The Supreme Court declined to review a ruling that rejected the NFL’s internal arbitration process as the only way to settle employment discrimination claims. The decision keeps Brian Flores’ lawsuit moving against the league and multiple teams.
Washington felt different on May 26—not because the Supreme Court issued a broad ruling. but because it refused to step into one. By staying out. it allowed Brian Flores’ racial discrimination lawsuit against the NFL and several teams to move forward. after a federal appeals court had already rejected the league’s attempt to funnel the dispute into internal arbitration.
Flores, the Minnesota Vikings defensive coordinator, alleges that his race played a role in the Miami Dolphins’ 2022 decision to fire him as head coach. He also claims decisions by the New York Giants and the Denver Broncos not to hire him were driven by discrimination.
The lawsuit extends beyond hiring and firings. Flores says the Houston Texans stopped considering him for a head coaching role in retaliation for his discrimination case. Two other Black coaches have joined his lawsuit.
The NFL disputes Flores’ allegations and argued that its rules require discrimination claims to be handled through the league’s commissioner—an argument meant to block a straight path to court. In August, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit in New York sided with Flores, rejecting the league’s position.
The appeals court said the NFL commissioner lacks the independence required to arbitrate the kind of disagreements envisioned by the Federal Arbitration Act.
On May 26, the Supreme Court said it would not review the 2nd Circuit’s decision—closing the last major door the NFL tried to use to keep the case from going forward.
The NFL’s argument at the higher level rested heavily on contract language. The league said the employment contract Flores signed allows commissioner Roger Goodell to rule on various disputes or appoint an independent arbitrator to oversee them.
Flores’ path through the courts also depended on the way lower courts interpreted the NFL’s arbitration clause. In 2023, U.S. District Judge Valerie Caproni ruled that the league’s arbitration clause applied only to Flores’ claims against the Dolphins. That ruling later flipped after the appeals court held that the NFL’s arbitration provision was “unworthy even of the name of arbitration.”.
When the NFL sought Supreme Court review, it leaned on federal arbitration law. It argued that federal law “protects not only the parties’ decision to arbitrate but also their chosen arbitration procedures, including their choice of arbitrator.”
Flores’ attorneys countered that the appeals court’s ruling confirming his right to sue matched other lower court decisions holding that employers can’t force workers to litigate discrimination claims only through internal arbitration run through the employer’s own top decision-maker.
The sequence that matters most to this dispute is the same sequence the Supreme Court declined to disturb: the 2nd Circuit rejected the NFL’s independence theory for arbitration. and then the Supreme Court refused to take up that rejection. With that refusal. the lawsuit’s future looks increasingly like it will be decided on the merits in court rather than redirected into the league’s internal structure.
Supreme Court Brian Flores NFL racial discrimination lawsuit arbitration Roger Goodell Federal Arbitration Act Minnesota Vikings Miami Dolphins New York Giants Denver Broncos Houston Texans