Rams Lose Again in Court: Judge Rips 'One-Sided' Arbitration Clause
If the NFL thought the arbitration wars were cooling down, Wednesday threw a flag right in the league's face. A California judge ruled against the Los Angeles Rams in the latest legal battle, calling their arbitration agreement “an example of an employer's attempt to overreach” — and refusing to force a former employee into a system he says is stacked against her.
Judge Alexander C.D. Giza denied the Rams' motion to compel arbitration in the wrongful termination lawsuit filed by Brittany Todd, who worked for the team from July 2017 to March 2026. Todd says she was fired after reporting workplace misconduct to HR. The Rams tried to push the case out of court, pointing to an arbitration agreement she signed in April 2025. Todd doesn't deny signing it — her argument is that the deal is so one-sided it's unenforceable.
In a 13-page opinion, Giza sided with her. The agreement incorporates the NFL constitution and bylaws and gives the commissioner “full, complete and final jurisdiction and authority” over football-oriented disputes. But retaliation claims like Todd's are supposed to be handled by JAMS, a separate private arbitration company. The catch? The agreement doesn't actually let employees skip the commissioner on the way there.
“There is no stated timeline by which the NFL commissioner must make his threshold review,” the judge wrote. “Thus, whether an employee can even reach a neutral arbitrator at JAMS depends on the NFL commissioner.”
The Rams also never attached the NFL constitution and bylaws to Todd's agreement — or gave her a source to find them. That didn't help their case. Giza ruled the agreement is “clearly unconscionable on its face” and “was clearly drafted to place a thumb on the scales in the employer's favor.”
This isn't the NFL's first L in arbitration court
Last year, courts sided with former Raiders coach Jon Gruden in Nevada and Vikings defensive coordinator Brian Flores at the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Now the Rams are on the wrong end of yet another ruling. The NFL declined to comment Thursday.
The team fired back in a statement: “The Rams strongly dispute the allegations and will vigorously defend the integrity of the organization and our employees. Since this matter is in active litigation, we have no further comment.”
Plaintiff's attorney Mike Caspino didn't hold back. “It's time the commissioner and the teams realize they can't take advantage of their employees.”
So what's next? The Rams wouldn't say if they'll appeal. If they do, the case heads to the California Courts of Appeal and could eventually reach the state Supreme Court. Stanford emeritus law professor William Gould says that court has been “vigorous in protecting employee rights” and would likely uphold the decision.
For now, this isn't just a win for Todd. Gould says the ruling is precedent-setting and could impact any employee working for the Rams — or any other NFL team based in California.