News: Michael Irvin files $100 million lawsuit vs accuser and Marriott (Renaissance hotels)

[CanadianCowboysFan]

If Irvin wasn’t a former Cowboy great those defending him would be bashing him too.

it wouldn't be all over the news

 

[CouchCoach]

I would like to see this video of the hotel's that caused them to move him. The first report said the meeting took place in the lobby, not the bar. Is that phone video from a bar patron even the one they've referenced? If it is, I don't see it. Looks like nothing to me.

 

[dfense]

Irvin has already dealt with this type of thing before. During his SB years some woman lied about him and he went after her.

 

[Xelda]

Sue 'em Playmaker!!!! Raise your amount too. !00 Million isn't enough for trying to remove your sources of income.

 

[DZSierra]

As for why I don't think the witnesses help all that much, your example of what happened to you is why. I think people are assuming if something weird was said that it has to be reacted to in the moment (as the interviewer implied). As with your situation, sometimes it takes time for a person to process how much a comment actually bothered them and then they go through their stages of dealing including deciding on doing something about it.

I was called into the office the very next day.

My branch manager at the time said I could file paperwork "countering" the girls side of the story, but I actually like the manager.

I had two options at the time after I was notified the girl was upset.

1 - I could take my stance to the company where I felt like giving my side of the story, and fight for what I thought was "right" and make it a long drawn out process.

2 - Because I liked my manager, I told him not to sweat it, I didn't need the money and I appreciated the time and company discounts I received and I'll just leave to make his life easier so no write up of termination actually had to happen because I quit before he could do anything to resolve the situation on the girls end.

As far as Irvin, unless he told the woman that he wanted to bang the living daylights out of her in those 45 seconds, personally I'm leaning toward either the woman he talked to or her manager bing psycho.

 

[Diehardblues]

it wouldn't be all over the news

I’m talking about if he wasn’t a Cowboy . If he was still a HOFamer from another team it would be in the news but Cowboy fans wouldn’t be defending him.

 

[Gemini Dolly]

Story time.

I once worked with a guy who got a verbal warning because he told a woman she looked good in her outfit and the woman felt uncomfortable.

He ended up apologizing and the girl accepted.

We then had to have another crash course on sexual harrassment with footage from the 1980s.


Dont know what Irvin said, but if it any way gave her an ugly feeling, she was right to report. If she lying, may she suffer the consequences to the full extent.

 

[MarcusRock]

It depends. They saw the whole thing. Said they shook hands. Nobody seemed angry. She went back to work and Mike went up to his room. Unless something happened afterwards then they're credible. And if something was said then it's more he said -she said . If it wasn't Michael Irvin nobody would care about this. People say things to me all the time that i don't like. You live with it.

Again, you're talking in the moment. She didn't have to seem angry then. If she felt some kind of threat, she could have just concentrated on getting out of there and you exchange pleasantries to do that effectively and plot out what to do later. Same as DZSierra's situation I quoted. Male-female dynamics. And yes, YOU live with it. You're a guy. Women are always looking out for threats, because of some that are predators out there that will hurt women. Some can get overzealous and maybe see things that aren't there, sure, but the dynamics are what they are and you can't approach them like you would with another guy not on the lookout for a threat of some sort (again DZSierra's story illustrates this). Women are coming from a different place and it helps to know that when interacting with them.

 

[MarcusRock]

According to the first report, he denied talking to anybody and they referred him to the video, which is when the "I had some drinks" came up. I doubt the network didn't talk to the hotel before they decided what action to take.

The only thing I heard about this is when Irvin himself was recounting this on the radio about denying talking to anyone and then the hotel saying they had a video that they didn't show him. If I remember correctly, the "I had a few drinks" was him explaining the situation on the radio so it's not clear that he also said that to the hotel folks then or had added it as part of recounting what happened on the radio after. We do know that all of what he said on the radio was post-NFLN dismissing him. A story I saw said that it was the hotel that contacted the NFL, maybe because they set up his reservation or something. But again, to hear Irvin, he seemed blindsided about why he was moved from the hotel and why the NFLN dismissed him. Being an emotional guy and all, he could have added that tidbit (that he shouldn't have) because I doubt there was a back and forth discussion with NFLN without them having all the facts. Irvin seemed to not know all the facts. Again, logically, that makes sense with him being an emotional guy and then trying to piece things together publicly, again which he shouldn't have.

 

[sacase]

I do not have an agenda because it doesn't really matter to me. However, I know enough about him at ESPN Radio that the benefit of the doubt is difficult with his history.

What doesn't make sense is what's her motive and what did security hear and see for them to take that action? If it was as harmless as those two say it was, it is more than a mistake, it is intentional.

And he is the one using "I had too many drinks" as his excuse not to remember, he could have just said he meets a lot of people and can't remember all of them. That, may be the grounds NFLN used to send him home. No one in the public eye can get by with that as an excuse without repercussions.

Maybe she has some vendetta against him, who knows? I don't know and neither do you.

The exact quote is "I had a few drinks to tell you the truth" words matter. But again you know that. Look at your many posts, you keep exaggerating and building a strawman that he was drunk and wreckless. Plus you have eye witnesses saying he was drinking club soda and turned down a drink when offered. Sounds to me like someone who knew his limit cause he had to work tomorrow. So now please stop with your agenda that he was drunk cause he clearly was not.

You are right about one thing we don't know what happened. Right now things don't make sense. None of the actions do at all. I am starting to wonder if it was an overzealous manager. Maybe even had a crush on the employee. But if that is true that doesnt explain her silence. Who knows people's agendas. Also if you pay attention, celebrities have been hitting back at false accusers recently and winning. The days of unsubstantiated accusations are coming to an end.

 

[Philmonroe]

If Irvin wasn’t a former Cowboy great those defending him would be bashing him too.

Where is your proof of such? People just say things but never seem to have any proof to their bogus claims smh.

 

[Mark]

I guess you have to throw the hotel into the lawsuit because there is no way that woman has $100 million.

Marriott is just as - or maybe more - culpable, if their employee's claims turn out to be BS. It was the decision of Marriott to toss him out, and banish him from all their properties.

There is no allegation of violence, unwanted touching, harassment, or other activity that rose to the level of criminal charges being filed (unless prosecutors are still investigating). That leaves us with something allegedly said during a thirty-second lobby conversation which alarmed this employee (and her superiors) enough to banish a high-profile guest from not just that particular establishment, but from ALL of them worldwide.

What could Irvin have possibly said to engender such an extreme reaction from the hotel, based upon an employee complaint? If pressed to speculate, I'd guess that it would be some sort of sexual proposition. But, who knows?

The big problem for Irvin, as a plaintiff in a defamation lawsuit, is that the burden is upon HIM to prove the falsity of the employee's allegations. The defendants don't have to prove a thing. Furthermore, if he is deemed to be a "public figure," Irvin will also have to prove that the employee's statements were made with "actual malice." HUGE hurdle, made higher by the fact that Irvin admits he was drinking, and doesn't remember anything about the conversation...rendering him all but incapable of assisting in the prosecution of his own case. I hope he has helpful witnesses.

 

[CouchCoach]

The exact quote is "I had a few drinks to tell you the truth" words matter. But again you know that. Look at your many posts, you keep exaggerating and building a strawman that he was drunk and wreckless. Plus you have eye witnesses saying he was drinking club soda and turned down a drink when offered. Sounds to me like someone who knew his limit cause he had to work tomorrow. So now please stop with your agenda that he was drunk cause he clearly was not.

You are right about one thing we don't know what happened. Right now things don't make sense. None of the actions do at all. I am starting to wonder if it was an overzealous manager. Maybe even had a crush on the employee. But if that is true that doesnt explain her silence. Who knows people's agendas. Also if you pay attention, celebrities have been hitting back at false accusers recently and winning. The days of unsubstantiated accusations are coming to an end.

He is the one using the drinks as an excuse for not remembering and I didn't say he was drunk only assumed it because I've been drinking longer than he has and a few drinks do not cause memory loss.

And that statement might be why NFLN sent him home.

 

[CouchCoach]

Marriott is just as - or maybe more - culpable, if their employee's claims turn out to be BS. It was the decision of Marriott to toss him out, and banish him from all their properties.

There is no allegation of violence, unwanted touching, harassment, or other activity that rose to the level of criminal charges being filed (unless prosecutors are still investigating). That leaves us with something allegedly said during a thirty-second lobby conversation which alarmed this employee (and her superiors) enough to banish a high-profile guest from not just that particular establishment, but from ALL of them worldwide.

What could Irvin have possibly said to engender such an extreme reaction from the hotel, based upon an employee complaint? If pressed to speculate, I'd guess that it would be some sort of sexual proposition. But, who knows?

The big problem for Irvin, as a plaintiff in a defamation lawsuit, is that the burden is upon HIM to prove the falsity of the employee's allegations. The defendants don't have to prove a thing. Furthermore, if he is deemed to be a "public figure," Irvin will also have to prove that the employee's statements were made with "actual malice." HUGE hurdle, made higher by the fact that Irvin admits he was drinking, and doesn't remember anything about the conversation...rendering him all but incapable of assisting in the prosecution of his own case. I hope he has helpful witnesses.

Banish him from their properties? Where did you see this? They were going to move him but it hasn't been said where but I did not see they were kicking him out.

 

[CouchCoach]

The clue to the filing of the suit is the amount, that is for effect. He is so innocent that it will only take 100M. Make that a scathing 100M.

The question I have is who broke this story? You can bet Marriott didn't, hotels like to keep things on the QT.

 

[Mark]

Banish him from their properties? Where did you see this? They were going to move him but it hasn't been said where but I did not see they were kicking him out.

Irvin's lawsuit alleges he's been banned from all Marriott properties. Nor was he "moved." He was kicked-out & blacklisted, like a petty shoplifter at WalMart.

 

[Outlaw Heroes]

I’m talking about if he wasn’t a Cowboy . If he was still a HOFamer from another team it would be in the news but Cowboy fans wouldn’t be defending him.

Why not? He deserves to be defended at this point. Cowboy or not.

 

[CWR]

Interesting. Since the specific accusations are not known publicly, then how could he be cancelled? If he is cancelled on the rumors of accusations that seems pretty awful too.

If he has multiple witnesses to back up his claims against 1 woman's story it will be interesting to see what happens next. Do the companies that cancelled contracts with him apologize like nothing happened? Or do they continue to act only on the accusations of the woman. It is a complicated world we live in today.

People judging Irvin without the facts are not acting in good faith. If this is another false accusation he should sue everyone who looked at him cross-eyed. That's the only way this stops.

Well it seems NFL network already canceled him, even if only temporarily.

 

[Diehardblues]

Why not? He deserves to be defended at this point. Cowboy or not.

Why?

Do you always defend known habitual offenders?

 

[Diehardblues]

Well it seems NFL network already canceled him, even if only temporarily.

Great news!!