Los Angeles judge declares NFL arbitration system unconscionable

A judge on Wednesday rejected the Los Angeles Rams' attempt to force a former employee's retaliation and discrimination lawsuit into arbitration, a ruling the employee's attorney said extends a growing judicial backlash against the NFL's arbitration system to California.

Superior Court Judge Alexander C.D. Giza denied the Rams' motion to compel arbitration in a 13-page ruling in Brittany Todd v. Los Angeles Rams, LLC, finding the agreement unconscionable because it gave the NFL commissioner a central role in determining who would arbitrate employment disputes.

Mike Caspino of Price Caspino, who represents Todd, said the ruling is significant because similar challenges to the NFL's arbitration structure have succeeded elsewhere, but California courts had not yet squarely rejected the system.

"The NFL has this arbitration system where everything goes to the commissioner or the commissioner's designee," Caspino said. "I've actually done NFL arbitrations. They're crazy."

Caspino compared the arrangement to requiring an employee with a grievance against a company to have the dispute adjudicated by the head of the company.

"You've got a problem with the NFL? You don't get to go to court," he said. "You have to go in front of the commissioner."

Todd worked for the Rams from July 2017 until March 10, 2026. She alleges she was fired after reporting supervisors to human resources for becoming extremely intoxicated at work, pressuring subordinates to drink and berating employees, including over their religious views. Her April lawsuit asserts retaliation, whistleblower retaliation, wrongful termination, hostile work environment and religious discrimination and harassment, among other claims.

Giza found Todd had signed an arbitration agreement covering her claims. But he concluded the agreement was both procedurally and substantively unconscionable.

The judge found a moderate degree of procedural unconscionability because the agreement was presented on a take-it-or-leave-it basis and incorporated NFL governing documents that were neither attached nor accompanied by information telling employees where to obtain them. Those documents could affect whether a dispute went before the NFL commissioner or JAMS.

More significantly, Giza found a "high level" of substantive unconscionability because the commissioner was empowered to decide, in his "sole discretion," whether a dispute was "football-oriented" and, if so, serve as arbitrator.

The agreement itself acknowledged that the commissioner works for the NFL, which represents its 32 member clubs.

"Whether an employee can even reach a neutral arbitrator at JAMS depends on the NFL Commissioner," Giza wrote, concluding the arrangement lacked a fundamental requirement of lawful mandatory employment arbitration: a neutral arbitrator.

Caspino said the provision potentially reaches well beyond players, coaches and other employees directly involved with football operations.

"Everybody thinks" the arbitration system applies only to players and other prominent NFL personnel, he said. But an ordinary employee bringing a workplace claim can also be subject to the requirement.

"If you work for the NFL, and you're a janitor, and you want to sue because you've been sexually harassed, whatever it may be, you must go before the commissioner of the NFL," Caspino said.

He pointed to the NFL's large media operation in Inglewood as an example of how many employees potentially could be affected by the league's arbitration requirements.

Caspino said Giza's ruling follows decisions elsewhere questioning the commissioner's role in NFL employment arbitration.

In the racial discrimination lawsuit brought by former Miami Dolphins head coach Brian Flores, Caspino noted, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected provisions requiring certain claims to be arbitrated before NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell. The Nevada Supreme Court has also rejected the NFL arbitration structure in former Las Vegas Raiders coach Jon Gruden's lawsuit, applying California unconscionability law.

"So now that has been extended to California for the first time in this ruling," Caspino said.

The Rams urged Giza to take a narrower approach by severing any improper provisions and sending Todd's claims to JAMS.

The judge refused.

Giza found that unconscionability permeated the agreement and said it was drafted to "place a thumb on the scales in the employer's favor" and obstruct employees' access to fair arbitration.

Severance would not serve the interests of justice, Giza concluded, characterizing the agreement as employer "overreach" that should be discouraged.

Caspino, who said he has handled a number of cases against NFL teams and participated in NFL arbitration proceedings, described the league's system as a longstanding anomaly that courts increasingly are unwilling to accept.

"They've done this for 50 years," he said.

Jeffrey M. Lenkov of Zelms Erlich Lenkov LLP represented the Rams. He could not be reached immediately Thursday for comment.