Supreme Court hears oral arguments in Gruden, NFL legal fight

The Nevada Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday in the legal fight between Jon Gruden and the NFL, which is trying to force the former Raiders coach into arbitration over a 2021 lawsuit.

Gruden sued the league and Commissioner Roger Goodell in November 2021, claiming that the NFL intentionally leaked derogatory emails he wrote and pressured the Raiders to fire him in an attempt to ruin his career and reputation. Gruden resigned as the Raiders head coach a month before the lawsuit was filed, after The Wall Street Journal and the New York Times published stories about racist, misogynistic and anti-LGBTQ emails he had written.

The NFL has said it did not leak the emails, and has disputed Gruden’s allegation that all of the emails leading to his departure were sent before he became the Raiders’ coach.

The league has also argued that the NFL Constitution requires Gruden to go through an arbitration process that would be moderated by Goodell, another NFL official or an “arbitration service provider,” according to court documents.

A panel of justices Elissa Cadish, Linda Bell and Kristina Pickering questioned how Goodell would be able to oversee the arbitration process.

“What about due process?” Cadish asked during the oral arguments on Wednesday. “To have a dispute with somebody who is the one deciding the dispute — seems like there might be a problem.”

NFL attorney Kannon Shanmugam noted that Goodell has the authority to designate someone else to act as arbitrator.

“That would alleviate any concern about bias,” Shanmugam said.

In October 2022, District Judge Nancy Allf blocked the NFL’s attempt to settle the lawsuit through arbitration outside of the courtroom, a decision which the NFL later appealed to the Nevada Supreme Court.

Shanmugam told the justices that Gruden’s claims that the NFL is responsible for his resignation are “unsubstantiated.” He argued that when Gruden signed his contract with the Raiders, which Shanmugam described as “the richest coaching contract in NFL history,” he agreed to broad arbitration agreements for conflicts involving “conduct detrimental to the league.”

Gruden’s attorneys have claimed he cannot be forced into arbitration in part because his employment agreement with the Raiders has been terminated, and that the arbitration process would be inequitable because Goodell has the authority to determine what conduct is and isn’t “detrimental.”

Gruden’s attorney, Adam Hosmer-Henner, said Wednesday that Gruden was not provided a copy of the NFL Constitution, and that when he signed the contract he did not have an attorney present, only his agent.

Hosmer-Henner argued that Gruden had “unequal bargaining power” over the contract.

“Coach Gruden had no opportunity to negotiate the NFL constitution,” Hosmer-Henner said. “He couldn’t request a modification to it, he had to comply with it in order to get the job that he has trained his entire life for.”

Although Cadish said that Gruden could have gone to work for ESPN instead of signing the contract, Hosmer-Henner argued that him being able to pursue a different profession does not make the contract sufficient.

Both Gruden and his attorney declined to comment following Wednesday’s hearing.

Shanmugam argued that Gruden would have been able to review the NFL constitution by simply searching for the document on the internet.

“It’s frankly preposterous to suggest that a longtime coach who is represented by a savvy agent should not be held to those terms, including the arbitration provision,” Shanmugam said.

The lawsuit in state court has been on pause since the NFL appealed the arbitration decision to the Supreme Court. The justices did not indicate on Wednesday when they would release a decision on the arbitration appeal.

Contact Katelyn Newberg at knewberg@reviewjournal.com or 702-383-0240.