Contract Law

Sample Answer

Sport-Related Contract Law Current Event: Brian Flores v. NFL Arbitration Dispute

A significant and ongoing sports-related contract law issue involves the lawsuit filed by former Miami Dolphins head coach Brian Flores against the National Football League (NFL) and several teams, alleging racial discrimination in hiring and employment practices. The central contract law dispute revolves around the enforceability of arbitration clauses within the employment contract he signed with the Dolphins.

The Court's Decision

The key judicial decisions in the Flores case (most recently upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in late 2025/early 2026) established a crucial distinction:

Claim Against the Dolphins: The court ruled that Flores's claims against the Miami Dolphins (his former employer) must be sent to private, league-controlled arbitration. This part of the ruling enforced the arbitration clause found in his employment contract, which is a standard feature in most professional sports contracts.

Claim Against Other Teams (Giants, Broncos, Texans): The court ruled that Flores's claims against teams that never employed him (the Giants, Broncos, and Texans, who were only involved in the interview process) could proceed in open court. The court reasoned that since Flores had no employment contract with these specific teams, he was not contractually bound to arbitrate his claims against them.

Claim Against the NFL: Flores's claims against the league itself were also allowed to proceed in open court.

In essence, the court created a split decision, upholding the contractual obligation to arbitrate with the direct employer while allowing the broader discrimination claims against non-employers and the league to be litigated publicly.

Application of Contract Law and Justification

The court's decision involves several core contract law principles, particularly the concept of mutuality of agreement and the enforceability of unconscionable contracts.

Do I Agree/Disagree?

I agree with the court's decision to split the claims—specifically, allowing the claims against the non-employers and the league to proceed in open court while enforcing the contractual obligation with the Dolphins.

Justification:

Agreement and Privity of Contract (Agree with Arbitrating Dolphins Claim):

The claims against the Dolphins directly arise from the employment relationship governed by a formal written contract. When Flores signed that contract, he assented to all its terms, including the arbitration clause. In contract law, the general rule is that parties are held to the terms to which they mutually agreed. Unless the clause is found to be unconscionable (e.g., extremely one-sided or oppressive), courts typically enforce it based on the principle of freedom of contract.

Lack of Mutuality/Privity (Agree with Open Court for Non-Employers):

The claims against the Giants, Broncos, and Texans relate to the interview process, which occurred before any employment contract was formed. Privity of Contract dictates that a contract cannot confer rights or impose obligations upon anyone who is not a party to the contract. Since Flores was never employed by those teams, they are considered third parties to his Dolphins contract, and the arbitration clause in that agreement cannot bind him to arbitrate claims against them. The court correctly determined that no meeting of the minds on arbitration existed between Flores and those specific teams.