Recent Forum Topics › Forums › The Rams Huddle › Judge rules against Los Angeles Rams in arbitration case
- This topic has 2 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 47 minutes ago by
zn.
-
AuthorPosts
-
August 15, 2026 at 11:30 am #165343
znModeratorAugust 15, 2026 at 11:34 am #165344znModeratorJudge rules against Rams in latest NFL arbitration case
Tisha Thompson
https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/49605241/judge-rules-rams-latest-nfl-arbitration-case
A California judge ruled Wednesday [8/12] that the Los Angeles Rams’ arbitration rules are “an example of an employer’s attempt to overreach” in a wrongful termination lawsuit filed by a former employee against the team, the latest case in which the league’s practice of taking employment disputes into arbitration has come under scrutiny.
California Superior Court Judge Alexander C.D. Giza denied the Rams’ motion to compel arbitration, finding that the team’s arbitration agreement is one-sided because it “causes a roadblock to an employee pursuing his or her employment related claims.”
Last year, two separate courts moved in favor of coaches’ challenges to NFL arbitration requirements — one in Nevada Supreme Court in favor of former Raiders coach Jon Gruden and the other in the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals in favor of current Minnesota Vikings defensive coordinator Brian Flores.
The league declined to comment Thursday on the California case.
In that case, the Rams had filed a motion to compel former employee Brittany Todd into arbitration after she sued the team, alleging it had fired her after she reported workplace misconduct to human resources. The team argued that Todd, who worked for the Rams from July 2017 to March 2026, signed its updated arbitration agreement in April 2025 and could not sue it in court. Todd does not deny that she signed the update or that her claims fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement, according to the ruling. Instead, her attorney argued that the agreement is “unenforceable because it is unconscionable.”
In a statement, a team spokesperson told ESPN, “The Rams strongly dispute the allegations and will vigorously defend the integrity of the organization and our employees. Since this matter is in active litigation, we have no further comment.”
According to the judge’s 13-page opinion, the updated arbitration agreement signed by Todd incorporates the NFL constitution and bylaws and gives the commissioner “full, complete and final jurisdiction and authority to arbitrate” what the league calls “football-oriented disputes” — meaning those that arise from NFL rules, club policies or regulations relating to football.
Disputes over retaliation claims such as Todd’s, however, are considered “not football-oriented” and often handled by JAMS, a separate, private arbitration company, according to the ruling. But the judge determined the arbitration agreement Todd signed “does not exclude such claims from the NFL commissioner’s threshold review. There is no stated timeline by which the NFL commissioner must make his threshold review. Thus, whether an employee can even reach a neutral arbitrator at JAMS depends on the NFL commissioner.”
The judge also determined that the team failed to attach the NFL constitution and bylaws to Todd’s arbitration agreement and did not provide her a source from which she could obtain those documents.
The judge ruled the team’s arbitration agreement “is clearly unconscionable on its face” and made “it difficult for the employee to reach a neutral arbitrator.”
The judge wrote in his opinion that the team’s arbitration agreement “was clearly drafted to place a thumb on the scales in the employer’s favor and to obstruct the employee’s access to a fair arbitration.”
“It’s time the commissioner and the teams realize they can’t take advantage of their employees,” the plaintiff’s attorney, Mike Caspino, told ESPN.
The Rams spokesperson did not provide an answer when asked by ESPN if the team planned to appeal the judge’s decision.
If the team does appeal, the case will go to the California Courts of Appeal and, from there, potentially to the California Supreme Court, which “has been vigorous in protecting employee rights” and would most likely uphold the lower judge’s decision, according to Stanford emeritus law professor William Gould.
The decision as it stands is precedent-setting and could impact any case brought by an employee working for the Rams or other NFL teams based in California, according to Gould.
August 15, 2026 at 11:36 am #165345znModeratorRams Suffer Major Blow From California Court as NFL In-House Arbitration Crumbles
Whenever a dispute arises involving an NFL team or the league, the NFL’s Constitution says the Commissioner has broad power to arbitrate certain disputes. Instead of going directly to a normal court, the league can argue that the dispute belongs in its internal arbitration process. Over the past few years, however, the league has been losing control in its in-house arbitration procedure.
The latest case involving the Los Angeles Rams and the team’s former employee Brittany Todd only reinforced it. Per Mike Florio of Pro Football Talk, the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, found that an arbitration clause used by the Rams was ‘unconscionable and, in turn, unenforceable.’ The development gained momentum after Todd filed a lawsuit against the Rams, alleging that she was terminated on March 10, 2026.
According to Florio, he wrote:
“She claims that her March 10, 2026 termination happened after she complained that her immediate supervisors were consuming alcohol during work hours ‘to the point of extreme intoxication,’ that they coerced subordinate employees to consume alcohol, that they berated employees ‘to an abusive level’ after becoming intoxicated, and that they berated employees for their religious views.”
As that went down, the Rams didn’t want the case to go through the normal court system. Instead, the team filed a motion to compel arbitration. The court, however, rejected that motion. For broader context, the Rams’ arbitration agreement allowed the NFL commissioner or someone chosen by the commissioner to have the exclusive power to resolve the dispute.
The court, meanwhile, found the agreement unconscionable because it relied on an arbitrator employed by the NFL, an organization that represents all 32 member teams, including the Rams.
“We are happy that our client will be able to have her day in court,” Todd’s lawyer Mike Caspino said in a statement. “We are also happy that all of the employees of the 49ers, Chargers and Rams will no longer be subjected to the NFL’s biased arbitration system.”
Back in October 2021, Jon Gruden resigned as head coach of the Las Vegas Raiders after emails containing offensive language became public. The emails, written between 2011 and 2018 while Gruden worked for ESPN, surfaced during the NFL’s investigation into workplace misconduct within the Washington Football Team organization. Gruden and the Raiders later reached a confidential agreement concerning his contract, but the matter subsequently moved into court.
In November 2021, Gruden sued the NFL and Commissioner Roger Goodell, alleging that the league selectively leaked the emails and caused damage to his reputation and employment. His lawsuit included claims of interference with his Raiders contract, negligence, and civil conspiracy. The NFL has denied the allegations, setting up a dispute over where the claims should be resolved.
The NFL sought to send the case to its internal arbitration process, which grants the commissioner broad authority in certain disputes. Because Goodell was also named as a defendant, Gruden’s case raised questions about whether that process could serve as the appropriate forum for the litigation.
Now, Brian Flores also challenged the NFL’s effort to move his employment-discrimination claims into the league’s internal arbitration process. In August 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld a lower-court ruling that denied arbitration for Flores’ claims against the NFL, the New York Giants, Denver Broncos and Houston Texans. The court found that the commissioner-controlled framework did not provide the type of independent arbitration process required under federal law.
The NFL later asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review that decision. On May 26, 2026, the Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal, leaving the Second Circuit’s ruling in place. The Court did not issue a decision on the merits of the NFL’s arbitration system, but Flores’ relevant claims against the NFL and the three teams remained in federal court.
In July, U.S. District Judge Valerie Caproni denied another NFL request to reconsider arbitration in the Flores case. That ruling kept the litigation on track for court proceedings.
Todd’s case differed from the Gruden and Flores matters because she sued the Rams rather than the NFL. The Los Angeles court nevertheless denied the Rams’ motion to compel arbitration, citing the NFL’s role in selecting or providing the arbitrator.
The ruling applies to Todd’s dispute with the Rams. It follows court decisions in the Gruden and Flores cases that also declined to require the plaintiffs to use the NFL’s commissioner-centered arbitration process.
For now, the next steps in Todd’s case, including whether the Rams will seek further review of the ruling, remain to be seen.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
