Brian Flores lawsuit alleging racism in NFL

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is truly amazing the lengths some people are going in this thread to deny that there is any racial discrimination in this NFL. And those of you trying to make the discussion about gambling instead of racism are complicit in that.

I'm not doing that, but rather commenting on the merits of the lawsuit. Two different things.
If the Rooney Rule was violated, it's Roger Goodell's job to take action - it's just a league rule. It doesn't come close to proving unlawful racial discrimination.
Now if Flores and his lawyers are firing a warning shot at the NFL owners, fine. Perhaps that's overdue. But I don't see that hiring Daboll over Flores comes close to proving racial discrimination.

If the only reason the Giants invited Flores to interview was because he is a racial minority and not because they had any intention of seriously considering him for the job, that is absolutely racial discrimination.

You keep saying that, and I'm not aware of any legal support for it. I'm happy to reconsider if you can provide some.

You have the causation all turned around here, which I think is why you're having trouble understanding this (unless you are deliberately misunderstanding). The Rooney Rule did not create these issues of racism in the NFL, it was the NFL's attempt to address racism in hiring practices to avoid a lawsuit like this one. What is clear from Flores' lawsuit is that the Rooney Rule is not working because teams are continuing discriminatory hiring practices despite the rule. The discrimination claims are not based on violation of the Rooney Rule itself, it is based on the actual racism going on in the hiring practices of NFL teams. These violations of the intent of the Rooney Rule are evidence of teams' discriminatory practices because it demonstrates that, even in the face of ample evidence of past discriminatory practices, teams are doubling down on those practices with full knowledge of the effects rather than trying to eliminate racism in their hiring practices.

some good points, but it still overlooks why the Giants wanted Daboll over Flores. Are you seriously arguing it was because of race?
ll

I would recommend you read the complaint itself. The lawsuit is not just about that single incident. It provides a detailed account of the history of racism that led to the Rooney Rule, the failure of the Rooney Rule itself because of the lack of good faith compliance by teams, how the issue pervades not only head coaching positions but also coordinator and GM positions, and detailed accounts of multiple specific instances of disparate treatment in hiring involving different individuals and teams. It is a detailed and compelling read. Unless, that is, you go into it determined to reject any possibility that racism could exist in the NFL due to your own bigotry.

So why are you avoiding answering the question central to this lawsuit. Was Daboll selected due to race. Go aherad and make the argument he was an obviously lesser choice than Flores. If Flores (or you) can't win that argument, he loses this lawsuit.

The Daboll allegations are not actually "central" to the complaint. They are only part of much broader and extensive allegations regarding racism in NFL hiring practices. Let's say we are flipping a coin, and the first flip lands on heads. That does not necessarily mean the coin is weighted towards heads, right? If I flip it three times and each time it's heads, that could just be a coincidence. But if I flip it 32 times in a row and it comes up tails only once, would you start to question whether there something shady going on with that coin?

This is not actually true. Yes, the complaint alleges a broader racist culture. But before a class is even considered, Flores has to allege his own claim - only them can he represent a class (and whether a lass could be certified here is seriously in question, but that's a later discussion). And the Daboll allegations are indeed central to his claims.

So you trust the coin that lands on heads 31 times out of 32? Or do you ignore the pattern because you had heads rather than tails?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is truly amazing the lengths some people are going in this thread to deny that there is any racial discrimination in this NFL. And those of you trying to make the discussion about gambling instead of racism are complicit in that.

I'm not doing that, but rather commenting on the merits of the lawsuit. Two different things.
If the Rooney Rule was violated, it's Roger Goodell's job to take action - it's just a league rule. It doesn't come close to proving unlawful racial discrimination.
Now if Flores and his lawyers are firing a warning shot at the NFL owners, fine. Perhaps that's overdue. But I don't see that hiring Daboll over Flores comes close to proving racial discrimination.

If the only reason the Giants invited Flores to interview was because he is a racial minority and not because they had any intention of seriously considering him for the job, that is absolutely racial discrimination.

You keep saying that, and I'm not aware of any legal support for it. I'm happy to reconsider if you can provide some.

You have the causation all turned around here, which I think is why you're having trouble understanding this (unless you are deliberately misunderstanding). The Rooney Rule did not create these issues of racism in the NFL, it was the NFL's attempt to address racism in hiring practices to avoid a lawsuit like this one. What is clear from Flores' lawsuit is that the Rooney Rule is not working because teams are continuing discriminatory hiring practices despite the rule. The discrimination claims are not based on violation of the Rooney Rule itself, it is based on the actual racism going on in the hiring practices of NFL teams. These violations of the intent of the Rooney Rule are evidence of teams' discriminatory practices because it demonstrates that, even in the face of ample evidence of past discriminatory practices, teams are doubling down on those practices with full knowledge of the effects rather than trying to eliminate racism in their hiring practices.

some good points, but it still overlooks why the Giants wanted Daboll over Flores. Are you seriously arguing it was because of race?
ll

I would recommend you read the complaint itself. The lawsuit is not just about that single incident. It provides a detailed account of the history of racism that led to the Rooney Rule, the failure of the Rooney Rule itself because of the lack of good faith compliance by teams, how the issue pervades not only head coaching positions but also coordinator and GM positions, and detailed accounts of multiple specific instances of disparate treatment in hiring involving different individuals and teams. It is a detailed and compelling read. Unless, that is, you go into it determined to reject any possibility that racism could exist in the NFL due to your own bigotry.

So why are you avoiding answering the question central to this lawsuit. Was Daboll selected due to race. Go aherad and make the argument he was an obviously lesser choice than Flores. If Flores (or you) can't win that argument, he loses this lawsuit.

The Daboll allegations are not actually "central" to the complaint. They are only part of much broader and extensive allegations regarding racism in NFL hiring practices. Let's say we are flipping a coin, and the first flip lands on heads. That does not necessarily mean the coin is weighted towards heads, right? If I flip it three times and each time it's heads, that could just be a coincidence. But if I flip it 32 times in a row and it comes up tails only once, would you start to question whether there something shady going on with that coin?

This is not actually true. Yes, the complaint alleges a broader racist culture. But before a class is even considered, Flores has to allege his own claim - only them can he represent a class (and whether a lass could be certified here is seriously in question, but that's a later discussion). And the Daboll allegations are indeed central to his claims.

So you trust the coin that lands on heads 31 times out of 32? Or do you ignore the pattern because you had heads rather than tails?

Selection decisions -- especially with very high stakes positions like NFL head coaches -- are not like coin tosses. o.K.? Your premise is completely flawed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is truly amazing the lengths some people are going in this thread to deny that there is any racial discrimination in this NFL. And those of you trying to make the discussion about gambling instead of racism are complicit in that.

I'm not doing that, but rather commenting on the merits of the lawsuit. Two different things.
If the Rooney Rule was violated, it's Roger Goodell's job to take action - it's just a league rule. It doesn't come close to proving unlawful racial discrimination.
Now if Flores and his lawyers are firing a warning shot at the NFL owners, fine. Perhaps that's overdue. But I don't see that hiring Daboll over Flores comes close to proving racial discrimination.

If the only reason the Giants invited Flores to interview was because he is a racial minority and not because they had any intention of seriously considering him for the job, that is absolutely racial discrimination.

You keep saying that, and I'm not aware of any legal support for it. I'm happy to reconsider if you can provide some.

You have the causation all turned around here, which I think is why you're having trouble understanding this (unless you are deliberately misunderstanding). The Rooney Rule did not create these issues of racism in the NFL, it was the NFL's attempt to address racism in hiring practices to avoid a lawsuit like this one. What is clear from Flores' lawsuit is that the Rooney Rule is not working because teams are continuing discriminatory hiring practices despite the rule. The discrimination claims are not based on violation of the Rooney Rule itself, it is based on the actual racism going on in the hiring practices of NFL teams. These violations of the intent of the Rooney Rule are evidence of teams' discriminatory practices because it demonstrates that, even in the face of ample evidence of past discriminatory practices, teams are doubling down on those practices with full knowledge of the effects rather than trying to eliminate racism in their hiring practices.

some good points, but it still overlooks why the Giants wanted Daboll over Flores. Are you seriously arguing it was because of race?
ll

I would recommend you read the complaint itself. The lawsuit is not just about that single incident. It provides a detailed account of the history of racism that led to the Rooney Rule, the failure of the Rooney Rule itself because of the lack of good faith compliance by teams, how the issue pervades not only head coaching positions but also coordinator and GM positions, and detailed accounts of multiple specific instances of disparate treatment in hiring involving different individuals and teams. It is a detailed and compelling read. Unless, that is, you go into it determined to reject any possibility that racism could exist in the NFL due to your own bigotry.

So why are you avoiding answering the question central to this lawsuit. Was Daboll selected due to race. Go aherad and make the argument he was an obviously lesser choice than Flores. If Flores (or you) can't win that argument, he loses this lawsuit.

The Daboll allegations are not actually "central" to the complaint. They are only part of much broader and extensive allegations regarding racism in NFL hiring practices. Let's say we are flipping a coin, and the first flip lands on heads. That does not necessarily mean the coin is weighted towards heads, right? If I flip it three times and each time it's heads, that could just be a coincidence. But if I flip it 32 times in a row and it comes up tails only once, would you start to question whether there something shady going on with that coin?

This is not actually true. Yes, the complaint alleges a broader racist culture. But before a class is even considered, Flores has to allege his own claim - only them can he represent a class (and whether a lass could be certified here is seriously in question, but that's a later discussion). And the Daboll allegations are indeed central to his claims.

So you trust the coin that lands on heads 31 times out of 32? Or do you ignore the pattern because you had heads rather than tails?

Selection decisions -- especially with very high stakes positions like NFL head coaches -- are not like coin tosses. o.K.? Your premise is completely flawed.

So many retreads get hired and no one outside of the idiot hiring them expects them to win

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is truly amazing the lengths some people are going in this thread to deny that there is any racial discrimination in this NFL. And those of you trying to make the discussion about gambling instead of racism are complicit in that.

I'm not doing that, but rather commenting on the merits of the lawsuit. Two different things.
If the Rooney Rule was violated, it's Roger Goodell's job to take action - it's just a league rule. It doesn't come close to proving unlawful racial discrimination.
Now if Flores and his lawyers are firing a warning shot at the NFL owners, fine. Perhaps that's overdue. But I don't see that hiring Daboll over Flores comes close to proving racial discrimination.

If the only reason the Giants invited Flores to interview was because he is a racial minority and not because they had any intention of seriously considering him for the job, that is absolutely racial discrimination.

You keep saying that, and I'm not aware of any legal support for it. I'm happy to reconsider if you can provide some.

You have the causation all turned around here, which I think is why you're having trouble understanding this (unless you are deliberately misunderstanding). The Rooney Rule did not create these issues of racism in the NFL, it was the NFL's attempt to address racism in hiring practices to avoid a lawsuit like this one. What is clear from Flores' lawsuit is that the Rooney Rule is not working because teams are continuing discriminatory hiring practices despite the rule. The discrimination claims are not based on violation of the Rooney Rule itself, it is based on the actual racism going on in the hiring practices of NFL teams. These violations of the intent of the Rooney Rule are evidence of teams' discriminatory practices because it demonstrates that, even in the face of ample evidence of past discriminatory practices, teams are doubling down on those practices with full knowledge of the effects rather than trying to eliminate racism in their hiring practices.

some good points, but it still overlooks why the Giants wanted Daboll over Flores. Are you seriously arguing it was because of race?
ll

I would recommend you read the complaint itself. The lawsuit is not just about that single incident. It provides a detailed account of the history of racism that led to the Rooney Rule, the failure of the Rooney Rule itself because of the lack of good faith compliance by teams, how the issue pervades not only head coaching positions but also coordinator and GM positions, and detailed accounts of multiple specific instances of disparate treatment in hiring involving different individuals and teams. It is a detailed and compelling read. Unless, that is, you go into it determined to reject any possibility that racism could exist in the NFL due to your own bigotry.

So why are you avoiding answering the question central to this lawsuit. Was Daboll selected due to race. Go aherad and make the argument he was an obviously lesser choice than Flores. If Flores (or you) can't win that argument, he loses this lawsuit.

The Daboll allegations are not actually "central" to the complaint. They are only part of much broader and extensive allegations regarding racism in NFL hiring practices. Let's say we are flipping a coin, and the first flip lands on heads. That does not necessarily mean the coin is weighted towards heads, right? If I flip it three times and each time it's heads, that could just be a coincidence. But if I flip it 32 times in a row and it comes up tails only once, would you start to question whether there something shady going on with that coin?

This is not actually true. Yes, the complaint alleges a broader racist culture. But before a class is even considered, Flores has to allege his own claim - only them can he represent a class (and whether a lass could be certified here is seriously in question, but that's a later discussion). And the Daboll allegations are indeed central to his claims.

So you trust the coin that lands on heads 31 times out of 32? Or do you ignore the pattern because you had heads rather than tails?

Again, that speaks to the broader class allegations, not his individual claim.

[Anonymous]

The class definition in this complaint is flawed beyond belief. Similarly, some of the rule 23(b) bases for certification are wholly inapplicable to this case. And the one that might most easily apply (23(b)(3)) appears to be fatally flawed.

[Anonymous]

What I don't understand is why the NFL doesn't fix these issues around race/racism. They've probably had more warning bells than a lot of other industries. They are not going to have any customers 10 years from now.

I can't argue the merits of this case, but I'm clear about the damage it will do to the NFL's reputation.

I don't think the Flores is worried about a future job, he's trying to build his legacy as someone who stood up to the NFL. I think its great.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The class definition in this complaint is flawed beyond belief. Similarly, some of the rule 23(b) bases for certification are wholly inapplicable to this case. And the one that might most easily apply (23(b)(3)) appears to be fatally flawed.

yeah, but some presumably well paid lawyers took the case; I assume well-financed someone or group wants to fire a warning shot at the NFL - regardless if they think the class will get certified, or even if Flores has a winning individual case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What I don't understand is why the NFL doesn't fix these issues around race/racism. They've probably had more warning bells than a lot of other industries. They are not going to have any customers 10 years from now.

I can't argue the merits of this case, but I'm clear about the damage it will do to the NFL's reputation.

I don't think the Flores is worried about a future job, he's trying to build his legacy as someone who stood up to the NFL. I think its great.

You are kidding? There are many good reasons for "fixing this problem," but that is definitely NOT one of them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What I don't understand is why the NFL doesn't fix these issues around race/racism. They've probably had more warning bells than a lot of other industries. They are not going to have any customers 10 years from now.

I can't argue the merits of this case, but I'm clear about the damage it will do to the NFL's reputation.

I don't think the Flores is worried about a future job, he's trying to build his legacy as someone who stood up to the NFL. I think its great.

It's not quite that easy. The NFL as an organization has limited authority over the individual hiring and retention decisions of each team. And each owner, GM and head coach thinks to themselves, when making hiring decisions, "I have a lot riding on this (my job, or multi-billion dollar investment), and the heck with these larger considerations. I'm hiring the person I want to hire, since it's my ass/money on the line."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The class definition in this complaint is flawed beyond belief. Similarly, some of the rule 23(b) bases for certification are wholly inapplicable to this case. And the one that might most easily apply (23(b)(3)) appears to be fatally flawed.

yeah, but some presumably well paid lawyers took the case; I assume well-financed someone or group wants to fire a warning shot at the NFL - regardless if they think the class will get certified, or even if Flores has a winning individual case.

Look at the firm, they take high profile cases. I’m guessing they want to embarrass the NFL, spark local investigations (if there is proof of game fixing, that will be huge), and maybe get a settlement

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The class definition in this complaint is flawed beyond belief. Similarly, some of the rule 23(b) bases for certification are wholly inapplicable to this case. And the one that might most easily apply (23(b)(3)) appears to be fatally flawed.

yeah, but some presumably well paid lawyers took the case; I assume well-financed someone or group wants to fire a warning shot at the NFL - regardless if they think the class will get certified, or even if Flores has a winning individual case.

Agreed. This is about shining a light on the NFL's practices, and exerting pressure on the league, rather that actually winning the lawsuit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I don't understand is why the NFL doesn't fix these issues around race/racism. They've probably had more warning bells than a lot of other industries. They are not going to have any customers 10 years from now.

I can't argue the merits of this case, but I'm clear about the damage it will do to the NFL's reputation.

I don't think the Flores is worried about a future job, he's trying to build his legacy as someone who stood up to the NFL. I think its great.

It's not quite that easy. The NFL as an organization has limited authority over the individual hiring and retention decisions of each team. And each owner, GM and head coach thinks to themselves, when making hiring decisions, "I have a lot riding on this (my job, or multi-billion dollar investment), and the heck with these larger considerations. I'm hiring the person I want to hire, since it's my ass/money on the line."

This is exactly why it can never be a class action. These are very high stakes, individual decisions. We're not talking about hiring a GS-12.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is truly amazing the lengths some people are going in this thread to deny that there is any racial discrimination in this NFL. And those of you trying to make the discussion about gambling instead of racism are complicit in that.

I'm not doing that, but rather commenting on the merits of the lawsuit. Two different things.
If the Rooney Rule was violated, it's Roger Goodell's job to take action - it's just a league rule. It doesn't come close to proving unlawful racial discrimination.
Now if Flores and his lawyers are firing a warning shot at the NFL owners, fine. Perhaps that's overdue. But I don't see that hiring Daboll over Flores comes close to proving racial discrimination.

If the only reason the Giants invited Flores to interview was because he is a racial minority and not because they had any intention of seriously considering him for the job, that is absolutely racial discrimination.

You keep saying that, and I'm not aware of any legal support for it. I'm happy to reconsider if you can provide some.

You have the causation all turned around here, which I think is why you're having trouble understanding this (unless you are deliberately misunderstanding). The Rooney Rule did not create these issues of racism in the NFL, it was the NFL's attempt to address racism in hiring practices to avoid a lawsuit like this one. What is clear from Flores' lawsuit is that the Rooney Rule is not working because teams are continuing discriminatory hiring practices despite the rule. The discrimination claims are not based on violation of the Rooney Rule itself, it is based on the actual racism going on in the hiring practices of NFL teams. These violations of the intent of the Rooney Rule are evidence of teams' discriminatory practices because it demonstrates that, even in the face of ample evidence of past discriminatory practices, teams are doubling down on those practices with full knowledge of the effects rather than trying to eliminate racism in their hiring practices.

some good points, but it still overlooks why the Giants wanted Daboll over Flores. Are you seriously arguing it was because of race?
ll

I would recommend you read the complaint itself. The lawsuit is not just about that single incident. It provides a detailed account of the history of racism that led to the Rooney Rule, the failure of the Rooney Rule itself because of the lack of good faith compliance by teams, how the issue pervades not only head coaching positions but also coordinator and GM positions, and detailed accounts of multiple specific instances of disparate treatment in hiring involving different individuals and teams. It is a detailed and compelling read. Unless, that is, you go into it determined to reject any possibility that racism could exist in the NFL due to your own bigotry.

So why are you avoiding answering the question central to this lawsuit. Was Daboll selected due to race. Go aherad and make the argument he was an obviously lesser choice than Flores. If Flores (or you) can't win that argument, he loses this lawsuit.

The Daboll allegations are not actually "central" to the complaint. They are only part of much broader and extensive allegations regarding racism in NFL hiring practices. Let's say we are flipping a coin, and the first flip lands on heads. That does not necessarily mean the coin is weighted towards heads, right? If I flip it three times and each time it's heads, that could just be a coincidence. But if I flip it 32 times in a row and it comes up tails only once, would you start to question whether there something shady going on with that coin?

This is not actually true. Yes, the complaint alleges a broader racist culture. But before a class is even considered, Flores has to allege his own claim - only them can he represent a class (and whether a lass could be certified here is seriously in question, but that's a later discussion). And the Daboll allegations are indeed central to his claims.

So you trust the coin that lands on heads 31 times out of 32? Or do you ignore the pattern because you had heads rather than tails?

Selection decisions -- especially with very high stakes positions like NFL head coaches -- are not like coin tosses. o.K.? Your premise is completely flawed.

You are very committed to your position that white men are inherently more qualified than black men for NFL head coaching positions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is truly amazing the lengths some people are going in this thread to deny that there is any racial discrimination in this NFL. And those of you trying to make the discussion about gambling instead of racism are complicit in that.

I'm not doing that, but rather commenting on the merits of the lawsuit. Two different things.
If the Rooney Rule was violated, it's Roger Goodell's job to take action - it's just a league rule. It doesn't come close to proving unlawful racial discrimination.
Now if Flores and his lawyers are firing a warning shot at the NFL owners, fine. Perhaps that's overdue. But I don't see that hiring Daboll over Flores comes close to proving racial discrimination.

If the only reason the Giants invited Flores to interview was because he is a racial minority and not because they had any intention of seriously considering him for the job, that is absolutely racial discrimination.

You keep saying that, and I'm not aware of any legal support for it. I'm happy to reconsider if you can provide some.

You have the causation all turned around here, which I think is why you're having trouble understanding this (unless you are deliberately misunderstanding). The Rooney Rule did not create these issues of racism in the NFL, it was the NFL's attempt to address racism in hiring practices to avoid a lawsuit like this one. What is clear from Flores' lawsuit is that the Rooney Rule is not working because teams are continuing discriminatory hiring practices despite the rule. The discrimination claims are not based on violation of the Rooney Rule itself, it is based on the actual racism going on in the hiring practices of NFL teams. These violations of the intent of the Rooney Rule are evidence of teams' discriminatory practices because it demonstrates that, even in the face of ample evidence of past discriminatory practices, teams are doubling down on those practices with full knowledge of the effects rather than trying to eliminate racism in their hiring practices.

some good points, but it still overlooks why the Giants wanted Daboll over Flores. Are you seriously arguing it was because of race?
ll

I would recommend you read the complaint itself. The lawsuit is not just about that single incident. It provides a detailed account of the history of racism that led to the Rooney Rule, the failure of the Rooney Rule itself because of the lack of good faith compliance by teams, how the issue pervades not only head coaching positions but also coordinator and GM positions, and detailed accounts of multiple specific instances of disparate treatment in hiring involving different individuals and teams. It is a detailed and compelling read. Unless, that is, you go into it determined to reject any possibility that racism could exist in the NFL due to your own bigotry.

So why are you avoiding answering the question central to this lawsuit. Was Daboll selected due to race. Go aherad and make the argument he was an obviously lesser choice than Flores. If Flores (or you) can't win that argument, he loses this lawsuit.

The Daboll allegations are not actually "central" to the complaint. They are only part of much broader and extensive allegations regarding racism in NFL hiring practices. Let's say we are flipping a coin, and the first flip lands on heads. That does not necessarily mean the coin is weighted towards heads, right? If I flip it three times and each time it's heads, that could just be a coincidence. But if I flip it 32 times in a row and it comes up tails only once, would you start to question whether there something shady going on with that coin?

This is not actually true. Yes, the complaint alleges a broader racist culture. But before a class is even considered, Flores has to allege his own claim - only them can he represent a class (and whether a lass could be certified here is seriously in question, but that's a later discussion). And the Daboll allegations are indeed central to his claims.

So you trust the coin that lands on heads 31 times out of 32? Or do you ignore the pattern because you had heads rather than tails?

Selection decisions -- especially with very high stakes positions like NFL head coaches -- are not like coin tosses. o.K.? Your premise is completely flawed.

You are very committed to your position that white men are inherently more qualified than black men for NFL head coaching positions.

First, there are multiple people responding to you. Second, I don't believe the pp ever said that, and I know I didn't. I know you would like to infer it, but you're setting up a straw man.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is truly amazing the lengths some people are going in this thread to deny that there is any racial discrimination in this NFL. And those of you trying to make the discussion about gambling instead of racism are complicit in that.

I'm not doing that, but rather commenting on the merits of the lawsuit. Two different things.
If the Rooney Rule was violated, it's Roger Goodell's job to take action - it's just a league rule. It doesn't come close to proving unlawful racial discrimination.
Now if Flores and his lawyers are firing a warning shot at the NFL owners, fine. Perhaps that's overdue. But I don't see that hiring Daboll over Flores comes close to proving racial discrimination.

If the only reason the Giants invited Flores to interview was because he is a racial minority and not because they had any intention of seriously considering him for the job, that is absolutely racial discrimination.

You keep saying that, and I'm not aware of any legal support for it. I'm happy to reconsider if you can provide some.

You have the causation all turned around here, which I think is why you're having trouble understanding this (unless you are deliberately misunderstanding). The Rooney Rule did not create these issues of racism in the NFL, it was the NFL's attempt to address racism in hiring practices to avoid a lawsuit like this one. What is clear from Flores' lawsuit is that the Rooney Rule is not working because teams are continuing discriminatory hiring practices despite the rule. The discrimination claims are not based on violation of the Rooney Rule itself, it is based on the actual racism going on in the hiring practices of NFL teams. These violations of the intent of the Rooney Rule are evidence of teams' discriminatory practices because it demonstrates that, even in the face of ample evidence of past discriminatory practices, teams are doubling down on those practices with full knowledge of the effects rather than trying to eliminate racism in their hiring practices.

some good points, but it still overlooks why the Giants wanted Daboll over Flores. Are you seriously arguing it was because of race?
ll

I would recommend you read the complaint itself. The lawsuit is not just about that single incident. It provides a detailed account of the history of racism that led to the Rooney Rule, the failure of the Rooney Rule itself because of the lack of good faith compliance by teams, how the issue pervades not only head coaching positions but also coordinator and GM positions, and detailed accounts of multiple specific instances of disparate treatment in hiring involving different individuals and teams. It is a detailed and compelling read. Unless, that is, you go into it determined to reject any possibility that racism could exist in the NFL due to your own bigotry.

So why are you avoiding answering the question central to this lawsuit. Was Daboll selected due to race. Go aherad and make the argument he was an obviously lesser choice than Flores. If Flores (or you) can't win that argument, he loses this lawsuit.

The Daboll allegations are not actually "central" to the complaint. They are only part of much broader and extensive allegations regarding racism in NFL hiring practices. Let's say we are flipping a coin, and the first flip lands on heads. That does not necessarily mean the coin is weighted towards heads, right? If I flip it three times and each time it's heads, that could just be a coincidence. But if I flip it 32 times in a row and it comes up tails only once, would you start to question whether there something shady going on with that coin?

This is not actually true. Yes, the complaint alleges a broader racist culture. But before a class is even considered, Flores has to allege his own claim - only them can he represent a class (and whether a lass could be certified here is seriously in question, but that's a later discussion). And the Daboll allegations are indeed central to his claims.

So you trust the coin that lands on heads 31 times out of 32? Or do you ignore the pattern because you had heads rather than tails?

Selection decisions -- especially with very high stakes positions like NFL head coaches -- are not like coin tosses. o.K.? Your premise is completely flawed.

You are very committed to your position that white men are inherently more qualified than black men for NFL head coaching positions.

That's complete b.s. Like all fans I want a winner, doesn't matter the head coaches race. Stop with the race-baiting bullsh*t