Former NFL head coach Jon Gruden has scored a key victory in his ongoing lawsuit against the league and commissioner Roger Goodell. As relayed by ESPN’s Don Van Natta Jr., the Nevada Supreme Court rejected the league’s petition seeking a rehearing of the court’s August decision that the league could not force Gruden into arbitration.
Gruden, 62, filed his suit in 2021, after he resigned as the Raiders’ head coach following a leak of emails containing racist, sexist, and anti-gay comments he sent when he was an on-air analyst for ESPN from 2011-18. He alleges the NFL selectively leaked those emails to force him out of the league, thereby sabotaging his coaching career and endorsement contracts.
When we last wrote about Gruden’s legal battle in July 2024, he had just lost a hearing conducted by the Nevada Supreme Court’s three-judge panel, which determined that the NFL could, in fact, remove Gruden’s case from the public forum of a state courtroom into the league-friendly arbitration setting (in which Goodell himself could serve as the arbitrator).
However, Gruden was ultimately successful in securing a rehearing in front of the court’s full seven-judge panel, which held in a 5-2 decision that the league’s efforts to force a claim against the league filed by a former employee into arbitration proceedings overseen by the league commissioner (and named defendant) was “unconscionable.”
The seven judges were unanimous in their denial of the NFL’s request for a rehearing, and now the league’s only recourse in its quest for arbitration is to note an appeal to the United States Supreme Court. Although the NFL has declined to comment on the matter, Van Natta’s sources have said such an attempt is unlikely.
Mike Florio of Pro Football Talk details the difficulty that an appealing party in any case has in convincing the nation’s highest court to hear their appeal, and he also observes that Gruden has gained a tremendous amount of leverage. The NFL could try to make Gruden a settlement offer he cannot refuse in order to make the case go away, but Gruden has previously promised to “burn the house down” in pursuing this action.
In other words, he may rebuff any offer the league makes as he seeks to uncover the party or parties who leaked the emails.
“I’m looking forward to having the truth come out and I want to make sure what happened to me doesn’t happen to anyone else,” Gruden told ESPN. “What happened wasn’t right, and I’m glad the court didn’t let the NFL cover it up.”
Gruden has gotten back into league circles to some extent. In 2023, he worked as a consultant with the Saints, and he was seen doing work for the Chiefs in the 2024 offseason. It was reported last December that he could garner some NFL coaching interest in the 2025 cycle, but he did not land an interview.
Hard to see Gruden as a “victim” because the things he said were made public. Don’t email racist, sexist, and anti-gay comments, then you can’t be victimized by them later. His only real defense would be that it wasn’t me and my email was hacked by white nationalists.
Or his defense is that the nfl allowed those sort of comments from many people and selectively picked his to play out in front of the public. If the culture of the nfl was toxic and it cherry picked who it wants to punish then that is something we should all want to come to light so the whole system can be cleaned out.
Nobody could ever pull racist, sexist, and anti-gay comments out of my email. The “everyone else was doing it too” excuse stopped working in elementary school. He could be responsible for the things that he emailed, regardless of a broader problem in the NFL. I don’t feel sorry for him because others “got away with” something that he didn’t. He hit send on his emails and has to take accountability for that, absent of what little Timmy did.
Is that you again Dan Snyder ?
There could be an issue of how the information was acquired.
Why? Are your work emails property of you or your work place? At my workplace, it is clear that my emails are their emails.
So Gruden is a racist? Is that what you think? Never mind he’s been around black people his whole career and hired them as coaches. Or he’s happily married but sexist? Because he did t want female refs in the NFL? Neither do I, because it’s a dumb idea. Or having a gay guy in an NFL locker room in 2010, what could go wrong? No HC wanted that because of the problems it would cause. The fact is he was thrown under the bus. Keep that stuff in house and let him go if that’s what’s decided. What he said was crude yes, but not to the point of labeling by an angry mob of village idiots. How many emails were the exact opposite but someone decided you shouldn’t see them? You don’t know.
So Gruden shouldn’t have to take personal accountability for the things he emailed because Plus3 agrees with them? He said the things. Now take accountability. If you don’t stand behind any of the things that you are saying, then you shouldn’t say them. If you do, then stand behind them. I don’t get how he is a sympathetic figure. He is sleeping in the bed that he made. Boo freaking Who.
The issue is you also don’t know what else he said. Because someone cherry picked those crude emails for you. Work emails don’t go public. They stay in house, where they’re supposed to be. I think you fail to see that. I also think you knee jerked and jumped on the “find the racist” bandwagon but when confronted with reality, there’s no answer. Be better than that. If you’re going to pull some BS with someone who has a $100M guaranteed contract, expect pushback.
Today I learned that if you’re married, you can’t be sexist. Because that’s definitely stood the test of time.
Also, I don’t think having gay people on a team is nearly as much of a problem as you’re making it out to be. Have you ever just considered minding your own business?
I would be interested to see how this lawsuit plays out, and I wouldn’t be surprised if the NFL is indeed carrying out a double standard. That said, I don’t need to feel sorry for Gruden either. He wrote those messages, and if this is how he feels about other people, then that’s pretty gross IMO
Is that his ESPN badge photo?
Gruden did this to himself yet because he has money, he sues….ridiculous
No matter what happens, the popcorn will be out. If this court battle continues, we’ll all be entertained.
The nfl did this to itself. It can’t encourage a guys club culture and then cherry pick who’s life it wants to ruin for engaging in its culture. Anyone who cares about seeing real change should be happy to see this happening because it’s going to expose the underbelly of the NFL and force real change.
I wouldn’t say he necessarily did it to himself. He emailed some dumb stuff for sure. However, someone also purposely found it and leaked it with intentions….Sounds like more than 1 party is involved no?
I tend to agree with this POV. I have no problem with letting this play out in public. I’m not sure why anyone would object.
Rog and the owners disagree lol.
OK, Roger Goodell. Let’s give Jon his day in court, let the facts come out. His argument is not the contents of the emails but how the emails were “leaked” to the media.
How and why.
Goodell: “If we allow you coach in our exciting new flag football league, would that be enough to get the legal action dropped Chucky?”
If the NFL wants to settle with Gruden–and punish him at the same time–they should make him the head coach of the Jets.
I am unaware of any legal obligation to hide other people’s racism, sexism or bigotry.
Let’s say every single thing Gruden alleges is true, how is it illegal?
Violating the spirit of the Old Boys Club doesn’t count…what specific law was broken?
It’s not a criminal case…they’re not throwing the NFL in jail. He’s suing for libel and defamation of character because he believes he was targeted. Hard to argue he wasn’t when literally nobody else’s emails were leaked. I bet the NFL is willing to settle now for double the value of that Raiders contract. Unfortunately for them, Gruden loves coaching more than he likes money and this will all play out in court and expose Goodell and others as bullies. Roger is going to lose his job over this, guaranteed. The owners will act disgusted and throw him under the bus.
It’s neither libel nor defamation of character when it’s true. That’s the thing.
He’s not denying that the emails are real or his…so, again…hurt feelings and “woe is me” doesn’t hold up in court.
Unless there was a specific legal reason why those emails were confidential, good luck to him.
So you are saying that an e-mail that you send to your friend should be open to public scrutiny? These e-mails were not public information. They were private communications.
Yes, if you send an email, it can become public.
Feel free to find the law against it. Let me know.
Alright, then send me all your personal e-mails.
When sharing private emails is illegal:
Unauthorized Access:
The ECPA makes it illegal to access or disclose email content without authorization.
Confidential Information:
If the email contains information you have a duty to protect, such as trade secrets or client data, sharing it can lead to legal consequences, including breach of confidentiality lawsuits.
Privacy of Private Facts:
In some cases, sharing private information from an email that is offensive to a reasonable person could be grounds for a lawsuit for public disclosure of private facts.
These are only a few, there are other instances that depend on the manner of which the information was obtained and under the circumstances in which that information was collected and then also shared. Such as the intent or purpose of making that information public. In this case, the motive could be proven to try to damage Gruden’s repuation, and it might have also come about by the dealings the NFL was having with the Washington team at the time.
“information you have a duty to protect, such as trade secrets or client data”
“private information (PRIVATE INFORMATION) from an email that is offensive to a reasonable person”
Which of these apply to saying DeMaurice Smith has big lips?
Now you are moving the goalposts. You asked me to show laws that is illegal. I provided numerous laws and examples. Now you are trying to shift the argument to justify your position. Focus on what Gruden is suing for. He is stating the INTENT of the leak was to damage his reputation, to interfere with his ability to coach and get endorsements. I pointed out where INTENT is one of the factors for making it ILLEGAL.
THAT is how this applies to this situation. Not any straw man argument you want to try to make. Now, move along. Your argument has been defeated. Clearly, you don’t know as much as you think you do. Have a nice day.
It’s not moving the goalposts when your examples don’t fit what is being discussed. That’s just you throwing “stuff” against the wall and hoping something sticks.
And intent does not matter when what you are doing is legal.
You can paint your own house WITH MALICE or properly parallel park WITH MALICE all day long.
But, clear this up…I’m genuinely curious as to your legal theory here…
“information you have a duty to protect, such as trade secrets or client data”
“private information (PRIVATE INFORMATION) from an email that is offensive to a reasonable person”
Which of these apply to saying DeMaurice Smith has big lips?
The law literally states intent. That’s not throwing things against the wall. You asked for the laws, and I delivered them, and then showed you exactly how it applies in this case. Read the laws that I provided and you can see how INTENT does actually matter in this case.
Bringing up those other facets while IGNORING THE ONE THAT ACTUALLY PERTAINS TO THIS INSTANCE is either being intellectually dishonest at best, or just being willfully ignorant because you know you lost this argument.
Gruden is claiming that this information was leaked WITH THE INTENT TO DEFAME. If he can prove this, that makes it ILLEGAL, ACCORDING TO THE LAW, that YOU asked for me to provide to you.
Leaking privileged or confidential information with malice can equal defamation, for sure.
Were his “big lips” emails either privileged or confidential or otherwise legally protected, such as being part of a discovery process?
Or just some racism that he decided to email and then was so embarrassed by it becoming public knowledge that he resigned, even if he later regretted doing so?
Was leaking them done with the intent to destroy his character?
What do you think “defamation” is…?
You seem to think it’s “saying bad things about someone”.
It’s “saying bad things THAT ARE NOT TRUE about someone”. The truth is an absolute defense to a defamation claim. Regardless of intent.
Who said anything untrue about Gruden and what was that untrue thing?
You seem to be misunderstanding things yet again.
Sharing private e-mails publicly can be illegal based upon intent. Gruden is claiming that he specifically was targeted, and his e-mails were leaked for the express intent of damaging his reputation.
I don’t seem to think anything. If you have a problem with what Jon Gruden is doing and his claims, take it up with him. I am merely pointing out what you asked for.
Again, you cannot be “defamed” by the truth.
“Private” email, again…barring specific legal circumstances, is not a thing.
An email is the same as mailing a letter. Would you say a “private letter”?
Do you believe that if Gruden wrote those same things on paper, mailed them and the same person leaked them, it would be legal? Illegal? The same? Different?
Again, you misunderstand.
It doesn’t matter if it is actually defamation or not. The matter of hand is the INTENT, which Gruden says was to damage his reputation. That’s all it takes.
Yes, a letter is private information. Nobody else other than the person the letter was mailed to is allowed to open, read, or distribute the contents of that letter.
We also have to see who those e-mails were addressed to and if it was through company e-mail, and what rules were in place about deceminating the information contained within those e-mails.
We’re not talking about mailed letters. We’re talking about electronic communications, and I already laid out what can make distributing that information publicly, illegal. If Gruden can prove that the INTENT of leaking those e-mails was to destroy his reputation (defamation doesn’t matter here) then he has a case and it was done illegally. Again, you can read up on all the laws and circumstances that apply to sharing electronic communications.
So, it doesn’t matter if it is actually defamation for his defamation suit? …OK.
Let’s make this simple…
YOU email me some racist stuff and I give that email to the Associated Press and they tell the world about your racism, do YOU have a claim against me?
If so, for what?
The defense to defamation is that what was said is true. Nothing truer than someone’s own words.
That is the case that the NFL can try to make.
I would never e-mail you, nor would I ever use racist language.
Let’s not use hypotheticals, and let’s use what actually happened in this case.
You invited yourself into this conversation with this almost exact hypothetical, Ed. Pay attention.
“So you are saying that an e-mail that you send to your friend should be open to public scrutiny? These e-mails were not public information. They were private communications.”
So…I’ll take away one more tool of deflection for you…try again…
YOU email SOMEONE some racist stuff and that SOMEONE gives that email to the Associated Press and they tell the world about your racism, do YOU have a claim against SAID SOMEONE?
If so, for what?
I guess you’re not the one paying attention. I don’t do hypotheticals.
Deal with the Jon Gruden situation and the facts of that case.
“So you are saying that an e-mail that you send to your friend should be open to public scrutiny? These e-mails were not public information. They were private communications.”
SHOULD.
Your use of the word should makes this a hypothetical. You do, in fact, do hypotheticals.
Had you used the word would instead of should it would still be the same basic point but you’d have had a tiny little hole to crawl out of to escape.
YOU email SOMEONE some racist stuff and that SOMEONE gives that email to the Associated Press and they tell the world about your racism, do YOU have a claim against SAID SOMEONE?
If so, for what?
So, the answer is either “no” or “yes, for _____” where you get to insert what grounds the claim would be if you say “yes”.
All of your posts indicate you’re a “yes”, but you can answer for yourself why.
I don’t deal in hypotheticals, and I don’t answer to you. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about and want to try to play all these games. The case is what it is. Gruden has legal standing, and he’ll have his day in court even after the NFL has tried so desperately to keep it behind closed doors.
I have answered for myself numerous times. You just don’t like the answers I am giving you. That’s tough luck for you. The scenario you are bringing up is not under the same circumstances as the Gruden situation, and that’s why I am not going to address it.
“So you are saying that an e-mail that you send to your friend should be open to public scrutiny? These e-mails were not public information. They were private communications.”
Saying you don’t deal in hypotheticals is like saying that you don’t speak or understand English.
The only way the former is true is if the latter is true.
The word “should” isn’t acting in the way you think it does, oh one that proclaims to understand English so much. Context is key.
You shouldn’t deal in things you don’t understand. You should educate yourself a bit more. Oooh, I bet you think that is a “hypothetical,” don’t you? You’re funny. Do you do stand up somewhere?
What’s funny is that you cannot and will not answer a simple question.
Why?
Well…because you know the right answer but yours is the wrong one so you refuse to answer over and over and over and over again like a clown.
“YOU email SOMEONE some racist stuff and that SOMEONE gives that email to the Associated Press and they tell the world about your racism, do YOU have a claim against SAID SOMEONE?
If so, for what?”
All you have to do is say “NO” which is the obvious answer, but you still think the answer is yes but you are too dim to explain why you think that and you still don’t actually understand what this suit is about so you refuse to answer.
And you think you can bluster your way out of it. And you will do it again.
Go ahead…
“YOU email SOMEONE some racist stuff and that SOMEONE gives that email to the Associated Press and they tell the world about your racism, do YOU have a claim against SAID SOMEONE?
If so, for what?”
I am not answering your question, because I don’t engage in hypotheticals. Your offering is not an analogy to what is going on with Gruden. You keep THINKING it is, but, thinking is clearly not your strong suit, since you seem to think the word “should” automatically declares something a hypothetical situation.
This isn’t bluster, this is fact, and how the English language works. Funny that you don’t seem to know anything about the English language and how it works, and yet you attacked me for not understanding English. I bet you feel pretty stupid right now, don’t you?
So go take your hypothetical, invalid analogy question to Jon Gruden and ask him about it. Because again, I am not defending his actions, or the case he is making. I am simply stating what it is. If you have problems with that, your problem is not with me. I am not making the case. Do you understand this?
Fair enough. Engaging in hypotheticals requires more than 6 brain cells. My bad. Dunno what I was thinking.
My offering is NOT an analogy to what is going on with Gruden. Good job. That’s the whole point.
My offering is what you have conveyed your understanding of the Gruden case to be, etc. I keep thinking there’s no way you actually think that (even though this is totally what Gruden fans believe) and keep offering you a chance to show you understand the difference.
This is NOT a hypothetical question so you’ll have to find a new way to avoid it but…
Do you understand the difference between my offering and Gruden’s case?
Why one would have zero case while the other has been allowed to get at least this far (hint- it has zero to do with intent or defamation) ?
It’s a one sentence answer, but you could also give one specific key word even and that would work, as well.
I hinted at it above, if you need more clues.
Good luck.
PS- No one said that “should” AUTOMATICALLY declares something is a hypothetical. That’s just your cope because it did in your particular sentence which exposed your later cowardice.
You, absolutely did. It is here in black and white, buddy. And no, my sentence did not suggest a hypothetical question. You don’t even know this because you don’t understand English. It isn’t my fault you don’t understand English, which is especially hilarious since you consider me to not know it. But, here I am schooling you on how the language works. The sentence you are referencing, is ABSOLUTELY NOT a hypothetical question.
Since it ABSOLUTELY IS NOT a hypothetical question, and I later make a statement that I don’t engage in hypotheticals, especially when they are inaccurate and do not apply to the situation you are trying to make it fit, is still valid.
You are clearly asking me a hypothetical question on a subject that does not apply to the sitaution. Since you are so off base on that, that proves that it is you that does not understand the situation.
I have not stated what I THINK his case to be. I have stated what it has been reported to be.
So, since you engage in so much bad faith and intellectual dishonesty, there is no reason to continue any conversation with you. You don’t know what you are talking about, and have demonstrated it clearly in our exchange. I have suffered you long enough. My fool quota for the year has been exceeded thanks to you.
It’s because the emails were obtained as part of a legal discovery process from another lawsuit so it’s essentially akin to a stolen property case not defamation.
But you don’t know or understand that so you think people have a LEGAL OBLIGATION to hide your racist emails.
Just trying to save your job, Ed. Good luck to you.
PS- Hiding a lack of knowledge behind a fear of answering simple questions (hypotheticals??? SOOOOO scary!!!) is not as convincing a strategy as you think. Again, good luck to you, though.
Exactly. I told you from the get go that this case stems from the information BEING LEAKED. Gruden goes farther with this in stating that it was a coordinated, purposeful act to damage his image, to get him fired, and to harm his ability to get sponsors.
I have never said that people have a legal obligation to hide anything. What I was asked to provide were laws that MAKE IT ILLEGAL to share private e-mails and make them public. You were under the assumption there were none, but it turns out there are several incidents that make it illegal, one that includes INTENT.
You don’t have to worry about my job, I am well secure in it.
I didn’t hide anything, and I am certainly not afraid of you or anything you’d have to say. I didn’t answer your stupid question because it was just that. Stupiod. You wanted to take a scenario that doesn’t apply to Gruden’s situation, state it was the same exact thing, and then have me answer a question about this faulty premise? Nobody would answer a question like that.
You want to talk about my lack of knowledge when you:
– didn’t know there are laws that make it illegal to share private e-mails.
– didn’t know what the case is that Gruden is bringing against the NFL
– don’t know how the English language works.
– don’t know the difference between a legitimate question, and a faulty hypothetical scenario
– don’t understand the points I am making, so you misrepresent them and try to attack me for comments I never made
So yeah, have a GREAT day. Good luck with that room temperature IQ of yours.
You not knowing the answer and then saying “Exactly” to pretend you did after I tell you the answer is maybe the saddest part after two days of this, Bud.
“66TheNumberOfTheBest • 2 days ago
Leaking privileged or confidential information with malice can equal defamation, for sure.
Were his “big lips” emails either privileged or confidential or otherwise legally protected, such as being part of a discovery process?”
I left it right there dangling for you. Grooved one right down the middle of the plate. Put it on a tee for you.
It was a test. You failed.
IF you knew AT ALL what this case was about, you would have answered it there and gladly called me out. But, you didn’t (and still don’t) because like all Gruden taint sniffers you desperately want this to be about the protection of racism and think your racist emails are “privileged” information.
“Why one would have zero case while the other has been allowed to get at least this far (hint- it has zero to do with intent or defamation) ?
It’s a one sentence answer, but you could also give one specific key word even and that would work, as well.
I hinted at it above, if you need more clues.
Good luck.”
It was not enough luck, evidently.
You assume much and know very little. I don’t need any clues from the clueless, like you. I am not protecting racism or anything of the sort. Nice try, to try to paint me as something I am not, though. That’s how desperate you are in this debate. You know you’re wrong, you take things out of context, twist statements, and then still think you’re right after all of it.
If those emails you sent become part of discovery in a lawsuit involving your friend, then those emails become public record. What happens after that is between you and the AP. My question is, are you looking for a safe haven for hate speech? You might just have to go to the meeting and say it in person and hope nobody at the meeting is recording. There is no such thing as digital communications that will never see the light of day. I think that is one thing that we all should have learned. Anything you email or text can become public later, so show some decorum or deal with the consequences.
There is a safe haven for “hate speech.”
Firstly, there is no such thing as “hate speech.”
Secondly, the first amendment covers words spoken that you don’t like.
Ah, recording. Well, if it is a work meeting, that is private, and not public, and you also have to consent to being recorded.
And no, not every e-mail you send can become public information. There are legal disclaimers that can be added to an e-mail to make that illegal.
I, am not looking for anything. I am not arguing Gruden’s point for him. I am merely pointing out his side of the issue, and why he has a case, which clearly he does, because it will be heard in court, instead of behind close doors with an arbitrator like the NFL was pushing so hard to get.
He wasn’t jailed for hate speech. He was fired. Free speech covers your right to say stupid things and my right to fire you for them. Only some states require notification of recordings by both parties. Gruden does not need you to make his case. Lawyers are making his case. I began this comment thread by saying I have no sympathy for his position, not caring about the legal merits. People that don’t take accountability for the things they do and say are not sympathetic characters in my mind. If they are for you, awesome.
I am not making his case, I am stating what his case is. You people all seem to misunderstand this.
There are instances where sharing electronic communications/e-mails is illegal. I outlined those cases way back in this thread and you can read up on that if you want.
Yes, you made your point that you only care about your feelings and not the law. Thank you for reiterating that.
He wasn’t fired.
He quit like a ***** rather than face his black players.
Now he wants a play day.
Nobody said he was fired.
What is a “play day?” I remember having those back in elementary school at the end of the school year.
Seems like somebody has a bit of a problem with English again.
It is my understanding that the emails were part of a legal investigation into the Commanders following allegations of inappropriate workplace conduct. Are you saying that these legally obtained emails should have been kept private? I’m not sure why?
I am not saying anything. Jon Gruden is. I merely pointed out what he is saying and what the laws are.
The issue seems to stem from the issue that these e-mails were LEAKED. If they were leaked, that leads me to believe they weren’t part of the investigation. Gruden also seems to think others participated in this behavior and feels that he was singled out. If this is the case, the begged question is, to what end and why? That leads to intent, and that is what makes it a legal matter.
This is all based off what I know of what Gruden’s claims are. There might be more to it than any of us know, and ultimately he’s the one that has to prove his case. So if you have any other questions about his claims, you’ll have to ask him or his legal team. I can only piece together things based on what is available.
I want to correct something in my post that I didn’t catch in time before the edit window ran out.
These e-mails were discovered as part of the NFL’s investigation. They were then leaked by an anonymous source to major news outlets. Obviously, the only source of the leaks could only be from people that had access to those e-mails. I meant to say it wasn’t officially part of the investigation to make those e-mails public.
So then the argument is that Gruden has a legal case for his hate speech being kept private because the emails “leaked” to the media are legally protected. The media has the right to report on stories. Whistle-blowers have legal protections. And employers have the right to act on information that has become public. I don’t understand why he just can’t take accountability for the things that he emailed. I never thought they would become public, just doesn’t cut it for me.
No. His argument is not that at all. His argument is that this information was leaked in an “orchestrated effort” to get him fired and cost him his sponsorship deals.
If the case had no merit, the court wouldn’t be willing to hear it, would they?
US courts have never heard a case without merit! Even if they were, I don’t care. He gave them the ammunition and they loaded the gun. Boo who. If he didn’t say things in emails that would get him fired they couldn’t have used his words against him. I don’t feel sorry for grown-ups facing consequences for their actions. BTW I will not feel sorry for the NFL if they are found to have taken actions that they are held responsible for. There is a scenario that everyone is wrong.
Correct, so the courts are hearing Gruden’s case. That means it has merit. The e-mails got him fired because they were LEAKED to the media. Gruden contends that this was done with ill intent and with the purpose to get him fired and to hurt his ability to get sponsorships.
Now, why was the NFL so bent on not allowing this trial to proceed in court? They tried numerous times to get this case heard in arbitration, in house, with NFL personnel. If the NFL is squeaky clean, you’d think they’d want this all to come out in the open, right?
No it doesn’t. There is “merit” in a court hearing a case so that they can hand down a ruling and set precedent for others bringing similar cases. The court choosing to hear the case does not mean that their arguments have merit. US courts once heard a dry cleaning dispute where a customer (a judge) sued for $67 million for one pair of lost pants. That didn’t mean the case had merit. I think the court wanted to rule to set the precedent.
Incorrect. A court will not waste their time with a cast that on its face has no merit. They would refuse to hear it, or dismiss it outright.
As great as your legal analysis of this case is, there must be some merit to his suit for it to have made it this far. The NFL tried to get it dismissed and a judge ruled there was merit, they tried to force it into arbitration and were denied by a 7 judge panel. If this case ever gets into a courtroom a lot of NFL dirty laundry is going to be aired out in the discovery process.
But based on what you are all saying, that information should never be made public. The emails were originally uncovered during the discovery process in a lawsuit against the Commanders, in which all of their emails were turned over? You all don’t make any sense!
Gruden is 100% football. The NFL is 100% entertainment. There in lies the issue.
So I read Florio’s column on the case going to the Supreme Court….I’m sorry, but no way the court is going to rule against the NFL because Bad Bunny is performing at the SB…..what malarkey
College is calling