Jon Gruden has scored another legal win against the NFL.
On Thursday, the Nevada Supreme Court unanimously (7–0) rejected the NFL’s request to rehear its decision to allow Gruden’s lawsuit against the league to proceed in public. The NFL declined to comment.
Gruden resigned as Raiders coach in 2021 after emails where he used racist, misogynistic, and anti-gay slurs were leaked. (The emails were sent while he was an ESPN analyst.) He sued the league and commissioner Roger Goodell shortly after accusing them of a “malicious and orchestrated campaign” to leak the emails and, as a result, destroy his coaching career.
The emails were sent to then-Commanders GM Bruce Allen over a seven-year period and came to light during an investigation into Washington’s organization.
In August, the Nevada Supreme Court ruled in Gruden’s favor 5–2 to have the case go public instead of to arbitration, where the NFL insisted the case belonged. The court ruled the NFL’s arbitration clause in its constitution and bylaws “does not apply to Gruden as a former employee and is unconscionable.”
The NFL petitioned the court for a rehearing in September and asked it to reconsider its decision, which the league said “carry major disruptive consequences” for a “host of industries.”
The court also said the clause that lets Goodell “arbitrate disputes about his own conduct — exactly what is at issue here.” The seven-judge panel also found it “unconscionable” that the NFL can alter its constitution–including its arbitration clause–“at any time, and without notice.”
At first, a three-judge panel ruled against Gruden in May 2024, saying the case called for arbitration. Gruden appealed the decision and won in October 2024, which moved the case to the Nevada Supreme Court.
The NFL will likely petition the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case.If the Supreme Court passes on the case, the NFL would have to face Gruden in court, including the prospect of discovery, barring a settlement.
In a statement to FOS, Gruden’s attorney said “We’re obviously pleased with the Court’s decision.”
