Client Advisory
Additional Recent Client Advisories
SCOTUS Declines Review of NFL Arbitration Clause, Signaling Adoption of Second Circuit Standard for Scrutiny of Employer-Drafted ADR Provisions
The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to review the Second Circuit’s landmark decision in Flores v. New York Football Giants, Inc., et al., leaving intact a ruling that struck down the National Football League’s employment-contract arbitration clause as unfairly unilateral. The denial of certiorari finalizes the Secon Circuit’s precedential holding: employers cannot enforce mandatory arbitration provisions that place procedural and substantive control in the hands of the employers or its agents.
Background
The case arose from former Miami Dolphins head coach Brian Flores’s racial discrimination class action alleging systematic hiring bias across the league. The NFL sought to compel arbitration under a clause incorporated into coaching contracts through the NFL Constitution – a clause granting the Commissioner “full, complete, and final jurisdiction and authority to arbitrate” disputes, including the power to serve as arbitrator himself.
The Second Circuit rejected that structure, holding that the Commissioner-controlled process “fails to bear even a passing resemblance to traditional arbitral practice” and therefore is not protected by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). With the Supreme Court declining review, the decision now stands as a limitation on employer-designed arbitration systems.
Second Circuit’s Key Holdings
The Second Circuit provided a clear framework for assessing employer-drafted arbitration systems, concluding that the NFL’s process was not “arbitration” within the meaning of the FAA. The court emphasized that true arbitration requires neutrality and bilateral procedure, yet the NFL Constitution gave the Commissioner complete control over the forum, the rules, and even the ability to appoint himself as an arbitrator. Because Flores’s employment agreements incorporated this structure by reference, his discrimination claims would have been funneled into a process the Second circuit found to be lacking any independent decision-maker or meaningful procedural safeguards. The court held that such a system bore no resemblance to traditional arbitral practice and thus fell outside the FAA’s protection
The panel further explained that, even assuming the clause constituted arbitration, it violated the “effective vindication” doctrine because the Commissioner’s unilateral authority effectively deprived Flores of a forum capable of adjudicating his § 1981 claims. Given these structural defects, as well as additional issues with the documentation submitted regarding Flores’s Steeler’s agreement, the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court’s refusal to compel arbitration of Flores’s claims against the Broncos, Giants, Texans, and the NFL, as well as its denial of reconsideration.
Significance of SCOTUS Denial
The Supreme Court’s denial does not necessarily signal agreement with the Second Circuit’s reasoning, nor does it transform Flores into nationwide precedent; it simply leaves the Second Circuit’s fact‑specific judgment intact within its jurisdiction.
Still, the refusal to intervene ensures that the Second Circuit’s detailed analysis of the NFL’s arbitration structure remains binding law in the circuit, reinforcing the principle that merely labeling a process “arbitration” does not bring it within the FAA’s protection.
The Second Circuit focused heavily on the NFL Constitution’s grant of “full, complete, and final” arbitral authority to the Commissioner. Because this structure deprived Flores of a meaningful opportunity to vindicate his § 1981 rights, the court also held that the clause was both outside the FAA’s scope and independently unenforceable under the effective‑vindication doctrine.
Essentially, SCOTUS’s denial leaves that reasoning undisturbed, signaling to employers that while arbitration clauses remain broadly enforceable, provisions that centralize procedural control in the employer, compromise neutrality, or resemble internal dispute‑resolution mechanisms rather than true arbitration are now more vulnerable to challenge – particularly in statutory discrimination cases.
Overall, the denial preserves the Second Circuit’s narrow, fact‑driven ruling without creating a sweeping national rule, but it underscores that arbitration must genuinely function as arbitration to withstand judicial scrutiny. In other words, employers cannot design dispute‑resolution systems that resemble internal tribunals or managerial review processes rather than true adjudicative forums.