the NFL intends to seek a stay of the discovery process pending resolution of its motion to dismiss. Which means that they don't want to give up any documents or make any witnesses available for questioning under oath until a decision is made on the motion to dismiss.
Attorney Doug Wigdor, who represents Trotter in the case, issued this comment: "We are very confident any motion to dismiss will be unsuccessful and is simply an attempt to delay which is why they are also requesting a stay of discovery."
The NFL's initial position is not surprising. This is how matters of this nature unfold. The defendant attempts at every turn to short circuit the case, hopeful that eventually a trial will be avoided.
Notably absent from Lynch's letter is any reference whatsoever to an attempt to force the case into NFL-controlled arbitration. Trotter's contract contained no such clause preventing him from seeking relief in open court.
Thus, regardless of how the case plays out, it will happen in a public forum and not in the NFL's preferred venue — the secret, rigged, kangaroo court into which most of the legal claims against the league are resolved.
