Former Raiders head coach Jon Gruden sued the NFL and commissioner Roger Goodell back in 2021, shortly after he felt pressured to resign from his job following the release of several emails that contained inappropriate language from Gruden. The latest on the situation sees the Nevada State Supreme Court determine that Gruden’s case is subject to the league’s arbitration system, per A.J. Perez of Front Office Sports. 
This split decision (2-1) by the State’s Court overrules a district court’s original decision and sends the case back down to be remanded to arbitration. When Gruden initially filed the complaint, the league pushed for the courts to toss the case, claiming that a clause in the former coach’s contract required him to file his claim through arbitration, according to ESPN’s Don Van Natta Jr.
Gruden’s attorneys argued that this set an unfair precedent allowing an employer to “unilaterally determine whether an employee’s dispute must go to arbitration and also (allowing) the employer to adjudicate the dispute as the arbitrator.” The district court denied the NFL’s motion to dismiss, sending the case to the State Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court remanded the case back down to the lower court with an order to grant the arbitration motion from the NFL.
Gruden isn’t out of options just yet, though, according to Mike Florio of NBC Sports. Gruden’s first option is to make a request for a rehearing with the three Nevada Supreme Court judges who comprised the split decision votes. If the request is denied, Gruden can then petition for a rehearing with all seven justices on the State Supreme Court.
If these steps are taken, the loser is likely to take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, something the NFL did with the Rams relocation case. There’s plenty of speculation that occurs after that, but the odds for Gruden getting anything out of this lawsuit remain long. The NFL’s resources vastly outweigh Gruden and his attorneys’, and the courts have a history of siding with the league. The battle is far from over for Gruden and company, though, as they deal with their first setback.
I’m not sure how Gruden expects to win this case after already going public and confessing his sins. It will probably be a couple more years before this is finally resolved and the only winners will be the lawyers padding their bills.
I have never once seen a coherent explanation of Gruden’s theory of the case…
Let’s say every single thing Gruden alleges occurred, where’s the crime (violation of contract, etc.)?
If a league employee found racist emails from Gruden and leaked racist emails from Gruden to the media because they hated Gruden or something, where’s the crime?
It’s not against the law to find emails. It’s not against the law to realize said emails could be perceived as racist. There is no law requiring people to like Gruden. There is no law requiring people to hide other people’s racism. There is no law against forwarding emails.
So, unless there is some sort of internal NFL policy against releasing such communications (or some aspect of this case not yet reported), it’s unclear where Gruden has even a prayer of a case.
It’s about the arbitration clause. It’s pretty straight forward argument. I’ll even quote the article above …
“Gruden’s attorneys argued that this set an unfair precedent allowing an employer to “unilaterally determine whether an employee’s dispute must go to arbitration and also (allowing) the employer to adjudicate the dispute as the arbitrator.”
So now essentially Gruden has to go in front of the NFL arbitrator (Roger Godell). Thats kind of not fair. Youre trying to sue the NFL and now because there’s an “NFL arbitration clause” you have to try and convince Godell why the NFL owes you $ regardless of the reason (forget Gruden could be anyone). Who do you think Godell will side with every time regardless of the circumstance? All Gruden was trying to do was put it in front of a non biased court. He lost, now Godell gets to make that decision. We all know who Godell will favor.
Essentially – Imagine you wanting to sue your employer but you had to go in front of your boss and he’d be the one to decide? Behind close doors no less. Thats what’s happening here now.
That’s a fine explanation of this part of the litigation, but it has nothing to do with his underlying claim, just where to hear it.
His underlying claim is…??? “Something, something, the league had an obligation to hide my racism because when they didn’t I had to quit because I was too embarassed to face my players so now I want to pretend I was fired and it’s their fault for people knowing what I said and not my fault for what I said…or something.”
I agree with you but I’d say let it play out in court then. Most lawyers won’t show their hand until they get to court. Let it play out in court. We don’t know what we don’t know.
But you don’t know any good things Gruden said, because those emails, if they exist, were not released. Can’t cherry pick.
…by what law?
Litigation is learning how to cherry pick 😛
But that doesn’t work out well in the end
Goodell isn’t an arbitrator lol. Like that’s straight up federally illegal. The nfl wants this in arbitration so that the case details don’t end up public, whereas half the point of this for Gruden is to drag the nfl through the mud as payback. Which now he won’t be able to get, he’ll just get quiet settlement money and go away.
Based on this source yes Goodell would unless he appoints someone. That’s why I say let it play out in court.
link to courthousenews.com
Here’s a clip from the USA Today (multiple sources)
“The ruling essentially means that, barring a successful appeal, the claims in Gruden’s lawsuit will be dealt with outside of the public eye − with commissioner Roger Goodell, or someone appointed by him, overseeing the league’s arbitration proceedings”
Not my words. That’s from the USA Today’s
Tom Schad.
Steezy-
I could post many other sources that say the same thing. That’s why I’m shocked with the decision. Not saying what Gruden did wasn’t bad. Just feel that Goodell or anyone appointed by Goodell should never hear an arbitrary hearing from anyone within the league.
The league hired a law firm to perform the investigation. Law firms are obligated to uphold privacy no matter what truths are revealed. Someone didn’t like what they saw and leaked the info, thus damaging his reputation.
If I’m not mistaken, the only legal way info could be released is if they found evidence of a future crime being planned.
BTW, not condoning his actions. If he just made fun of someone in a non-racist way, it would have never been an issue.
If I recall correctly, the NFL was looking for evidence in the sexual harassment case against Daniel Snyder. The Gruden email to Bruce Allen was a private email, from about a decade earlier, that had nothing to do with that case.
Again, if I recall the email correctly, I don’t recall any racist comments. He stated DeMarice Smith, the head of the NFL players union, had big lips. That is not racist. He does have big lips. If he had stated Steven Tyler has big lips, that would be considered racist? It shouldn’t, because he has big lips too. Calling Goodell a homophobic slur in a private email, that practically everyone has said in their lifetime in private, if not public, seems awfully ridiculous as a reason to cancel a person’s entire career, and void a $100m contract. I’m sorry, but this is just insane what this country has come to imop.
OK, so…did a lawyer hired by the league leak this? If so, yeah, Gruden has a case.
Or did a league employee leak them? In which case, does being part of litigation change the fact that the emails (as I understand them) are league property?
If I’m wrong and they were personal emails, different story and he has a case.
But, a lawsuit alone can’t created de facto NDA’s or else everyone would sue when they did things wrong to tie up the facts.
It appears so, but no way for Gruden to prove as far as I know. And of course since the emails were sent to a NFL team employee, they could argue they can do whatever they want with league property like you said.
From WaPo –
“The emails were gathered as part of an NFL investigation led by attorney Beth Wilkinson of Washington’s workplace under owner Daniel Snyder.”
OK, but even that sounds fine. A lawyer hired to investigate league emails for wrongdoing has no obligation I’m aware of to hide this evidence.
Why would it be OK to out Snyder’s wrongdoing using the same evidence but not Gruden’s?
It’s not about hiding evidence. They were hired to investigate something completely unrelated to Jon Gruden and report their findings to the NFL – their client. It’s not their place to publicize any findings. Unless I am missing something, that’s the point Gruden is arguing more or less.