Gruden's Legal Battle with NFL to be Settled in Arbitration
Jon Gruden's bid to have the Nevada Supreme Court reconsider the ruling that moved his lawsuit against the NFL into arbitration has been turned down. The original suit, which Gruden brought in November 2021, charges that the NFL orchestrated a campaign to force his resignation from the Las Vegas Raiders by leaking emails containing offensive content. Those emails, which included racist, sexist, and homophobic remarks, were directed to Bruce Allen, a former executive of the Washington Commanders, and surfaced during an investigation into the Commanders' workplace culture.
A three-justice panel denied Gruden's request for a rehearing after a split decision on May 14 paved the way for the NFL to move Gruden's civil lawsuit from state court to arbitration. As a result, the resolution of Gruden's claims will transpire outside the public's view, shielded by the confidential nature of the arbitration process stipulated by the NFL's constitution.
Gruden's departure from the Raiders had significant financial implications. With more than six seasons remaining on his 10-year, $100 million contract, his resignation was a major development not just for the Raiders but also for the broader NFL landscape. Gruden had rejoined the team in 2018, bringing with him high expectations and a lucrative contract to match.
The controversy began when Gruden's emails, sent between 2011 and 2018, came to light as part of the investigation into the Washington Commanders. The leaked emails contained inflammatory language, and their release had a domino effect, leading to Gruden's resignation.
In May 2022, a Las Vegas judge ruled that Gruden's allegations could potentially show evidence of intentional harm, allowing the case to proceed. However, the NFL, insisting on arbitration, appealed the decision to the state Supreme Court. The appeal emphasized the League's stance on handling such disputes privately, underscored by the involvement of potentially compromised parties like NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell.
The process of moving to arbitration introduced uncertainties about who would oversee the proceedings—whether Goodell himself or a designated third-party arbitrator. This ambiguity sparked considerable debate about the fairness and impartiality of the arbitration process. One justice remarked that allowing Goodell to arbitrate a dispute in which he is a named party would be "outrageous," highlighting the potential bias involved.
The state Supreme Court's recent denial of Gruden's rehearing request leaves unresolved questions about his next steps. The former coach could still seek further legal avenues, including appealing to the full seven-justice Supreme Court. However, whether Gruden will take this route remains uncertain.
As things stand, the resolution of Gruden’s dispute against the NFL will be settled away from public scrutiny, raising questions about transparency and fairness in high-stakes legal battles involving major sports leagues and their executives.