The news came on the anniversary of the event that sparked the lawsuit.
On October 11, two years to the day after Jon Gruden left his job as coach of the Raiders, the Nevada Supreme Court scheduled oral argument in Gruden’s civil case against the NFL and Commissioner Roger Goodell.
The news comes courtesy of attorney Daniel Wallach, who has posted the official, one-page notice that a 30-minute hearing will be held on November 7, 2023.
The issue is narrow and simple. Should the trial court’s decision to not compel Gruden to submit his claims to arbitration controlled by the NFL and Goodell be upheld, or should it be overturned? The NFL has challenged the decision through the appellate court system in Nevada.
The league has hoped to use the relevant clause in Gruden’s contract with the Raiders to force arbitration, even though Gruden has no dispute with the Raiders. Also, the league has argued that arbitration is appropriate under the NFL Constitution and By-Laws, which covers "[a]ny dispute involving . . . any players or employees of the members of the League . . . that in the opinion of the Commissioner constitutes conduct detrimental to the best interests of the League or professional football.”
The NFL has a habit of attempting to divert litigation against the league to its in-house system of arbitration, which is ultimately controlled by the Commissioner. It’s an inherently unfair practice, which rigs the game against the person making the claim — and keeps the entire dispute secret. In this specific case, the fact that the Commissioner is a defendant makes the Commissioner’s desire to resolve the case even more conspicuous, delicate, and potentially inappropriate.
The lawsuit traces to the allegedly selective leak of supposedly secret emails harvested by the original Beth Wilkinson investigation regarding the Commanders. A limited group of individuals had access to the roughly 650,000 documents. Someone leaked to the media emails Gruden had sent to Commanders president Bruce Allen in 2011, when Gruden was working for ESPN.
The emails casually and repeatedly used a stunning variety of improper terms and references. After the first leak to the Wall Street Journal did not result in Gruden leaving the Raiders, a second leak to the New York Times finished the job.
If the Nevada Supreme Court rules that the case should proceed, the league will have the ability to attempt to seek an appeal before the U.S. Supreme Court. The league did precisely that in the litigation over the relocation of the Rams.
Even if the chances of getting the highest court in the country to review the case and overturn the ruling is slim, the extra step injects even more delay into the process. Which could potentially keep Gruden’s case stuck at square one through the third, fourth, or maybe even fifth anniversary of the day the leaks achieved their apparently intended result.
