Black NFL Coaches’ Discrimination Claims to be Heard in Court, Not Arbitration
June 2, 2026
By: Colin A. Walker
Coach Brian Flores, the current Defensive Coordinator of the Minnesota Vikings, sued the NFL and four football teams (The New York Giants, the Denver Broncos, the Miami Dolphins and the Houston Texans) in 2022 under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1864, the primary federal discrimination law, and related state laws, arguing that he had been discriminated against based on his race (African American). Two other black coaches (Steve Wilks and Ray Horton) (the “Coaches”) later joined the suit, and asserted claims against the Arizona Cardinals and Tennessee Titans (the “Teams”). The NFL and the Teams asked the court to enforce arbitration agreements in the Coaches’ employment agreements and the NFL Constitution. Arbitration is a private form of dispute resolution, by which parties agree, by contract, to submit their disputes to an arbitrator, as an alternative to litigation in court. There are pros and cons to arbitration, but most plaintiff’s attorneys prefer litigation because arbitration does not allow jury trials. Although federal and state laws generally favor arbitration and courts often compel arbitration if the parties agreed to arbitrate in a contract, as evidenced by this case, there are limits.
A New York federal district court denied the NFL and the Teams’ motion to compel arbitration as it related to claims applicable to the NFL Constitution’s arbitration provision but compelled arbitration as to claims under the employment agreements’ arbitration provisions. The NFL and the Teams appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York.
The Second Circuit ruled in favor of the Coaches, declining to order the parties to arbitrate the claims under the NFL Constitution’s arbitration provisions. Observing that the NFL Constitution grants the NFL Commissioner “full, complete, and final jurisdiction and authority to arbitrate… [a]ny dispute between any ... coach ... and any member club or clubs,” the Second Circuit held that the arbitration agreement “offends basic presumptions of our arbitration jurisprudence by submitting Flores's statutory claims to the unilateral substantive and procedural discretion of the ‘principal executive officer’ of one of his adverse parties, the NFL.” Therefore, the court concluded that the arbitration agreement did not comply with the Federal Arbitration Act and “did not guarantee that the Coaches can vindicate their statutory claims” (i.e., their discrimination claims) and was not enforceable.