The next step of former Raiders head coach Jon Gruden‘s lawsuit against the NFL and commissioner Roger Goodell has come and gone with yet another blow to the former head coach’s efforts. With the latest update provided by ESPN this week, the situation continues to seem inevitably headed towards an NFL-led arbitration. 
For those unfamiliar with the situation, Gruden sued the league and its commissioner back in 2021 shortly after he felt he was pressured to resign from his job following backlash from the leak of several emails he had sent while he was an employee for ESPN. The emails were sent from 2011 to 2018 to former Commanders president and general manager Bruce Allen and contained inappropriate racist, sexist, and homophobic language. The correspondence was discovered amidst the NFL’s workplace culture investigation into Washington.
Gruden’s initial complaint accused the league of intentionally leaking only his documents selectively. As a result, he claims that the publication of those documents by the Wall Street Journal and New York Times “destroyed his career and scuttled endorsement contracts.”
A district judge in Las Vegas determined that that Gruden’s claims “could show evidence of ‘specific intent’ or an act designed to cause a particular result.” The league appealed to the Nevada State Supreme Court, where a three-justice panel determined (in a 2-1 split decision) that the league was able to force the civil case out of the state courts and into arbitration that could be overseen by Goodell, a named party in the lawsuit.
The two justices who ruled for the NFL claimed that Gruden “understood the NFL constitution allowed for arbitration to resolve disputes” and said that “it wasn’t clear whether Goodell or a designated third-party arbitrator would” oversee the arbitration. The dissenting justice called it “outrageous” that there would even be a possibility Goodell could arbitrate a dispute in which he is a named party.
After this all occurred, we relayed that Gruden had the option to request a rehearing with the three Nevada Supreme Court judges who comprised the split decision votes. He would then potentially have the option to petition for a rehearing including all seven justices that make up the State Supreme Court.
The latest update confirms that Gruden did take that first step, seeking a rehearing from the three-justice panel that made up the May 14 decision. Ultimately, Gruden and his team lost the bid as the panel’s decision was upheld. There have been no reports on whether or not Gruden still can or will seek a rehearing with all seven Nevada Supreme Court members. If his team is able to take this route, the losing party of that rehearing could have the option to take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, as the NFL did with the Rams relocation case.
While speculation leaves the door open for plenty of possibilities, the odds continue to stack against Gruden getting anything out of this lawsuit. The NFL’s resources vastly outweigh those of Gruden and his attorneys, and the courts have a history of siding with the league. The signs continue to point towards an NFL-led arbitration that will either be headed by Goodell himself or a third-party selected by Goodell and the league.
Whether Gruden and company continue to fight back against what they perceive to be a targeted attack from the league and its leader is yet to be seen. After two major setbacks, the complainant has seen the direction in which this is moving and may decide to cut their losses and run. They’ve yet to exhaust all of their options, but this week’s July 1 decision has continued to limit their ability to fight on their own terms.
COMMENTS OPEN…….
I didn’t realize he was suing the NFL but good for Gruden…just like the NFL or any other company has the right to their own policies, Gruden has the right to sue them for what clearly seemed like was targeting. Someone came across his emails and made a point to leak them out.
Let’s say that’s 100% correct for sake of argument…a league employee hated Gruden and leaked bad stuff about him to hurt him…what law was broken?
Oh I totally agree with you, no laws unless there is privacy policy regarding the emails or work place. However, vice-versa what law was it that Gruden broke? Saying some crappy offensive stuff is not breaking the law whether you agree with it or not…I would assume his argument is someone targeted him, and now he has been ‘defamed’ to the point he can’t make a living in a career he’s been in over 25 years.
You can’t be defamed by the truth.
And no one is accusing Gruden of breaking any laws. He resigned and no one wants to hire him. That’s it.
You mentioned laws not me lol when asking what laws were broken when his emails were leaked, you can’t play both sides of the argument. And yes, you absolutely can be defamed in today’s cancel culture society regardless of the ‘Truth’…Free speech is a thing even if you don’t agree with it
“And yes, you absolutely can be defamed in today’s cancel culture society regardless of the ‘Truth’…Free speech is a thing even if you don’t agree with it.”
Right.
Except no one’s free speech was abridged. And free association is a thing even if you don’t agree with it. No one owes him a job.
Not sure how “I’m gonna sue you for telling the truth about me” is being confused for a free speech crusade.
And to answer the point below…civil suits are still based on either laws or legal contracts being broken, not just Gruden’s hurt feelings. So, unless a law was broken (it was not) or a contract was violated (no clear explanation of this has been offered) Chucky gonna lose.
And Besides these are Civil suits correct? Nothing to do with laws being broken….no one’s going to jail over this. Just a fight over money and compensation.
He can blame this person and that group or whoever, but the truth of the matter is, if Gruden hadn’t written those lame a$$ emails in the first place, he’d still be in the league.
So, either the reporting on this case has been terrible or Gruden has absolutely no case.
“People learned what I’ve said and done and have now altered their opinions of and willingness to interact with me as a result!!!”
I have a legal obligation to help you hide your skeletons? Don’t think so.
So, unless the NFL had some legal obligation to do that for Gruden, no case. If they did, I still haven’t seen any good reporting on it.
Gruden mistakingly thought what the NFL did to him was vendetta. It was, but against Dan Synder. Jon was just a speed bump to dump a hated billionaire owner.
arty! — I wish our news media was as straight up, honest, and direct as you.
Locally an NFL Rep was interviewed here on sport talk. The discussion was about the Washington Francise placing a bid to host the draft. In short, the National Mall does not accept permits until 1 year out and does not allow drinking. The rep explained that the draft would bring a lot of attention, people, and financial influx to the region. She followed that up with the NFL get’s what the NFL wants. — This applies on field, off field, in season, off season, any form of business, both foreign and domestic.
I am willing to bet something will be worked out that clears his name and makes this go away.
Does anyone besides Gruden care anymore? Really?
If Gruden were to miraculously win the case it would set some interesting precedents. I would much rather be updated on the status of these legal proceedings than be told for the umpteenth time that the 49ers and Brandon Aiyuk can’t reach a contract agreement.
It’s the off season. Other than talking about who’s having a pool party this weekend what else is there to talk about? It’s the result of trying to make the NFL 365 days interesting. It’s not. The only thing left to see before camp for me is Caleb Williams and Odunze have signed. That’s the scope of my interest.
I think there are plenty of news worthy events taking place during the off season. This forum would quickly fold if the staff only catered to us Bears fans.
Even as a Raiders fan, I am not particularly fond of Gruden.
But I do have an issue with an employer searching employee E-mails and leaking them to the public. I have no issues with the employer searching the E-mails for anything damaging to the employer, but it feels like the employer has an obligation to keep your E-mails private.
Who the hell cares, he will never be a coache again. Go back to the booth as long as you don’t publicly ridicule a NFL team again on national TV.
There is little doubt Gruden is right. I could give two sh@td about him, but the whole thing of him being banished for life from coaching and television broadcasting because he said a homophobic slur, in a private email, that everyone has said in their lifetimes, including homosexuals, and calling some cheerleaders hot, which I am sure nobody else ever does, is ridiculous, and just shows how far down the stupid rabbit hole we have gone as a society. Can anyone imagine losing their entire livelihood over something so idiotic and inconsequential. I never read a racial slur, unless they are referring to him calling Demetrius Smith big lipped. That isn’t a racial slur. He is big lipped. Just like calling Steven Tyler big lipped is not a racial slur. What a joke.
It’s weird.
Lots of people understood that the NFL was a private employer who can hire and fire whoever they like and that teams can choose to not associate with people who they deem bad for their business…
…when it was Colin Kaepernick. But, now, they are confused.
Both Gruden and Kaepernick are and were free to exercise their free speech and neither is owed a job. Period.
I thought you said it wasn’t about a Free Speech Crusade?! lol….At the end of the day his private emails were leaked with the sole purpose of defaming him, mission accomplished. And now he is suing said party for defaming him. Not sure why that’s confusing to you.
Right. It’s not.
The part where you cannot be defamed by the truth. Literally, can’t.
So, the only issue, is whether the leaking party had an obligation to keep the info secret or not.
Also, the part where he doesn’t actually have standing or injury. He quit because he didn’t have the stones to face his locker room. He was not fired. He can claim now that he was pressured…OK?
Does anyone want to hire a coach who folds under pressure? A coach who whines, blames others and refuses to be accountable?
Someone’s Intimate personal videos or pictures are hacked and leaked are they not allowed to sue? Whether it’s defamation of character, invasion of privacy, etc. It’s still the ‘Truth’ technically correct?…Private information was leaked regardless if you like it or not….I’m sorry, it’s not how those facts make you or anyone else feels, and not whether people like the person, it’s just an actual act was performed and Gruden has every right to sue. Especially when it’s your employer IMO
You don’t think your employer owns your work emails? Allen was a league employee and his emails, thus, belong to the NFL. Nothing was “hacked”.
If Gruden wants to argue in court that exposing his thoughts to the world is the equivalent of revenge porn, he’s free to get laughed out of court with that argument. More power to him.
Did the league have a legal obligation to keep those emails private? Yes or no? That’s literally the only question here.
If so, cool, someone should explain why because it has yet to be reported in the 3 years this has been going on.
If not, the rest is just whine.
Not fond of Gruden nor do I feel he merits a legal victory, but the fact that Goodell or one of his appointed minions can preside over an arbitration hearing that is against him is wrong….really, really, really wrong!