A federal judge returned a former Broncos linebacker’s disability discrimination lawsuit to state court last month, rejecting the NFL defendants’ attempt to keep the case in federal court.

Randy Gregory, who played for the Broncos between 2022 and 2023, sued the team and the NFL for violations of the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act. He alleged that the defendants refused to reasonably accommodate his prescribed use of dronabinol for his disability. The substance is a synthetic tetrahydrocannabinol and a government-approved drug, but the NFL’s collective bargaining agreement prohibited its use.

The NFL and the Broncos moved to transfer the case into federal court. They relied on a section of the Labor Management Relations Act that permits federal courts to hear labor disputes “in an industry affecting commerce,” so long as the plaintiff’s claims are “substantially dependent” on an analysis of the collective bargaining agreement.

Gregory sought to return the case to state court, arguing his claims revolved around the protections of the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, not the terms of the collective bargaining agreement.

“CADA is a non-negotiable state law right to be free from discrimination, receive reasonable accommodations in the workplace, and not face retaliation from employers,” wrote Gregory’s attorneys. “The law, not the CBA, defines an employer’s affirmative obligation to provide reasonable accommodation under Plaintiff’s non-negotiable state right.”

“Plaintiff’s claims unquestionably challenge actions taken in accordance with the requirements for drug testing and discipline agreed to by the parties under the CBA,” responded the defense attorneys. “Plaintiff cannot plausibly show that such claims can be resolved without interpreting the very CBA he is attempting to repudiate.”

In a June 26 order, U.S. District Court Judge S. Kato Crews agreed with Gregory.

“The first question is whether the rights at issue — the right to receive reasonable accommodation for a disability — arises from the CBA. It does not,” wrote Crews. “Defendants’ obligations in this case flow from CADA, which the Colorado general assembly enacted for the ‘fundamental purpose of eliminating discriminatory practices in the workplace.’”

He added that it was unclear why he would necessarily have to interpret provisions of the collective bargaining agreement to resolve Gregory’s claims of disability discrimination and retaliation.

Crews returned the case to Arapahoe County.

The case is Gregory v. National Football League et al.