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

[CouchCoach]

EVERYONES suable, it embarrassed him and with only a rumor they may have had no cause to do so..trust me..lawuits are filed for just about everything and anyone can be sued.

He is not stupid. He sues the NFLN, his career is over. That was his last stop.

The one that I do not see at any fault in this is the network, they did exactly what they should have done, diffuse before they're doing damage control. They just removed him from what was not going to get any better for him or them. He hasn't been suspended or penalized except for being off the coverage. If they left him there, what do you think the other networks would have done, just ignored it?

 

[CouchCoach]

Maybe they know more.
Maybe they've had prior issues with him.
Maybe he's been talked to before and warned.

It's their business.

That's my thinking because of his history and his act on NFLN doesn't look like he's calmed himself down. He could be one of their most likely to get into trouble so he was on a short leash.

The other side of this is how would this affect his job this week? Think he could just be business as usual and this not affect what he was being paid to do for the network?

 

[CouchCoach]

Its about time. Some women take well advantage of their abilities to destroy a man through lies and deception.

And some men take advantage of women. And there seems to be a preponderance of evidence on that side of it.

Do you know anything about this woman? Conclusions are being jumped to, on both sides, without enough real information.

You could be right and this was a set up, for what I don't know, but there is more to this than we know at this time.

 

[G2]

Maybe they know more.
Maybe they've had prior issues with him.
Maybe he's been talked to before and warned.

It's their business.

Maybe you made all that up.

 

[VaqueroTD]

Thanks to all who posted videos and witness interviews.

I’ll be honest, with him first saying he was drunk, I was thinking oh boy…

But now it’s starting to look like one of those Karen race things.

 

[G2]

They already made their mind up. That's where we're at these days. Knee jerk "Guilty!!" before all the facts unfold.

The irony.

 

[DZSierra]

Ok. We went from a millionaire ex athlete getting in trouble at work to coal mining in the 1800s.

Enjoy the journey, I'm not going there.

My only point is just because you work for someone, that does not give them the right to abuse you.

I deal with a lot of people for my own job.

Just because someone could say I did something "wrong" in my own line of work does not mean my employer should suspend my pay without some kind of investigation to verify their course of action is the right path.

Ever notice that when Police offices are put on leave, they are put on "paid administrative leave".

No clue if Irvin is salary or not, but if he's getting paid for the super bowl and he loses money over it without some kind of investigation, Irvin is being done wrong IMO.

 

[Diehardblues]

Coach is spot on with his insight above . Well done !!

 

[Beaker42]

Depends on what he has heard from NFL Network - if the idea is to completely let him go, then yeah, he for sure has a case here. Nowhere near in the ballpark of $100 million, but he'd get something if the allegations are proven to be false.

He needs to sue anyone and everyone in this deal. The NFLN should be afraid right about now.

 

[Beaker42]

Irvin is almost as embarrassing as those of you unconditionally supporting him

You must be his accuser.

 

[CouchCoach]

My only point is just because you work for someone, that does not give them the right to abuse you.

I deal with a lot of people for my own job.

Just because someone could say I did something "wrong" in my own line of work does not mean my employer should suspend my pay without some kind of investigation to verify their course of action is the right path.

Ever notice that when Police offices are put on leave, they are put on "paid administrative leave".

No clue if Irvin is salary or not, but if he's getting paid for the super bowl and he loses money over it without some kind of investigation, Irvin is being done wrong IMO.

We do not know he's lost any money. The NFLN didn't take her side or the hotel's side of this, they took their own side in diffusing what could only get worse which was the smart move.

Put yourself in the chair of the network runner, what are they supposed to do, just ignore this? They're not just a network but the league's network and not a really successful one at that.

 

[CouchCoach]

He needs to sue anyone and everyone in this deal. The NFLN should be afraid right about now.

He is suing her and Marriott, the NFLN was not mentioned.

Don't you think his ability to do his job on location had been compromised and they might be trying to do something for him, not to him. There hasn't been any mention of a suspension or lost pay or his job being in jeopardy.

Put yourself in their position. Your guy's defense is he had some drinks and can't remember. What would you do? He is the one that came with that defense right out of the chute, they had little choice but to remove him from a situation that could deteriorate quickly. This was their biggest week of the year and they were not going to spend it dealing with that.

 

[MarcusRock]

I don't see where anyone mentioned that he was hammered with alcohol (yes, he admitted he had been out drinking, which was his truth) but was a BAC done to determine "how drunk" he was?

Any good lawyer will tell you NOT to answer immediate questions, particularly when you're put on the spot and someone wants answers now. Some will argue that's so you can get your story straight and lie if you need to, but the reality it could be difficult to answer any question honestly in your opinion when you're put on the spot accurately without given yourself 24 hours depending on the situation, and any inaccuracies on your end perhaps by a simple mistake could be held against you.

As far from what I've read, Irvin told the truth in that he was out drinking, but if nothing really happened with this woman in question, was there actually anything of any importance to remember on Irvin's end?

When a guy from Philly states that Irvin use to be the enemy (or to that extent) "back in the day", and he basically says Irvin didn't do anything out of the normal, I have to believe the Philly fan wasn't lying.

Reality is no one at this point has any clue on what was said and apparently the video shows Irvin didn't do anything at least physically with the woman?

Long time ago when I worked two jobs, got called in the managers office on my part time job because a woman had field a sexual harassment complaint against me. Worked with this woman for about 8 months, we were casual work acquaintances who would go out to eat with the other employees when work was done. This girl never seemed happy working for most of the time I knew her, but one day she was pretty jovial and I joked with her by asking "you get lucky last night?" (she laughed and said no) That's what I said, and that's what I was going to get written up over. I told the manager that I was only joking and never IMO had acted inappropriate with her and that I was going to fight it over the principal (this was back in the 90's). I was pissed because I thought I knew this girl well enough that if she had a problem with what I said, she could at least first address it directly with me, but I was going to get written up over it. I didn't need the job (got the job because of the great employee discounts) and I just told the manager that if they were going to give me an official "strike", I would just leave (I know I would also end up saying something to this girl which would have gotten me in more trouble) so I just left.

In hindsight what I did was wrong by implying a sexual question, but I treated her like I would have treated any of my friends at the time. Gave me my first rude awaking you need to be careful with some people, particularly of the opposite sex.

Thing is, and the biggest question I'm curious about, is if this were anyone but Michael Irvin, would the woman still make the complaint over exactly what was said or done?

The two witnesses do make Irvin look better in this situation, especially after Irvin blabbed about drinking, which he shouldn't have. But about the witness accounts, unless they knew exactly what was said, I don't think they help all that much unless something physical was being assumed which it wasn't from the beginning. I wish the interviewer had asked directly about if they heard what Irvin was talking about with the woman exactly, but if they said they didn't hear (which it seems like they didn't) then it makes their exclusive less weighty, so I get it.

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. Add to this that these witnesses took pictures with Irvin so they're not so much "independent witnesses" that happened to be passing by who didn't know who he was and just reported on what they saw. It could be assumed they think they "owed him one" for him doing them a solid, plus the power dynamic of him being a celebrity and a potential benefit for having his back.

As to your last question, it's kind of a cloudy one. The witnesses say she sought him out and knew who he was. She could have had stars in her eyes and made it a point to ask if everything was going okay with his stay, etc. to ingratiate herself to a celebrity. So she probably wouldn't have approached another guest unless that was part of her job. But if it was some nobody that allegedly said something she was uncomfortable with, what would she have to lose with complaining about them and them being moved out of the hotel? And this makes me wonder if she knew the hotel would respond that way to Irvin. It could be a case of the hotel overreacting in a way the woman hadn't thought through exactly. This won't go to trial but the nosy part of me hopes it does so all the dirt can come out.

 

[VaqueroTD]

We do not know he's lost any money. The NFLN didn't take her side or the hotel's side of this, they took their own side in diffusing what could only get worse which was the smart move.

Put yourself in the chair of the network runner, what are they supposed to do, just ignore this? They're not just a network but the league's network and not a really successful one at that.

No different than a typical workplace HR investigation. A lot of companies suspend the employee until findings. I have no idea what the lady accused him of, only difference is he is a media personality. I doubt most companies are going to suspend for an investigation into some profanity and “you hot girl” comments. I don’t blame the network. Because if Irvin was found guilty, they would look pretty bad. What there needs to be in the legal system and HR policies are more retribution for proven frivolous claims without merit. These things ruin people.

 

[MarcusRock]

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.

I don't know about that. He only mentioned the drinks on the radio AFTER the network sent him home. We don't know what he told NFLN, if they even had a back and forth chat with him at all. They could have handed down that sentence and said they'd talk to him after they investigate. They surely had lawyers advising them and lawyers tell you to say as little as possible until you know the whole playing field. That could explain why Mike was so dumbfounded about what happened and then emotionally started blabbing what he did instead of going to his lawyer first and preparing a statement or something. Just thinking through the situation logically.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

Reminds of the time I filed a $10 lawsuit against @DallasEast. He won and then sent me a twenty in the mail. What a jokester.

 

[AbeBeta]

Um, maybe because people are supposed to believe you're innocent until proven guilty and not guilty unless you can prove you're innocent. There has been no evidence provided so far, so until there is he's innocent. That's how it is supposed to work.

An employer is not held to that standard.

You must be his accuser.

No. Just someone who understands legal vs. employer standards

 

[DallasEast]

Reminds of the time I filed a $10 lawsuit against @DallasEast. He won and then sent me a twenty in the mail. What a jokester.

Hopefully you never spent that twenty.

It was counterfeit.

 

[CouchCoach]

I don't know about that. He only mentioned the drinks on the radio AFTER the network sent him home. We don't know what he told NFLN, if they even had a back and forth chat with him at all. They could have handed down that sentence and said they'd talk to him after they investigate. They surely had lawyers advising them and lawyers tell you to say as little as possible until you know the whole playing field. That could explain why Mike was so dumbfounded about what happened and then started blabbing what he did instead of going to his lawyer first and preparing a statement or something. Just thinking through the situation logically.

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.

 

[PA Cowboy Fan]

The two witnesses do make Irvin look better in this situation, especially after Irvin blabbed about drinking, which he shouldn't have. But about the witness accounts, unless they knew exactly what was said, I don't think they help all that much unless something physical was being assumed which it wasn't from the beginning. I wish the interviewer had asked directly about if they heard what Irvin was talking about with the woman exactly, but if they said they didn't hear (which it seems like they didn't) then it makes their exclusive less weighty, so I get it.

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. Add to this that these witnesses took pictures with Irvin so they're not so much "independent witnesses" that happened to be passing by who didn't know who he was and just reported on what they saw. It could be assumed they think they "owed him one" for him doing them a solid, plus the power dynamic of him being a celebrity and a potential benefit for having his back.

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.