- May 21, 2026
- 0
- 0
The NFL's secret, rigged, kangaroo court of arbitration continues to crumble.
On Wednesday, the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles found that an arbitration clause used by the Rams is unconscionable and, in turn, unenforceable.
The dispute arose from a lawsuit filed by Brittany Todd against the Rams. She claims that her March 10, 2026 termination happened after she complained that her immediate supervisors were consuming alcohol during work hours "to the point of extreme intoxication," that they coerced subordinate employees to consume alcohol, that they berated employees "to an abusive level" after becoming intoxicated, and that they berated employees for their religious views.
The Rams filed a motion to compel arbitration. The court rejected the motion.
The arbitration agreement used by the Rams gives the NFL Commissioner, or his designee, the exclusive power to resolve the case, including the threshold question of whether the dispute is "football-related."
The court found that reliance on an arbitrator who is employed by the NFL, which represents the 32 member teams, makes the agreement unconscionable.
It's the third ruling in recent months invalidating the NFL's arbitration provisions. Unlike the Jon Gruden and Brian Flores cases, however, the Todd case did not involve the NFL as a party to the litigation.
Todd's lawyer, Mike Caspino, applauded the decision.
“We are happy that our client will be able to have her day in court," Caspino said in a statement provided to PFT. "We are also happy that all of the employees of the 49ers, Chargers and Rams will no longer be subjected to the NFL’s biased arbitration system.”
The tide seems to be turning sharply against the NFL's effort to serve as judge and jury in cases filed against the league and its teams. And to that we say, "It's about damn time."
It was never fair for the league to handle the lawsuits filed against the NFL and its teams. And the league should have never tried to even do it. After years of pulling it off, the courts are finally tearing it down.
On Wednesday, the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles found that an arbitration clause used by the Rams is unconscionable and, in turn, unenforceable.
The dispute arose from a lawsuit filed by Brittany Todd against the Rams. She claims that her March 10, 2026 termination happened after she complained that her immediate supervisors were consuming alcohol during work hours "to the point of extreme intoxication," that they coerced subordinate employees to consume alcohol, that they berated employees "to an abusive level" after becoming intoxicated, and that they berated employees for their religious views.
The Rams filed a motion to compel arbitration. The court rejected the motion.
The arbitration agreement used by the Rams gives the NFL Commissioner, or his designee, the exclusive power to resolve the case, including the threshold question of whether the dispute is "football-related."
The court found that reliance on an arbitrator who is employed by the NFL, which represents the 32 member teams, makes the agreement unconscionable.
It's the third ruling in recent months invalidating the NFL's arbitration provisions. Unlike the Jon Gruden and Brian Flores cases, however, the Todd case did not involve the NFL as a party to the litigation.
Todd's lawyer, Mike Caspino, applauded the decision.
“We are happy that our client will be able to have her day in court," Caspino said in a statement provided to PFT. "We are also happy that all of the employees of the 49ers, Chargers and Rams will no longer be subjected to the NFL’s biased arbitration system.”
The tide seems to be turning sharply against the NFL's effort to serve as judge and jury in cases filed against the league and its teams. And to that we say, "It's about damn time."
It was never fair for the league to handle the lawsuits filed against the NFL and its teams. And the league should have never tried to even do it. After years of pulling it off, the courts are finally tearing it down.