EmailPrintOpen Extended ReactionsA California judge ruled Wednesday that the Los Angeles Rams' arbitration rules are "an example of an employer's attempt to overreach" in a wrongful termination lawsuit filed by a former employee against the team, the latest case in which the league's practice of taking employment disputes into arbitration has come under scrutiny.California Superior Court Judge Alexander C.D. Giza denied the Rams' motion to compel arbitration, finding that the team's arbitration agreement is one-sided because it "causes a roadblock to an employee pursuing his or her employment related claims."Last year, two separate courts moved in favor of coaches' challenges to NFL arbitration requirements -- one in Nevada Supreme Court in favor of former Raiders coach Jon Gruden, and the other in the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals in favor of current Minnesota Vikings defensive coordinator Brian Flores.The league declined to comment Thursday on the California case.In that case, the Rams had filed a motion to compel former employee Brittany Todd into arbitration after she sued the team, alleging it had fired her after she reported workplace misconduct to human resources. The team argued that Todd, who worked for the Rams from July 2017 to March 2026, signed its updated arbitration agreement in April 2025 and could not sue it in court. Todd does not deny that she signed the update or that her claims fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement, according to the ruling Wednesday. Instead, her attorney argued that the agreement is "unenforceable because it is unconscionable."In a statement, a team spokesperson told ESPN, "The Rams strongly dispute the allegations and will vigorously defend the integrity of the organization and our employees. Since this matter is in active litigation, we have no further comment."According to the judge's 13-page opinion, the updated arbitration agreement signed by Todd incorporates the NFL Constitution and Bylaws and gives the commissioner "full, complete and final jurisdiction and authority to arbitrate" what the league calls "football-oriented disputes" -- meaning those that arise from NFL rules, club policies, or regulations relating to football.Disputes over retaliation claims like Todd's, however, are considered "not football-oriented" and often handled by JAMS, a separate, private arbitration company, according to the ruling. But the judge determined the arbitration agreement Todd signed "does not exclude such claims from the NFL commissioner's threshold review. There is no stated timeline by which the NFL commissioner must make his threshold review. Thus, whether an employee can even reach a neutral arbitrator at JAMS depends on the NFL commissioner."The judge also determined that the team failed to attach the NFL Constitution and Bylaws to Todd's arbitration agreement and did not provide her a source from which she could obtain those documents.The judge ruled the team's arbitration agreement "is clearly unconscionable on its face" and made "it difficult for the employee to reach a neutral arbitrator."The judge wrote in his opinion that the team's arbitration agreement "was clearly drafted to place a thumb on the scales in the employer's favor and to obstruct the employee's access to a fair arbitration." "It's time the commissioner and the teams realize they can't take advantage of their employees," the plaintiff's attorney, Mike Caspino, told ESPN.The Rams spokesperson did not provide an answer when asked by ESPN if the team planned to appeal the judge's decision.If the team does appeal, the case would go to the California Courts of Appeal and, from there, potentially to the California Supreme Court, which "has been vigorous in protecting employee rights" and would most likely uphold the lower judge's decision, according to Stanford emeritus law professor William Gould.The decision as it stands is precedent setting and could impact any case brought by an employee working for the Rams or other NFL teams based in California, according to Gould.
