By Christopher Rawlins and Delaney Freistuhler
On March 30, 2026, a Las Vegas judge set a May 2027 trial date for Jon Gruden’s lawsuit against the National Football League (NFL) and Roger Goodell, marking a significant step in a case previously contested on procedural grounds. This decision allows the dispute between Gruden and the NFL to be settled publicly in a court of law, rather than private arbitration.
In August 2025, the Nevada Supreme Court, in a 5-2 decision, concluded the arbitration clause was “unconscionable” and did not apply to former employees. Attorneys representing the NFL, following the loss, petitioned the Nevada Supreme Court for a rehearing of the decision, but the request was rejected on October 2, 2025 and remanded to the District Court in Las Vegas on October 23, 2025. The league could have filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking for the U.S. Supreme Court to consider the case and review the Nevada Supreme Court’s decision, but it became clear by February the league had declined. In early 2026, the NFL sought to pause the discovery process; however, District Court Judge Joe Hardy denied the request, signaling the case would move forward without delay.
Gruden’s case challenges the NFL’s reliance on arbitration, raising concerns about fairness and accountability in the league. This was a significant blow to the league’s efforts to control public disclosure of internal disputes the league would prefer not to reveal. Gruden’s lawsuit alleges the NFL selectively disclosed these emails to force his removal from the Raiders organization and tarnish his reputation. The NFL denies these claims, maintaining that it did not act improperly in releasing the materials. As a result of his resignation, Gruden did not receive the full value of his $100 million contract, set to run through 2027.
Gruden initially filed suit against the NFL and Commissioner Roger Goodell shortly after resigning as head coach of the Las Vegas Raiders on October 11, 2021. His attorneys argue that the NFL’s actions caused substantial harm to his career, reputation, and future employment opportunities, resulting in alleged losses exceeding $150 million. In the initial complaint, attorneys for Gruden claim the NFL’s “treatment of Gruden was a Soviet-style character assassination” with “no warning and no process.” They also claim the NFL “held the emails for months until they were leaked to the national media in the middle of the Raiders’ season in order to cause maximum damage to Gruden.”
The controversy stems from a series of emails Gruden sent while working as an analyst for ESPN, a position he held from 2009-2018. The emails, sent between 2011 and 2018, were included in a swath of documents uncovered during an unrelated internal investigation into the Washington Commanders organization following reports that female employees there had experienced sexual or verbal abuse. Gruden was not employed by the NFL at the time and not the subject of the investigation. The released emails contain offensive language authored by Gruden, including racist, sexist, and anti-gay remarks. They were leaked to the media while he was serving as head coach of the Raiders and contributed greatly to Gruden’s decision to resign as coach within weeks of the first release.
A central issue in the Gruden v. NFL (2025) case has been whether Gruden’s grievances should be resolved through private arbitration or in open court. The NFL has historically shown a preference for using arbitration and has established that preference through regulations outlined in the league’s collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and constitution. Arbitration proceedings provide a degree of privacy that protects the league from public scrutiny but have been criticized by some because the process lacks independence from the league itself. The NFL’s use of arbitration is currently battling to survive.
In a lawsuit filed by former NFL coach Brian Flores and joined by Steve Wilks and Ray Horton, a judge decided all claims would proceed in open court after being previously forced into arbitration. The judge cited the NFL’s use of arbitration in its contracts as having a “fatal flaw” because the process was controlled by the league’s chief executive, Roger Goodell. It was determined that arbitration lacked independence from the league itself. The judge identified the league could change the rules and regulations at will to its own benefit without the consent of those governed, giving the league an inherent advantage.
NFL Has Struggled to Encourage Arbitration
Previous cases reveal the league’s efforts to use arbitration as the preferred framework and show the struggles it has had to maintain its use of arbitration as the preferred method.
In Brady v. NFL (2011), Tom Brady challenged a four-game ‘Deflategate’ suspension resulting from a scandal alleging Brady deliberately deflated footballs used in the 2015 AFC Championship game against the Indianapolis Colts. The case was initially settled in arbitration, with Commissioner Goodell serving as the arbitrator. The NFL Players Association, representing Brady’s interests, filed to vacate the outcome and the court initially nullified the punishment, but the U.S. Court of Appeals reinstated it, reinforcing the commissioner’s authority under the CBA.
In another case, Kaepernick v. NFL, Colin Kaepernick filed a grievance alleging collusion by NFL teams after his national anthem protests. This dispute proceeded through arbitration and was later resolved through a confidential settlement. Kaepernick was a free agent, not employed by the NFL at the time he filed his grievance and remained unemployed by the NFL through February 2019, when the case was settled. Kaepernick did not challenge the league’s arbitration clause or make efforts for the case to be heard in open court, and it could be argued that the effort was not made because, per the NFL’s CBA, collusion grievances are handled by a neutral, independent arbitrator, not the commissioner. The commissioner, Roger Goodell, was a key figure in the investigation, serving as a witness. Kaepernick v. NFL differs from Gruden’s because the arbitration is handled by a neutral party.
Historically, the NFL has shown a preference for arbitration, and the courts have traditionally been willing to accommodate the NFL and defer to the process, especially regarding CBAs. Gruden’s case against the NFL and Goodell differs. As a former employee, Gruden exists outside of the league’s typical arbitration framework. His attorneys argue that arbitration will not provide a neutral forum because Commissioner Goodell is a named defendant and, like he has in past disputes, would potentially oversee the arbitration.
Allowing the commissioner to serve as an arbitrator creates a conflict of interest where the league acts as a party to the complaint and as the decision-maker. The Nevada Supreme Court’s rejection of arbitration represents a significant procedural victory for Gruden and presents a perspective that may have broader implications for future settlement disputes between the NFL and other professional sports leagues with former employees.
The case, currently in discovery, is positioned to not only address Gruden’s claims but also broader questions of transparency, accountability, and the balance of power within professional sports organizations.
Christopher Rawlins is a Teacher of Social Studies at West Career and Technical Academy in Las Vegas, NV and an Adjunct Professor of Communications at the University of Nevada Las Vegas. He is currently a student in the Sport Management Doctoral Program at Troy University. He lives in Las Vegas, NV.
Delaney Freistuhler is an Associate Director of Communications at the University of South Carolina in Columbia, SC. She is currently a student in the Sport Management Doctoral Program at Troy University. She lives in Augusta, GA.
