NFL public finding — no evidence of slur

After the Nov. 14, 2019 helmet incident and Garrett's subsequent appeal, the NFL completed an internal investigation into allegations that Mason Rudolph used a racial slur during the play. On Nov. 21, 2019 the league issued a public statement that 'found no evidence' to support the claim that Rudolph used such language directed at Garrett [1]. The public statement served as the league's official investigatory conclusion, and it was cited in subsequent reporting and in the NFL's appeal decision documentation that upheld discipline for Garrett [1][5]. The finding did not produce publicly released contemporaneous audio or other corroborating material to disprove Garrett's account; instead, the league's statement summarizes the investigatory outcome as reported to the public [1]. That conclusion became a focal point in media coverage because it directly contradicted Garrett's later on-record assertion that he heard a racial slur and because it framed subsequent denials and legal warnings from Rudolph's camp [3][6].

The NFL's Nov. 21, 2019 statement matters because it is the league's formal public determination on the central, contested factual claim in the Garrett–Rudolph dispute: whether Rudolph used a racial slur. The league's 'no evidence' finding provided an official counterpoint to Garrett's allegation and shaped how media, teams and legal advisers treated subsequent public statements and threats of litigation [1]. The finding also limited the public record by reporting a negative investigative result rather than releasing detailed investigatory materials.

Following the league's public finding, Garrett's suspension remained in place and was upheld by appeals officer James Thrash; Garrett remained suspended through the 2019 season and was later reinstated after meeting with Commissioner Roger Goodell on Feb. 12, 2020 [5][8]. Garrett reiterated his slur allegation publicly on Feb. 14, 2020 in an ESPN interview, after which Mason Rudolph denied the claim and his representatives warned of legal action; legal commentary discussed the difficulty of a defamation suit for a public figure [3][6][7]. No public civil lawsuit by Rudolph tied to the allegation was reported through 2025 [7][10].