Nevada

Nevada Supreme Court Orders Gruden’s Case Against NFL To Arbitration

Published

6 months ago

May 14, 2024

Press Room

Nevada Supreme Court Orders Gruden’s Case Against NFL To Arbitration

Photo by Ethan Miller/Getty Images

Getty Images

In a May 14, 2024 Order, the Supreme Court of the State of Nevada reversed a lower court’s holding that former Las Vegas Raiders head coach Jon Gruden did not have to arbitrate his claims against the NFL and Commissioner Roger Goodell arising out of his October 2021 forced resignation. Gruden now faces the prospects of pursuing an arbitration process ostensibly – but not necessarily – controlled by Goodell.

The District Court Goes For Gruden

Gruden was forced to resign after the revelation of emails in which he engaged in what the NFL described in a legal brief as “racist tropes and misogynistic and homophobic slurs.” At the time, Gruden was in the fourth year of a 10-year, $100 million contract, the largest contract ever for an NFL coach.

Notwithstanding the fact Gruden and the Raiders quickly reached a confidential settlement concerning Gruden’s departure, in November 2021, Gruden sued the NFL and Goodell (but not the Raiders) in the Eighth Judicial District Court in Clark County, Nevada, alleging principally that the defendants had intentionally and tortiously interfered with Gruden’s contract with the Raiders by allegedly leaking the problematic emails.

In January 2022, the NFL filed separate motions to dismiss the case and to compel the matter to arbitration. In its motion to compel, the NFL relied on two provisions of Gruden’s employment agreement. First, Gruden agreed generally to be “bound by the Constitution, Bylaws, and rules and regulations of the NFL.” Based on this provision, the NFL argued that Gruden is bound by Section 8.3(E) of the NFL Constitution, which provides the Commissioner authority to arbitrate a dispute “that in the opinion of the Commissioner constitutes conduct detrimental to the best interests of the League or professional football.” Second, Gruden’s contract contained an arbitration provision requiring that “all matters in dispute between Gruden and [the Raiders], including without limitation any dispute arising from the terms of this Agreement, shall be referred to the NFL Commissioner for binding arbitration, and his decision shall be accepted as final, conclusive, and unappealable.”

On May 26, 2022, the District Court denied both motions ruling from the bench. The court held that the NFL’s first argument on the motion to compel failed because, as pointed out by Gruden, invoking this authority would supposedly require Goodell to predetermine the outcome of the arbitration. Second, the court determined that the NFL’s reliance on the arbitration provision contained in Gruden’s contract was misplaced because it only covered disputes between Gruden and the Raiders, which are not a party to the litigation. The District Court’s opinion was later expanded on in an order written by Gruden’s counsel and signed by the District Court, a process permitted by Nevada’s rules.

The Nevada Supreme Court Reverses

The Nevada Supreme Court, in a 2-1 decision, determined that the District Court made numerous errors in its decision. First, the Court held that Gruden failed to prove that his settlement with the Raiders extinguished the relevant arbitration clauses because he did not offer the settlement agreement as evidence in the case and because arbitration clauses are presumed to survive contract termination. Second, the Court determined that Gruden’s contract incorporated the NFL Constitution by reference because Gruden agreed to be bound by it and because it was available to him. Third, the Court found that Gruden’s claims were within the scope of Section 8.3(e) because “[w]hether judged from the perspective of Gruden’s emails becoming public or the NFL Parties’ alleged leaking of those emails, the conduct-detrimental to the NFL or professional football requirement appears satisfied.” Fourth, the Court rejected Gruden’s argument that the arbitration agreement was procedurally unconscionable, finding that he “was the very definition of a sophisticated party” in negotiating his employment agreement. Fifth, concerning substantive unconscionability, while the Court expressed some concern about Goodell potentially serving as the arbitrator in a matter in which he is a defendant, “it is not clear that Goodell will act as arbitrator.” Moreover, the Court noted, “issues of arbitrator bias are reviewable post-arbitration.” Finally, the Court rejected Gruden’s argument that the arbitration agreement is “illusory” because the NFL can amend it unilaterally, noting that the NFL’s ability to do so is restrained by the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing inherent in every contract.

For all of these reasons, the Court reversed the District Court’s decision and remanded the case with instructions to grant the NFL’s motion requesting that the case be compelled to arbitration.

Justice Linda Marie Bell, writing in dissent, argued that the arbitration agreement did not apply to Gruden because he is no longer an employee of the Raiders. Additionally, Justice Bell believed that incorporation of the NFL Constitution into Gruden’s contract was procedurally unconscionable because Gruden had no choice but to accept it and, at 447 pages, it dwarfed the terms of Gruden’s 7-page employment agreement.

Gruden’s Call

It will soon be up to Gruden to decide whether to file an arbitration with Goodell pursuant to the provisions of the NFL Constitution. Goodell is unlikely to preside over the arbitration, out of the concern that any decision he makes could then be vacated by a court on the ground of bias. Goodell has historically taken one of three routes in these situations: (1) he designates internal NFL counsel to preside over the matter (often General Counsel Jeff Pash); (2) he designates an outside attorney who formerly worked for the NFL or one of its clubs to be arbitrator (Harold Henderson and Bob Wallace, for example); or (3) in high-profile matters where judicial scrutiny is likely, he designates a respected arbitrator or attorney to serve. The most likely choice would be an attorney or arbitrator with labor and employment expertise and some NFL ties but not so much as to create a strong impression of bias.

The last option is what Goodell chose in 2022 when the NFL appealed an arbitrator’s decision to suspend Cleveland Browns quarterback DeShaun Watson for six games, much less than the 14 games the NFL wanted. Goodell had the right under the collective bargaining to hear the appeal but instead appointed Peter Harvey, a former Attorney General for New Jersey and NFL consultant as arbitrator. The parties settled for an 11-game suspension before any appeal was heard.

Gruden is more than two years into this legal battle and, given his pugnacious reputation, is unlikely to drop the case now. Moreover, given the judicial scrutiny Commissioner Goodell’s involvement has already received, it is more likely that Gruden will be able to have his claims fairly considered by a neutral (or near neutral) party.

Source link

Click to comment

Nevada

OSU Basketball: Cowboys Close Charleston Classic with Loss to Nevada

Published

51 mins ago

November 24, 2024

Press Room

OSU Basketball: Cowboys Close Charleston Classic with Loss to Nevada

The Cowboys went 1-2 in their trip to Charleston.

Oklahoma State fell to Nevada 90-78 on Sunday afternoon in the Charleston Classic’s consolation final. It was a game dominated by a pair of Nevada players, as Kobe Sanders and Nick Davidson combined to score 50 of the Wolf Pack’s points (27 from Sanders and 23 from Davidson). Nevada shot 59% from the field and 39% from 3.

OSU was playing from behind all afternoon, as the Cowboys never held a lead, and the Wolf Pack led for about 38 of the 40 minutes. After going into the break down 40-33, OSU made a few runs at it in the second half, but the Pokes couldn’t get over the hump. Nevada extended its lead to 19 with about 14 minutes to play before the Cowboys stormed back with an 11-0 run to cut it to 62-54. The teams traded baskets for the next few minutes before OSU ripped off another 7-0 run to cut Nevada’s lead to 70-66. But when the Wolf Pack needed a basket, they got one.

As much success as Nevada was having shooting the ball, the Cowboys ran into some struggles, hitting just 42% of their shots from the field and 29% of their 3-point attempts. It continues the trend to start this season where OSU has either shot in the 40% range from 3 or in the 20s.

The Cowboys forced Nevada into 10 turnovers, the fewest OSU has forced this season. OSU also had a season-low four steals.

OSU had four players score in double figures. Chi Chi Avery led the way with 15. Arturo Dean hit double digits for the first time as a Cowboy, finishing with 13. Robert Jennings II and Abou Ousmane each had 11.

The Wolf Pack are a good squad, winning 26 games last season and 22 the year before. Nevada made the NCAA Tournament on both of those occasions, and KenPom projects the Wolf Pack to finish this regular season with 24 wins.

At 4-2 in the young season, the Cowboys have some time to recalibrate after being tested in Charleston. OSU’s next game is Dec. 4 in Tulsa.

Source link

Nevada

Can Nevada ride out Russ Vought? • Nevada Current

Published

9 hours ago

November 24, 2024

Press Room

Can Nevada ride out Russ Vought? • Nevada Current

The semi-celebrities and quacks (not that they’re mutually exclusive) get a lot of attention, but one recent appointment announced by Donald Trump is cause for even more concern, and especially for historically anti-government states like Nevada.

Trump on Friday named Russ Vought his director of the Office of Management and Budget.

Of all the Project 2025 authors, none is more eager to create chaos within and dismantle much of the federal bureaucracy than Vought

“We want the bureaucrats to be traumatically affected,” Vought has declared. “When they wake up in the morning, we want them to not want to go to work because they are increasingly viewed as the villains.”

Minimizing the the federal workforce and traumatizing what’s left of it is Vought’s raison d’etre.

That might sound all “ooh, cool, that’ll teach ’em” — until the federal government can’t competently distribute grandma’s monthly Social Security benefit or process your federal income tax refund.

In Nevada, there are many dedicated state and local government employees who work hard to deliver a vast array of programs and services – from nutrition programs for low-income families to processing tax abatements for multi-billion-dollar corporations.

As in every state, those myriad programs and services and initiatives are contingent on federal money, or federal cooperation, or clarity and timeliness of federal rules and regulations.

And while there are many dedicated Nevadans working to provide and/or administer government programs and services the best they can, there are very rarely enough of them. Nevada can be very generous to big business. But when it comes to financing government, Nevada has always been a notoriously cheap state – bottom of the good lists, top of the bad lists, etc.

Vought’s – and Trump’s – crusade against federal civil servants promises to wreak havoc on the delivery of programs and services in every state, red and blue alike.

All states will struggle to compensate for the carnage Vought vows to inflict on the United States civil service.

The states that will have the best fighting chance of safeguarding continued and competent delivery of vital services will be those with something approaching adequately funded and staffed state and local government. Nevada has never been one of those.

***

A pleasant (if short-lived) surprise. But back to the aforementioned quacks and semi-celebrities… it’s as if Trump has been deliberately debasing his own supporters, nominating obviously outlandish and offensive people to jobs they have no business being anywhere near, for the depraved satisfaction of watching his followers – both those who are elected and those within the electorate – obsequiously go along with whatever he says or does.

Initially it looked as if Republican senators were prepared to surrender unconditionally, and grovel in submission while Trump insults their intelligence and rubs their noses in it.

So their willingness to tell Trump to shove his nomination of Matt Gaetz you know where, is a fine thing.

So that’s on the bright side.

On the not so bright side… Yes, though it’s a low bar – subterranean, even – Pam Bondi, the person Trump has named to be AG instead of Gaetz, is far more competent than Gaetz. But she’s also no less loyal to Dear Leader, meaning she could be even worse for the nation and the rule of law than Gaetz. And not surprisingly – her being an extreme Trump loyalist and all – she has documented dalliances with corruption (shielding the Trump University grift) and rejecting reality (election denier).

Stay strong, Republican senators,

Portions of this column were originally published in recent editions of the Daily Current newsletter, which is free and which you can subscribe to here.

Source link

Nevada

NEVADA VIEWS: Lessons from Nevada’s Question 3

Published

18 hours ago

November 24, 2024

Press Room

NEVADA VIEWS: Lessons from Nevada’s Question 3

A majority of Nevada voters rejected Question 3 on the Nov. 5 ballot. This complex amendment would have eliminated party primaries, advanced five candidates to general elections and introduced a new voting method in general elections

I moved to Nevada in 2021 to care for my aging mother. Before that time, I lived in Maine, where I led efforts that opened Maine’s primaries to all voters and protected the nation’s first statewide ranked-choice voting law.

My values and experience inform me that initiatives to change how we elect our leaders should make their way to voters as the result of home-grown and grassroots movements that are thoughtful, collaborative, strategic and patient.

I am dumbfounded that out-of-state donors and advocates would come into Nevada, steamroll stakeholders and potential allies, rush a constitutional amendment to ballot and spend millions to score a quick win for their preferred policy prescription to our political ills.

As a recent Review-Journal editorial noted, the national coalition behind Question 3 pushed similar initiatives in other states in 2024. Voters rejected each of these proposals.

Here are a few of my takeaways from these failed efforts:

■ Mission and strategy must align. Election reform is inherently hopeful and optimistic. Ramming through policy changes and seeking to buy elections are anti-democratic and deeply cynical approaches to politics. Coalitions with antithetical missions and strategies will almost always fail to achieve the real and lasting change that they seek.

■ Patience is practical. Process matters. How change is made can be as important as what change is made, especially when it comes to process reforms. Elections and voting reform initiatives must be organized by local leaders who will build coalitions and recruit volunteers to secure majority support for their cause, one voter and one conversation at a time. The proper role of national groups is not to lead or dictate, but to support.

■ There is no single solution to fix our broken politics. There are 50 states and more than 50 ways of conducting elections and voting in the United States. While policymakers and advocates should learn from one another, we should be skeptical of anyone or any group that promises a silver bullet or pushes a one-size-fits-all solution.

Voters aren’t stupid. We have a sense when politicians and special interests are trying to put one over on us. Question 3 didn’t pass the straight-face test.

That’s too bad because my experience with ranked-choice voting in Maine has taught me that it works to eliminate vote-splitting and ensure majority winners. You have the freedom to vote for the candidate you like best without worrying that your vote will be “wasted” or that you will help to elect the candidate you like least. In both Maine and Alaska, ranked-choice voting has stopped extreme candidates from winning congressional races.

Ranked-choice voting also increases voter turnout, reduces negative campaigning and encourages more women and minorities to run for office.

Surveys from the states and cities in which millions of Americans rank their vote indicate that voters find it to be simple and easy to use and preferable.

One of the most disappointing false attacks on ranked-choice voting is that communities of color might find it difficult to rank candidates. To suggest that white voters are intellectually superior to voters of color is a racist argument.

Nevadans are frustrated with politics as usual. We know that our system isn’t working like it should. We know that billionaires and corporations have too much power and influence over decisions that affect us all. We want to strengthen our democracy for future generations.

Had the national advocates behind Question 3 approached this effort differently, I believe that there might have been a different outcome.

Kyle Bailey moved to Nevada in 2021 and previously served in the Maine House of Representatives.

Source link