In a stunning reversal of the typical labor-management dispute, a senior attorney for the NFL Players Association has filed a lawsuit against her own union, alleging obstruction of justice, sex discrimination, retaliation, and breach of contract.
Heather McPhee, who has served as the NFLPA’s associate general counsel since 2009, filed the complaint on December 18, 2025 in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., seeking at least $10 million in damages. The lawsuit names former NFLPA executive director Lloyd Howell Jr., current general counsel Tom DePaso, and NFL Players Inc. president Matt Curtin as defendants.
The Central Allegations: Covering Up Misconduct
McPhee’s lawsuit centers on two explosive issues that unfolded within the NFLPA over the past year, both of which she claims exposed serious failures by union leadership to protect player interests.
The OneTeam Partners Incentive Plan
McPhee raised concerns about a senior executive incentive plan proposed by OneTeam Partners, which would have paid millions in bonuses to board members affiliated with the NFLPA, including Howell and MLBPA Executive Director Tony Clark. She questioned whether these payments violated labor laws governing conflicts of interest and fiduciary duties, concerns she says she first raised internally in November 2024.
According to the complaint, McPhee’s allegations sparked an FBI investigation into the NFLPA, MLBPA, and OneTeam Partners, their $2 billion licensing company. Rather than supporting her concerns, McPhee alleges union leaders targeted her to conceal their own misconduct.
Hiding the Collusion Grievance Ruling
Perhaps even more damaging to the union’s credibility are allegations that NFLPA leadership concealed from players an arbitrator’s January 2025 ruling that found evidence NFL commissioner Roger Goodell and several owners openly discussed ways to limit guaranteed contracts for star quarterbacks.
The ruling stemmed from a collusion grievance filed after Deshaun Watson signed a fully guaranteed $230 million contract with the Cleveland Browns ahead of the 2022 season, after which league executives allegedly encouraged team owners to reduce guaranteed money in subsequent player contracts.
While the arbitrator couldn’t prove by clear preponderance that teams followed through, the union’s decision to sign a confidentiality agreement with the NFL keeping the decision from all union members for six months appeared to violate the collective bargaining agreement and raised concerns about violating the NFLPA’s duty of fair representation.
McPhee’s lawsuit argues players were directly harmed by this secrecy. “Players who were free agents in March 2025 could have leveraged the decision in negotiations for more favorable terms. The NFLPA denied them that opportunity,” the complaint states.
When McPhee objected to keeping players in the dark, she alleges Howell told the NFLPA’s executive committee that she wasn’t on “their team.”
The Retaliation: Administrative Leave as Silencing Tactic
McPhee was placed on paid administrative leave in August 2025, ostensibly for workplace misconduct including allegations of failing to follow supervisors’ directions, bullying colleagues, and disrupting the work environment.
But McPhee tells a different story. She alleges she was placed on leave specifically to prevent her from testifying before a federal grand jury investigating the NFLPA and MLBPA. The timing is notable. She says her removal came after union leaders learned she was prepared to serve as a witness about what she deemed criminal misconduct by Howell and others.
According to the lawsuit, once her cooperation with investigators became known, she was systematically frozen out. She was removed from meetings, cut off from communication with the board and players, and ultimately sidelined entirely.
The Legal Claims
The complaint asserts four counts:
- Obstruction of Justice – Alleging defendants conspired to prevent her from cooperating with federal criminal investigators.
- Sex Discrimination – Claiming she was treated differently than male colleagues due to her gender.
- Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress – Arguing the defendants’ conduct was extreme and outrageous.
- Breach of Contract – Asserting violations of her employment agreement.
The Broader Context: A Union in Crisis
This lawsuit lands against the backdrop of widespread turmoil at the NFLPA. Lloyd Howell resigned as executive director on July 17, 2025, after a tumultuous month that included reporting about union funds being spent on strip club visits and the collusion grievance cover-up.
The revelations about the concealed arbitration decision were particularly damaging, as they suggested the union prioritized its relationship with the NFL over its duty to inform and advocate for players. For a labor organization, few accusations cut deeper than the claim it betrayed its own members’ interests.
The OneTeam Partners investigation adds another dimension, raising questions about whether union leaders were more focused on their personal financial interests than their fiduciary obligations to players.
Why This Matters
McPhee’s case is significant for several reasons:
Duty of Fair Representation: If proven, the allegations about hiding the collusion arbitration decision would represent a serious breach of one of a union’s most fundamental obligations, which is the duty to fairly represent all members. Free agents negotiating contracts in early 2025 were denied potentially powerful leverage in their negotiations.
Obstruction of Justice: The claim that union leaders tried to prevent cooperation with a federal criminal investigation is extraordinarily serious. If McPhee was indeed sidelined to keep her from testifying, it suggests consciousness of guilt about underlying misconduct.
Internal Accountability: The lawsuit highlights the challenge of accountability within member organizations. When leadership fails, who protects the members? McPhee’s allegations suggest the NFLPA’s internal governance structures failed to address her concerns, leaving litigation as her only recourse.
Transparency vs. Secrecy: The confidentiality agreement with the NFL over the collusion ruling raises fundamental questions about when, if ever, it’s appropriate for a union to keep potentially valuable information from its members, even temporarily.
Whistleblower Retaliation: If McPhee’s allegations are accurate, the case would represent a textbook example of retaliation against an internal whistleblower by using employment actions to silence someone who raised concerns about wrongdoing.
What Happens Next
The defendants will have an opportunity to respond, either by filing a motion to dismiss or by answering the allegations paragraph by paragraph. Given the seriousness of the accusations and the detail in the complaint, expect vigorous opposition from the NFLPA.
Discovery could prove particularly revealing, potentially exposing internal communications about the OneTeam arrangement, the collusion arbitration decision, and the decision to place McPhee on leave. Email and text message exchanges among union leadership could be especially illuminating.
The parallel federal criminal investigation adds another layer of complexity. Depending on its scope and timing, that investigation could affect the pace and handling of the civil lawsuit.
