Many employees believe that if they have signed an arbitration agreement, they have effectively released their ability to bring civil rights claims. But the law requires that arbitration be a fair and neutral process, and if the arbitration clause stacks the deck too far in favor of the employer, courts can refuse to enforce it. A recent Second Circuit decision, Flores v. New York Football Giants, shows how important this can be for employees.
In that case, Brian Flores, along with other coaches, brought claims of racial discrimination against the NFL and several of its teams. The NFL argued that the claims could not proceed in court because the coaches had signed arbitration agreements that incorporated the NFL Constitution. The problem was that under those rules, the Commissioner of the NFL—the very executive responsible for the league and employed by its member teams—had “full, complete, and final jurisdiction” over the arbitration process. In other words, one of the defendants in the case would also serve as judge and jury.
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals rejected this as “arbitration in name only.” Arbitration, the court emphasized, requires neutrality. The Federal Arbitration Act protects agreements to arbitrate only if they provide an independent forum and a fair process to resolve disputes. Simply calling something arbitration is not enough. The NFL’s version gave the Commissioner unchecked control over both the rules and the outcome, denying the plaintiffs any meaningful opportunity to vindicate their civil rights claims. That setup, the court said, was unenforceable.
This decision matters well beyond professional football. Many employees across industries—from finance to retail to healthcare—are asked to sign contracts with arbitration provisions. But if those provisions do not guarantee a neutral process or effectively strip employees of their rights, they may not hold up in court. The Flores case makes clear that employers cannot insulate themselves from accountability by designing arbitration systems that are biased or unfair.
For potential plaintiffs, the takeaway is that signing an arbitration agreement does not always mean you are locked out of court. Judges will look closely at whether the agreement truly provides a fair forum. If it does not, your claims may proceed in front of a jury, just as Flores’ claims will. If you believe you have been subjected to discrimination or retaliation and your employer insists that an arbitration agreement bars you from pursuing your rights, it is important to consult an attorney. As the NFL case shows, courts can and do strike down unfair arbitration clauses, and you may still have a meaningful path to bring your civil rights claims.