In a recent development, the Nevada Supreme Court has delivered a ruling in favor of the National Football League (NFL) in the ongoing lawsuit filed by former Las Vegas Raiders head coach Jon Gruden. The three-judge panel, by a vote of 2-1, determined that Gruden's dispute with the league is subject to arbitration, overturning a previous district court ruling that allowed the lawsuit to proceed in open court.

Hearings for the case were held in January in front of the three-justice panel, which is separate from the full court consisting of seven justices. The panel's ruling means that unless a successful appeal is made, the long-standing disagreement between Gruden and the NFL will be settled through closed-door arbitration rather than through the public legal system.

The lawsuit was initiated by Gruden in 2021 after a New York Times report brought to light his involvement in email exchanges containing racist, homophobic, and misogynistic language with former Washington Football Team executive Bruce Allen and others. Gruden accused the NFL and commissioner Roger Goodell of orchestrating a campaign to destroy his career by leaking these emails. The emails had initially emerged as a part of an investigation into the Washington Commanders and former team owner Dan Snyder.

Gruden's lawsuit contends that he was targeted through these alleged leaks, with no justification for why the correspondence of others within the league was not exposed. The NFL has repeatedly sought to dismiss the case, invoking a clause in Gruden's contract with the Raiders that requires arbitration for dispute resolution. However, Gruden's legal representatives have argued that the clause does not apply since he is no longer an employee of the Raiders and the dispute is with the NFL, not the team.

In 2022, the NFL's attempt to dismiss the lawsuit was denied by Nevada 8th Judicial District Court Judge Nancy Allf, who ruled that the case could proceed in an open court. However, Tuesday's ruling by the three-judge panel has overturned this decision. Justices Elissa F. Cadish and Kristina Pickering, in the majority, emphasized the enforcement of a valid arbitration clause in favor of public policy. They concluded that Gruden must submit to arbitration under the NFL Constitution arbitration clause. On the contrary, Justice Linda Marie Bell dissented, arguing that the arbitration clause does not apply to former employees.

It has been reported that Gruden's attorney, Adam Hosmer-Henner, intends to appeal the panel's decision to the full seven-justice Supreme Court in Nevada. Hosmer-Henner expressed concerns regarding the potential implications of allowing an employer to unilaterally determine whether an employee's dispute should be resolved through arbitration, as well as the employer acting as the arbitrator.

As of now, the NFL has not released a public response following the ruling. The outcome of this legal battle will significantly impact the resolution of Gruden's allegations and the broader implications it has for employment-related disputes within the league.