California Court Voids Rams Arbitration Clause

A Los Angeles court has ruled that an arbitration clause used by the Los Angeles Rams is unconscionable and cannot be enforced, blocking the team’s bid to move a former employee’s lawsuit out of the public court system.

The Superior Court of California in Los Angeles issued the decision on Wednesday after the franchise filed a motion to compel arbitration in a wrongful termination case brought by Brittany Todd, a former Rams employee. Todd’s lawsuit stems from her termination on March 10, 2026.

Los Angeles

How the dispute reached the court

Todd alleges she was dismissed after reporting what Todd alleges she was dismissed after reporting what she described as workplace misconduct. Her claims include allegations that supervisors consumed alcohol during business hours, pressured subordinates to drink, and engaged in verbal abuse tied to religious discrimination. The Rams asked the court to steer the dispute into the NFL’s internal arbitration framework rather than continue in the civil court process. The judge declined to do so, finding the arbitration terms were not legally enforceable. Why the judge rejected the NFL arbitration setup In its ruling, the court focused on the structure of the arbitration agreement. The clause gives the NFL Commissioner, or a person the Commissioner designates, the sole authority to decide disputes under the arrangement.

According to the court, that design concentrates decision-making power in a way that undermines neutrality. The ruling also noted that the same structure empowers the Commissioner or designee to determine whether a dispute is considered “football-related,” a threshold decision that can shape where and how claims are heard.

The couSources said this framework effectively limits access to neutral judicial oversight for plaintiffs, which weighed against enforcing the clause as written.

What the decision could mean for NFL employment What the decision could mean for NFL employment cases Officials have described the ruling as setting a precedent that may restrict the enforceability of similar mandatory arbitration clauses across the NFL. If applied in comparable situations, it could make it harder for teams or the league to require employees to pursue certain disputes only through private league proceedings.

As a practical matter, the decision raises the prospect that more employment disputes involving NFL teams could proceed in public courtrooms rather than being handled inside closed, league-run forums.

However, the ruling is limited to the clause and circumstances reviewed by the Los Angeles court. How broadly the decision will affect other teams or future cases will depend on the specific contract terms at issue and how other courts evaluate similar challenges.