Colorado Federal Court Sends Ex-NFL Player’s Lawsuit Against NFL and Broncos Back to State Court Because His State-Law Discrimination Claims Are Not Preempted by Federal Law
Brett Whitley, Associate
On June 26, 2026, United States District Judge S. Kato Crews, in the lawsuit Randy Gregory v. National Football League, and Denver Broncos Team, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-01986-SKC-CYC (the “Lawsuit”) granted ex-NFL linebacker and former Broncos player’s, Randy Gregory’s, motion to remand his Lawsuit, alleging the NFL and the Broncos violated the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (“CADA”)[1]by failing to accommodate his disabilities and by retaliating against him for engaging in protected activity, out of federal court and back to state court. The federal court’s analysis in granting the motion to remand demonstrates that just because an employee bringing CADA claims may be a party to a collective bargaining agreement, that does not mean that such claims will automatically be subject to a federal court’s jurisdiction; instead, federal jurisdiction will likely depend on whether the resolution of the state-law claims depend on the interpretation and meaning of the collective bargaining agreement.
Brief Background of the Claims at Issue in Mr. Gregory’s Lawsuit
Mr. Gregory, the Broncos, and the NFL were at all relevant times, parties to and therefore, bound by a collective bargaining agreement (the “CBA”). The CBA includes a “Policy and Program on Substances of Abuse,” which contains a list of substances, including marijuana and synthetic cannabinoids, that players are prohibited from using.
Mr. Gregory was diagnosed with Social Anxiety Disorder and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and suffers from chronic pain due to injuries. In February 2023, Mr. Gregory’s doctor prescribed Dronabinol (a Schedule III FDA-approved drug) to treat his conditions. Dronabinol is a synthetic form of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the primary component of marijuana.
Seeking an accommodation to use Dronabinol to treat his conditions, in March 2023, Mr. Gregory contacted Lawrence S. Brown, Jr., M.D., a Medical Advisor for the NFL, and provided Dr. Brown with information regarding his diagnoses and his Dronabinol prescription. But the NFL and the Broncos denied Mr. Gregory’s request.
Consequently, Mr. Gregory brought the Lawsuit in Colorado state court and asserted that the NFL and the Broncos failed to accommodate his disability and retaliated against him for making the requested accommodation in violation of CADA. Defendants removed the case to federal court, arguing that Mr. Gregory’s claims are preempted by Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (“LMRA”), which manages the activities of labor unions, employers, and employees, and that all lawsuits falling under Section 301 necessarily arise under federal law, which, in turn, necessitates a federal court’s jurisdiction over such lawsuits. Mr. Gregory then filed a motion to remand the Lawsuit back to the state court, where the state court would focus on whether CADA was violated, not whether the NFL’s and the Broncos’ conduct violated the CBA. Additionally, litigating in state court is an advantage for Mr. Gregory since state courts and juries would likely be more receptive to state law claims.
The Federal Court’s Reasoning for Granting the Motion to Remand
The federal court began its reasoning for granting the motion to remand by clarifying that Section 301 will only preempt state law claims that are not “sufficiently independent” of a collective bargaining agreement. In other words, if the resolution of a state law claim depends upon the meaning of a collective bargaining agreement, the application of state law is preempted and federal labor law principles, such as those in the LMRA, must be employed to resolve the lawsuit.
Here, the federal court first found that Mr. Gregory’s right to a reasonable accommodation on the basis of his disabilities as well as his right to be free from retaliation when requesting a reasonable accommodation are rights created by CADA, not the CBA, and thus, his Lawsuit is fundamentally a state-law dispute from the outset. The NFL and the Broncos countered that in order to determine whether Mr. Gregory was a “qualified individual” and whether Mr. Gregory’s requested accommodation was reasonable (which are both prerequisites to establishing Mr. Gregory’s claims), the Court would need to analyze the CBA and thus, Mr. Gregory’s claims are not “sufficiently independent” from the CBA, thereby requiring the federal court to retain jurisdiction over the Lawsuit. However, the federal court found that the NFL and the Broncos were not sufficiently clear as to exactly which provisions of the CBA would need to be analyzed and why as well as how the CBA’s meaning would be altered if such an analysis did not take place when they were putting forth their arguments and consequently, the federal court found they did not meet their burden to show that Mr. Gregory’s claims were “inextricably intertwined” with the CBA. The federal court determined that even if the CBA would need to be consulted in the course of the Lawsuit that fact, in and of itself, was not enough to preempt Mr. Gregory’s claims.
Employer Considerations
Employers with collective bargaining agreements with their employees should take note from the Lawsuit that a collective bargaining agreement that includes provisions prohibiting certain employee conduct will not automatically prevent employees from bringing state law claims in state court against the employer for violating said provisions, even if the collective bargaining agreement includes an arbitration provision. The employer will likely have to litigate such state law claims in state court unless the employer can specifically show how resolving the state law claims in state court could alter the meaning of the collective bargaining agreement. Campbell Litigation is available to assist employers in determining whether employees have violated their collective bargaining agreements and determine which forum such claims should be litigated.
[1] Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-34-402 et seq.