Brittany Neuheisel—a former assistant to Arizona Cardinals owner Michael Bidwill, who sued him in February for alleged discrimination and intentional infliction of emotional distress—has been denied a late effort to keep her case out of arbitration.

In June, U.S. District Judge Michael T. Liburdi stayed Neuheisel v. Bidwill & Cardinals on grounds that Neuheisel, like other employees of NFL teams, contractually accepted arbitration to resolve any dispute arising out of her employment. At that point, Neuheisel did not oppose the decision to remove the lawsuit from court.  

But recently Neuheisel changed her mind. She saw the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit opine that NFL arbitration was unconscionable and unenforceable as to some of Minnesota Vikings defensive coordinator Brian Flores’ discrimination and retaliation claims. Neuheisel also saw the Supreme Court of Nevada Circuit refuse to dispatch former Las Vegas Raiders head coach Jon Gruden’s claims against the NFL and Goodell to arbitration because doing so would be unconscionable. 

Neuheisel petitioned Liburdi to let her withdraw her non-opposition to the motion to compel arbitration. Last Friday, the judge said no.

As a result, her dispute will go to a system of arbitration overseen by NFL commissioner Roger Goodell, and he can delegate that authority to another person. An arbitration outcome in the NFL is “final, binding and conclusive.” While a losing party can petition a court to vacate an arbitration decision, judges are obligated under federal law to give arbitrators high deference and to only vacate an award in exceptional circumstances. 

The staying of Neuheisel’s case removed her allegations from the public docket into the private world of NFL arbitration. Neuheisel was an assistant for the Cardinals from 2019 to 2025. She accuses Bidwill of having a “petty, abusive, demeaning and intolerable” personality, mistreating her in myriad ways and making her suffer so much that any reasonable employee would have felt compelled to quit.

For example, Neuheisel says that Bidwill enlisted her to further “petty battles” with his family members. Neuheisel claims that in 2021, Bidwill instructed her to take away a car, and its possessions, from his niece. Bidwill had given the car as a gift. Bidwill then allegedly sold the car, with Bidwill telling Neuheisel to “videotape the car being loaded onto a flatbed.” She says Bidwill “shared the video with his niece in an effort to cause her additional ridicule.”

Another allegation was that Bidwill used his 59-pound pit bull, Charley, to “torment” Neuheisel. In 2022, Bidwill allegedly called Neuheisel and asked her to go to his home “to open the doggie door for Charley.” As Neuheisel tried to follow Bidwill’s instructions, Charley bit her. According to Neuheisel, Bidwill “watched the attack on his home video surveillance system,” then called her and blamed her for being bit. He also, allegedly, “mocked and laughed” at her. 

In addition, Neuheisel claims that Bidwill “blamed [her] grandchildren” for distracting noise they made in the background as a reason why he forgot an important detail in a conversation. She also resented that Bidwill, who she emphasizes “has never been married and has no children,” liked to provide “unsolicited advice” on how she should raise her family. In one exchange she says Bidwill thought Neuheisel should “kick out” her daughter and grandchildren from her home.

Attorneys for Bidwill and the Cardinals portray Neuheisel as an extortionist, claiming she “threatened to file unfounded and scandalous claims against Defendants unless they paid her a king’s ransom.” Likewise, they argue her claims are “baseless” and that her complaint “never” should have been filed in court. 

Regardless of which side is telling the truth, Neuheisel’s allegations appear to arise from events that she says occurred during her employment as Bidwill’s assistant. That is a legal problem for Neuheisel since she accepted an arbitration clause for disputes that stem from her employment. Neuheisel also didn’t oppose arbitration when given the chance. Liburdi agreed with Bidwill and the Cardinals that arbitration is where the dispute belongs.

As for any parallels Neuheisel hoped to establish to other high-profile NFL cases in recent months, Liburdi stressed that “neither Flores nor Gruden” is controlling authority in a Nevada federal district court. Flores is before the Second Circuit, a federal appellate court with jurisdiction over federal courts in Connecticut, New York and Vermont. Gruden’s case is before the state courts in Nevada. In the U.S. legal system, decisions in other jurisdictions are not binding precedent.  

Liburdi went on to write that “even if these cases were binding” they still don’t “change the law.” The judge described neither Flores nor Gruden as especially groundbreaking. Flores is about whether the NFL constitution “created a valid arbitral forum under the Federal Arbitration Act.” Meanwhile, Gruden’s case is about unconscionability principles as seen through state law. 

“These are not new legal principles,” Liburdi wrote. He added that Neuheisel failed to raise either argument when she had a chance to oppose arbitration. “Instead,” the judge stressed, “she filed a notice of non-opposition.”