A California court has invalidated the Los Angeles Rams’ mandatory arbitration agreement, ruling the clause unconscionable because it designates the NFL Commissioner as the sole arbitrator for workplace disputes.
The Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, denied the team’s motion to compel arbitration in a lawsuit filed by former employee Brittany Todd. The decision marks the third time in recent months that a court has struck down the league’s arbitration framework, following rulings in cases involving Jon Gruden and Brian Flores. Unlike those prior cases, the NFL itself was not a named defendant in the Todd litigation.
Todd alleges she was terminated on March 10, 2026, after reporting that her direct supervisors routinely consumed alcohol during work hours to the point of extreme intoxication. Her complaint states that intoxicated supervisors coerced subordinates to drink, berated staff to an abusive level, and disparaged employees for their religious views.
The Rams sought to move the dispute into the league’s internal arbitration system. Under the team’s agreement, the Commissioner or a designee holds exclusive authority to resolve all disputes, including the threshold determination of whether a matter is “football-related.” The court found this structure fundamentally flawed, concluding that an arbitrator employed by the league—which represents all 32 member clubs—cannot provide a neutral forum.
“Reliance on an arbitrator who is employed by the NFL makes the agreement unconscionable,” the court wrote in its order.
Todd’s attorney, Mike Caspino, welcomed the ruling. “We are happy that our client will be able to have her day in court,” Caspino said in a statement. “We are also happy that all of the employees of the 49ers, Chargers and Rams will no longer be subjected to the NFL’s biased arbitration system.”
The ruling extends beyond the Rams. The San Francisco 49ers and Los Angeles Chargers utilize similar arbitration provisions tied to the Commissioner’s office. Legal observers suggest the decision could prompt broader challenges to the league’s dispute resolution mechanisms across its franchises.
Courts have increasingly scrutinized the NFL’s practice of serving as judge and jury in employment and contractual disputes involving its teams. The Gruden and Flores rulings previously questioned the fairness of a system where the league’s chief executive adjudicates claims against the league or its members. The Todd decision reinforces that scrutiny, establishing that the conflict of interest persists even when the league office is not a direct party to the lawsuit.
The Rams have not publicly indicated whether they will appeal the decision. The case is now expected to proceed in open court, where Todd will pursue her claims of wrongful termination, harassment, and retaliation.
