News: Judge Orders Hotel to Give Michael Irvin Video Footage and Accuser Name in Alleged Misconduct Case

[CouchCoach]

You are right
I forgot Irvin brought the suit

OK, then take ridiculous back. I don't mind being dumb or stupid but ridiculous really hurts.

 

[visionary]

OK, then take ridiculous back. I don't mind being dumb or stupid but ridiculous really hurts.

Ok I take the “ridiculous “ statement back

 

[Vtwin]

What could he have possibly said in a 30 second interaction that warrants the response?

 

[Flamma]

What could he have possibly said in a 30 second interaction that warrants the response?

Nice sweater?

 

[Vtwin]

Nice sweater?

Off with his head!!!!!

 

[Flamma]

Off with his head!!!!!

You never know what bothers people. Or what motivates people. Money often does. High profile people are always told to not get into situations where you are briefly alone with a woman you don't know. Even something as simple as a 30 second elevator ride. They can say anything.

 

[sacase]

Lool, this is all just public posturing by Irvin’s legal team for optics. The $100M is intended to intimidate, cause the woman to pause and put a chilling a effect on defending her claim.

Further, the demand by Irvin’s legal team for the video in reality serves no purpose but to sway misinformed public opinion. From my understanding the woman never claimed Irvin physically assaulted her, so the tapes will show nothing. Irvin’s legal knows this. What we don’t know is exactly what the conversation was between Irvin and the woman was. Even the witnesses claiming it appeared to be a normal interaction don’t know what’s said and that’ll be exposed if it goes to trial.

It's physical proof of how long the conversation last. If this goes to trial, which I doubt, this is just one fact that Irvin will prove. It will support eye witness testimony.

 

[Bigrandrn]

First, they had to sit circled in their safe space overnight.
Chanting "me too" as they colored outside the lines and held their service animals.

Side note, has anyone looked for updated information on the Arizona coach that was
sent home from Mexico? Probably not.

"Middle aged man calls a waitress sweetheart as he touches her shoulder to get
her attention. Fired and told to find his way back home." (slightly exaggerated)

This is not an exaggeration…..snowflakery is truly growing like cancer in this country.

 

[sacase]

His lawyer came on strong out of the gate to try and minimize what Irvin had already told the media. He's hoping he can play the big tough talk game and if it was just the woman and not a major corporation, he might stand a chance but they acted on the woman's account of what transpired and they are going to back her all the way. They care a hell of a lot more about their thousands of female employees than a nuisance lawsuit.

Marriott's attorneys are probably laughing their butts off at Irvin's media comments once he returned to Dallas. Be fun for this to go to court and see his lawyer try to wiggle out of that.

Yeah that's not what he has to do at all. YOU keep saying he has to prove intent, and you have clearly said that you believe intent to be she was intending on something happening. First what is his lawsuit for actually? Slander? If so then he has to prove actual malice meaning she knowingly made a false statement. So his lawyers are going to put her on the stand and the manager, and the person at the NFL and get them to say what the employee said and what the manager said to the NFL. She has no 5th amendment protection from testifying in a civil trial because nothing criminal will result in her testimony and nether does Irvin. If he can prove that she knowingly made a false statement to 51% of the jury he wins. As far as damages go he can argue it hurts his earning potential since the coverage would raise his profile and the untrue allegation hurts his future earnings and job prospects. Obviously it's not that simple since it's the law I am suprised the lawyers on here haven't explained it better than I could.

 

[TequilaCowboy]

That is a possibility since they acted so quickly and they haven't been required to validate their actions, even to Irvin. Until now.

This also may be at the root of NFLN's actions to send him home. We have no idea what's gone on in the past but it this was Kurt Warner or Stene Mariucci, I do not think they act this quickly.

I'm smelling something screwy going on here and more layers of this onion to be peeled back , not just on the hotel's immediate action of tossing out Michael.....but the network cutting him out as well based on video available at the time and no investigation. Cannot imagine any conversation a high profile person can have with an employee that warrants such action also with no apparent investigation into the facts. Michael does have the right to know and defend himself of such reactions from both parties and i am glad this is headed that way. I believe there were two other witnesses in the lobby at the time too who saw this happen. Suing your employer is tough, but he can't let this keep him from getting justice if he chooses.

 

[CouchCoach]

I'm smelling something screwy going on here and more layers of this onion to be peeled back , not just on the hotel's immediate action of tossing out Michael.....but the network cutting him out as well based on video available at the time and no investigation. Cannot imagine any conversation a high profile person can have with an employee that warrants such action also with no apparent investigation into the facts. Michael does have the right to know and defend himself of such reactions from both parties and i am glad this is headed that way. I believe there were two other witnesses in the lobby at the time too who saw this happen. Suing your employer is tough, but he can't let this keep him from getting justice if he chooses.

What we do not know is his history with the NFLN and if he was on a shorter leash than other employees. However, they might have just been getting him out of that situation because it was going to make it difficult for him to do his job the rest of the week. Think they might feel they were doing something for him and not to him?

We have no idea who all was involved in this from the network and they didn't suspend him or dock his pay so they're not saying he's guilty of anything.

 

[glimmerman]

I want to see the video. Did the 2 witnesses say the saw nothing wrong and it ended with a hand shake. If he did something wrong I surely wouldn’t shake his hand.

 

[gtb1943]

What we do not know is his history with the NFLN and if he was on a shorter leash than other employees. However, they might have just been getting him out of that situation because it was going to make it difficult for him to do his job the rest of the week. Think they might feel they were doing something for him and not to him?

We have no idea who all was involved in this from the network and they didn't suspend him or dock his pay so they're not saying he's guilty of anything.

The effects of Wokery. Gutless corporate heads basically letting any accusation no matter how stupid guide their decisions.

Anyone who has not seen this coming is dumb and blind.

Irving is going to go to the mat on this one; exposing the NFL and the Hotel and all the rest for the cowardly POS's they are.

as regards the woman I have no doubt it was deliberate in an attempt to get money. Buyoff most likely. In the corrupt and warped and twisted culture of today its worked time and again.

 

[gtb1943]

You never know what bothers people. Or what motivates people. Money often does. High profile people are always told to not get into situations where you are briefly alone with a woman you don't know. Even something as simple as a 30 second elevator ride. They can say anything.

And this shows how insane things have gotten.

 

[MarcusRock]

It is the only interview so far in this and his lawyer is going to struggle with this. Nobody but Irvin and his lawyer has commented on this.

The NFLN can do whatever they want, what exactly would Irvin sue them for? They are his employer and he doesn't have a "right" to be on the SB coverage. They didn't suspend him or even dock his pay to my knowledge. They do not even consider themselves a party to this, it's between Irvin and the woman and hotel group.

And how did the hotel harm him? They didn't go public, they simply informed the payer of the hotel room what was happening.

The only people that have gone public are Irvin and his mouthpiece, as if he needs one.

Many think he's going to prevail, primarily because they want him to, but that is highly unlikely. It is his lawyer's burden of proof she lied about what he said and he can't even defend himself because of what he already told the media, that's my point. He can't take that back or all of the sudden have memory recovery because a judge or jury isn't buying that. Off the cuff or not, that was a damning statement he made and he has little chance of winning.

My only point on your previous statements was that the "I had a few drinks so can't remember anything" quote out of Irvin was said after he had already been excused by NFLN, not that it weighed into their decision unless there's some other exchange they had before they made their decision.

Irvin's statement was also of the jokey variety so I doubt he made that same statement and definitely not that same tone to his NFLN bosses if they approached him first or when they informed him. That's why I say it logically seemed like an off the cuff remark he hadn't made before. His Super Bowl coverage fate had already been sealed by the NFLN by then.

 

[MarcusRock]

I want to see the video. Did the 2 witnesses say the saw nothing wrong and it ended with a hand shake. If he did something wrong I surely wouldn’t shake his hand.

And this is the big misconception about those witness accounts: that she needed to act offended right there in the moment when she could have just been trying to find the quickest way to exit the situation, including by being polite and cordial to not escalate any threat. I previously used the example below to illustrate how this can be the case. Not surprisingly, no response from the one I posted it to. What do you think?

You're at a big company gathering and one of the big bosses cracks a joke at your expense that annoys you to the point where if a friend had done it, you'd let him have it. Are you going to go at that big boss with the whole company watching, including his buddy the CEO? If the big boss approaches you to say in front of everyone, "I was just kidding" and goes to shake your hand then and there, are you going to refuse to embarrass him right back in front of everyone? Heck, maybe later though you'll file an HR harassment claim against him. But why not tell him then and there you plan on doing that? That's called a power dynamic that forces you to stay cool in the moment and plot what to do later. Was that a possibility for the woman in this case? Not absolutely true, but possible?

 

[glimmerman]

My only point on your previous statements was that the "I had a few drinks so can't remember anything" quote out of Irvin was said after he had already been excused by NFLN, not that it weighed into their decision unless there's some other exchange they had before they made their decision.

Irvin's statement was also of the jokey variety so I doubt he made that same statement and definitely not that same tone to his NFLN bosses if they approached him first or when they informed him. That's why I say it logically seemed like an off the cuff remark he hadn't made before. His Super Bowl coverage fate had already been sealed by the NFLN by then.

Yeah. Him calling a radio or broadcast and going ahead before anyone knew about it and letting the cat out of the bag was his way of getting his side out early. Was smart except the part you mentioned about saying he had a few drinks and don’t remember. Sorry but a few drinks don’t give you memory loss. Unless they are huge drinks. Was a mistake to mention it.

 

[glimmerman]

And this is the big misconception about those witness accounts: that she needed to act offended right there in the moment when she could have just been trying to find the quickest way to exit the situation, including by being polite and cordial to not escalate any threat. I previously used the example below to illustrate how this can be the case. Not surprisingly, no response from the one I posted it to. What do you think?

You're at a big company gathering and one of the big bosses cracks a joke at your expense that annoys you to the point where if a friend had done it, you'd let him have it. Are you going to go at that big boss with the whole company watching, including his buddy the CEO? If the big boss approaches you to say in front of everyone, "I was just kidding" and goes to shake your hand then and there, are you going to refuse to embarrass him right back in front of everyone? Heck, maybe later though you'll file an HR harassment claim against him. But why not tell him then and there you plan on doing that? That's called a power dynamic that forces you to stay cool in the moment and plot what to do later. Was that a possibility for the woman in this case? Not absolutely true, but possible?

It’s possible but your example depends on the person. I don’t care who you are and where I am. You make a joke at my expense I will let you know it’s not kool. Then if they say sorry was a joke I will forgive and shake your hand. But we are talking supposedly sexual harassment and it’s a women so I can understand what you’re saying. She likely wanted out of the situation. But not knowing what he said makes it difficult. Him saying he was drinking and don’t remember was covering his butt.

 

[CouchCoach]

My only point on your previous statements was that the "I had a few drinks so can't remember anything" quote out of Irvin was said after he had already been excused by NFLN, not that it weighed into their decision unless there's some other exchange they had before they made their decision.

Irvin's statement was also of the jokey variety so I doubt he made that same statement and definitely not that same tone to his NFLN bosses if they approached him first or when they informed him. That's why I say it logically seemed like an off the cuff remark he hadn't made before. His Super Bowl coverage fate had already been sealed by the NFLN by then.

I don't think they just send him home without getting his side of it. I think they were making what they thought was the safest decision for them.

As far as the drinks comment, he said that's what he told security when they approached him after they told him he did encounter someone after he said he didn't. I don't know whether they just told him there was a video or showed him but the early report said it was a video of the hotel's, not some guy in a bar. I am sure there isn't a public part of that hotel not under video surveillance. As far as audio, that's unknown.

I think this is coming down to what she said vs what he can't remember and her employer is definitely going with her. And to my knowledge, neither the hotel or woman is the one that let the media know about this. In fact, that may have been Irvin and the NFLN didn't say anything.

 

[RustyBourneHorse]

88 will win this

That's where the evidence seems to be pointing to be sure.