Published
October 2, 2026
Updated
October 22, 2026
Former NFL players whose neuropsychological test scores were adjusted by race when they applied for disability benefits are covered by a settlement, approved by a federal judge on October 20, 2026, under which the NFL player disability and retirement plans will rescore those tests, dating back to January 1, 2012, and pay any resulting retroactive benefits with 6% interest. There is no claim form or cash fund, and the judge overruled objections from lawyers for more than 100 former players.
What Is This About?
The NFL's player benefit plans have agreed to settle a class action over "race norming," the practice of adjusting a person's cognitive test scores by comparing them with a reference group of the same race. The case is Bailey v. The NFL Player Disability & Survivor Benefit Plan, No. 1:23-cv-02661-JRR, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland before Judge Julie Rebecca Rubin. The court granted preliminary approval on June 1, 2026, and Judge Rubin approved the settlement at the final fairness hearing in Baltimore on October 20, 2026, according to the Maryland Daily Record.Two Black former players filed the suit on September 29, 2023 against the NFL Player Disability & Survivor Benefit Plan, the Bert Bell/Pete Rozelle NFL Player Retirement Plan, the 88 Plan and the boards and committees that run them. They allege that when non-white players applied for neurocognitive disability benefits, the physicians evaluating them applied race-based demographic adjustments that assumed a lower starting cognitive baseline for non-white players. Because benefit levels depend on how far a player's scores have fallen from that baseline, the complaint says the adjustment made it harder for non-white players to show the impairment needed for benefits, or for a higher benefit tier. The suit asserts claims under ERISA and 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
The plans deny wrongdoing. In their court filings they say they never directed the independent physicians who evaluate players to apply race-based adjustments, that any such adjustments reflected individual physicians' clinical judgment, and that the plans told those physicians to stop using race as a factor in June 2021. The settlement is expressly not an admission of liability, and no court has ruled on the merits.
Free settlement alerts
Get notified when new class actions open to claims
Join thousands of readers who get the latest class action settlements you may qualify for — delivered straight to your inbox.
Status
Final Approval Granted
Approved at the October 20, 2026 fairness hearing · objections overruled · preliminarily approved June 1, 2026
Relief
Rescoring of tests back to 2012
Race-neutral rescoring · retroactive benefits plus 6% simple interest where a rescore qualifies a player for more · permanent ban on race-based adjustments
Can I Claim?
No claim form
Class members are identified from the plans' claim files · there is no cash fund and no way to opt out
What Does the Settlement Do?
The settlement has no cash fund. Its value comes through the plans' own benefit system, and the main terms, as summarized in the court filings, are:- A permanent, court-enforceable ban on race-based demographic adjustments to neuropsychological tests for any plan participant.
- A Rescoring Protocol under which eligible class members' prior tests, going back to January 1, 2012, are rescored using race-neutral methods. The plaintiffs' expert and the plans' expert each review the results, and a neutral third expert decides where they disagree.
- Retroactive benefits for any class member whose rescored test qualifies him for a new or higher level of benefits, plus 6% simple annual interest. Benefit determinations reached through the process are final and binding.
- A waiver of the plans' statute-of-limitations defenses and damages-limitation provisions for retroactive benefits under the settlement.
- No reduction of any class member's current benefit award, whatever the rescore shows.
The class is defined by players who, among other criteria, underwent neuropsychological testing in connection with a benefits application and had their scores adjusted using race-based demographic adjustments. Identifying them requires reviewing individual claim files. The plans mailed the original notice to 631 class members on June 30, 2026, then found additional class members who had not received it, including some dropped during an earlier de-duplication review. The court approved an amended notice for both groups on September 4, 2026.
How much any individual player gains is unknown. The plans and Class Counsel agree that the settlement's value depends on the results of the rescoring, which has not happened yet.
Why Are Players Objecting?
Objections were due on September 29, 2026. NBC Sports' Pro Football Talk reported on September 30 that more than 100 former players had objected through counsel. Their central complaints are that the deal requires players to release their disability-benefit claims, that it pays no guaranteed money, and that it gives them no way to opt out. The parties asked the court to certify the class under Rule 23(b)(2), the rule for classes seeking mainly injunctive relief, which does not give class members a right to exclude themselves. At least one other former player filed his own protective objection on September 14.Judge Rubin heard about two hours of argument at the October 20 hearing before approving the deal, the Maryland Daily Record reported. The objectors argued that the settlement would release their claims in a separate, broader lawsuit that challenges how the plans decide disability claims, in which no class has been certified. Lawyers for both sides told the court the settlement does not require players to release those claims, and the judge overruled the objections on that basis. She ordered one change to the agreement, removing a comma that made certain terms appear ambiguous. A dispute over communications to players about the settlement by lawyers in the broader case will be handled in that case, which Judge Rubin also oversees.
The Fight Over Attorneys' Fees
Fees are paid by the plans in addition to, and not out of, any benefits owed to players, but the amount is contested. Class Counsel ask for about $3.79 million in fees for roughly 3,000 hours of work and $253,421.69 in costs, a combined $4.04 million, plus $50,000 service awards for each of the two class representatives. They also want the court to reserve the right to award more after the rescoring is substantially complete, once the value delivered to the class can be measured.The plans oppose most of it. They argue the case was resolved cooperatively without contested motions, that the requested hourly rates of up to $1,600 far exceed Maryland market rates, and that the hours are inflated by duplicative staffing and block billing. They ask the court to cut the remaining hours by half, cap costs at about $151,077, deny any later enhancement, and limit service awards to $2,500 each. The plans point out that the settlement agreement says a reduced fee award does not affect the rest of the settlement.
What Happens Next?
With the settlement approved, the Rescoring Protocol is the next step, and any increased benefits will flow through the plans rather than through a claims administrator. As of October 22, 2026, the court docket did not yet show a written final approval order. The only order entered on October 20 was a paperless order by Judge Rubin terminating Class Counsel’s earlier motion (ECF No. 108) “for the reasons set forth on the record in open court,” while the joint motion for final approval and class certification (ECF No. 139) remained listed without a written ruling. The docket also showed no ruling yet on the disputed request for attorneys' fees, costs and service awards, and no notice of appeal. Objectors can appeal once a final approval order is entered.The race-norming issue first drew wide attention in the NFL concussion settlement, where the league agreed in 2021 to stop using race norming in that program. That separate settlement is covered in the NFL concussion settlement explainer.
Sources
- CourtListener docket for Bailey v. The NFL Player Disability & Survivor Benefit Plan, No. 1:23-cv-02661-JRR (D. Md.), including the complaint (ECF 1), the joint motion for preliminary approval (ECF 79), the preliminary approval and scheduling orders (ECF 82, 86, 91), the fee motion and opposition (ECF 88, 92), and the joint motion for an amended notice (ECF 96)
- Maryland Daily Record — report on the October 20, 2026 final approval hearing
- Pro Football Talk, NBC Sports — report on the objections, September 30, 2026
Questions
Is there a claim form or a cash fund in the NFL race-norming settlement?
No. The settlement creates no common fund and no claim form. Eligible class members are identified from the plans' own claim files, their prior neuropsychological tests are rescored under the Rescoring Protocol, and any increase in benefits is paid by the plans. Nothing has to be filed to be included.
Can a former player opt out of the NFL race-norming settlement?
The parties asked the court to certify the class for settlement under Rule 23(b)(2), the rule for classes seeking mainly injunctive relief, which does not give class members a right to exclude themselves. The objecting players cite the absence of an opt-out as one of their main complaints.
Could rescoring lower a player's current disability benefit?
No. According to the plaintiffs' summary of the Settlement Agreement, no class member's current benefit award will be reduced as a result of the rescoring, whatever the outcome.
Do attorneys' fees come out of the players' benefits?
No. The Settlement Agreement provides that any fees, costs and service awards are paid by the plans separately and do not reduce benefits owed to class members. The amount is disputed: Class Counsel seek about $4.04 million in fees and costs, and the plans argue for a much smaller award.
Is this the same as the NFL concussion settlement's race-norming fix?
No. In 2021 the NFL agreed to stop using race norming in the separate concussion settlement program. This case concerns the players' ERISA disability and retirement plans, which the complaint says continued to rely on race-adjusted test scores in benefit decisions.
Court Filings
For more class actions keep scrolling below.
Status
Final Approval Granted
Approved at the October 20, 2026 fairness hearing
Case Title
Bailey v. The NFL Player Disability & Survivor Benefit Plan
Case Number
1:23-cv-02661-JRR
Court
U.S. District Court, District of Maryland
Date Filed
September 29, 2023
Official Website
CourtListener Docket
