News: PFT: Judge finds Marriott blatantly violated court order

[Merlin]

I assume because of the size of the Marriott holdings they would have top notch legal representation and they get a lot of lawsuits from guests, all hotels do. Maybe this lawyer misjudged this judge? Maybe they have a reason and pissing the judge off is OK as long as they land a blow against Irvin's lawyer?

From them being so quiet, they're surely talking now and even have witnesses.

Key word is assume.

They only started "talking" after Irvin's press conference.

 

[stiletto]

What are the security reasons for defying a judge's order?

They are in federal court now. This makes no sense.

Protection of other guests, protection for the identity of the accuser, protection of other DHS/LEO information. Many reasons. It all depends on what level the request was from I think. Not saying it won't ever get released just depends on the level of the court and how far it may go.

 

[MarcusRock]

How in the hell does the bolded not get the cops involved? Unless they did not see that as a threat.

thats what im saying, if this happened that manager has some explaining to do if I'm his employer.....

If it was mentioned in the context I think Reid put it in, I wouldn't see that as a criminal threat either, honestly. However, that doesn't mean the woman would want to be looking out for Irvin to approach her again while Mike stayed there. He was going to be there the entire week and this was only Sunday. No one should have to be on alert like that while they're doing their job. So the employer backed her on that but there was also the added complexity of the NFL involved so they vetted it with them and possibly used them for being a bad PR-avoidant entity to help their employee. That I could see as a dastardly strategy from their vantagepoint but if they followed their company protocol like they should have, they're still clean here and Mike's issue is with the NFL.

 

[Merlin]

Protection of other guests, protection for the identity of the accuser, protection of other DHS/LEO information. Many reasons. It all depends on what level the request was from I think. Not saying it won't ever get released just depends on the level of the court and how far it may go.

Do better research. You made that up. The judge has ordered that Marriott released an unredacted video yesterday.

 

[Ghost12]

Protection of other guests, protection for the identity of the accuser, protection of other DHS/LEO information. Many reasons. It all depends on what level the request was from I think. Not saying it won't ever get released just depends on the level of the court and how far it may go.

It was a public space. Guests don't get "protection" from being videoed in a public space. There's no right to privacy. Besides, it would be easy to blur out the faces of the uninvovled parties who happened to be on the tape.

 

[stiletto]

Do better research. You made that up. The judge has ordered that Marriott released an unredacted video yesterday.

Well, the judges usually do get their way. So if Marriot is bluffing, that would be definitely dumb.

 

[CowboyFrog]

If it was mentioned in the context I think Reid put it in, I wouldn't see that as a criminal threat either, honestly. However, that doesn't mean the woman would want to be looking out for Irvin to approach her again while Mike stayed there. He was going to be there the entire week and this was only Sunday. No one should have to be on alert like that while they're doing their job. So the employer backed her on that but there was also the added complexity of the NFL involved so they vetted it with them and possibly used them for being a bad PR-avoidant entity to help their employee. That I could see as a dastardly strategy from their vantagepoint but if they followed their company protocol like they should have, they're still clean here and Mike's issue is with the NFL.

Depends if the employee felt threatened at all then I 100% expect my manager to call the police. Nothing bad can come from an error on the side of caution, REALLY bad things can happen if you dont. You have a reported unwanted sexual advance from an intoxicated guest with a statement to come back and sexual statements to other employee's about said employee from the intoxicated guest. Unless they are embelishing which would then be bad for this case.. you 100% call the police as a manager of one of my shops..period.

 

[TwoDeep3]

Irvin having to pay it???? Uhm, is Irvin getting sued? Did I miss something?

Yes, if she decides this is a payday.

 

[MarcusRock]

For sure, just think if thats is what is going on they will have farther grief from the bench, my understanding is when a bench orders evidence turned over for disclosure they mean the actual evidence you will be using in the case.

Ah I see what you're saying. Yes, you're right. The order was for "any and all video recordings" so Marriott could be in further trouble if they only showed one among "any and all" and still claimed to be in compliance. It is interesting though that when Marriott replied to the emergency order to ask for a protective order over the video, they both mentioned video in the singular and the plural. So who knows? Lol.

In short, because Marriott fully complied with the Court’s Order and produced the video recording in accordance with Rule 34, the Court should deny Plaintiff’s Motion. Should the Court be inclined to order that Marriott produce a copy of the video recordings to Plaintiff, Marriott requests that the Court enter a Protective Order...

 

[RustyBourneHorse]

Well, now he knows what they are accusing him of doing and saying.

Well, I suppose that's a start. Here's my counterargument. One of the witnesses, I think it was the Australian, said that he did not hear anything derogatory.

You're missing the story Irvin himself put out there. He was out with a former Cowboy earlier in the night for dinner and then came back to the hotel where all this stuff went down in the bar/outside/lobby there. Irvin is the one who claimed he had alcohol, most logically at that dinner he spoke of before coming back to the hotel. His lawyer mentioned water at the press conference to detract from that data Irvin put out there himself.

Perhaps but that doesn't change the timeline that he turned down a drink from the witnesses, who then took a picture with him, and then the alleged victim approached him, is how I understand the timeline. The question then is what was said. One of the witnesses says that he didn't think anything that was said was derogatory. I don't know what was said, but the witness thinks that whatever was said wasn't vile, so, I'm inclined to think that it may have been either a miscommunication or she took something he said way out of proportion. Either way, I'm doubtful that it was anything rising to level of harassment.

 

[Haimerej]

The nfl cant what? Ban Irvin? Uhm, you do know they have a contractual business relationship, yes? Ig the NFL pays out his contract, yes, they can do what they want.... BUT, if Irvin shows they got rid of him based upon these accusations and they end up being shown to be false in court, the NFL could get sued just like Marriott.

We're operating off the assumption that her allegations are true, though. You said if they were true, the hotel could kick him out because they're a private business. So I asked if the NFL could take action based on it being true.

I would think they could because most business contracts have clauses protecting or punishing the parties and his actions could be seen as a breech. I would assume there's something in that contract about conduct detrimental, etc.

 

[MarcusRock]

Depends if the employee felt threatened at all then I 100% expect my manager to call the police. Nothing bad can come from an error on the side of caution, REALLY bad things can happen if you dont. You have a reported unwanted sexual advance from an intoxicated guest with a statement to come back and sexual statements to other employee's about said employee from the intoxicated guest. Unless they are embelishing which would then be bad for this case.. you 100% call the police as a manager of one of my shops..period.

I wouldn't argue with caution, true. But maybe they saw it as a flirt or the accuser didn't want the police involved or the matter of the NFL also being involved complicated things and they just wanted Irvin to be some other hotel's problem from then on and be done with it. the NFL and Marriott don't want bad PR so adding the police to the mix where things could be discovered publicly was not what they wanted since it was unknown except to Marriott staff and the NFL at that point. Complex for sure.

 

[CowboyFrog]

I wouldn't argue with caution, true. But maybe they saw it as a flirt or the accuser didn't want the police involved or the matter of the NFL also being involved complicated things and they just wanted Irvin to be some other hotel's problem from then on and be done with it. the NFL and Marriott don't want bad PR so adding the police to the mix where things could be discovered publicly was not what they wanted since it was unknown except to Marriott staff and the NFL at that point. Complex for sure.

Yes i certainly dont know the inside lane of the sponsorship i would be speaking strictly from protecting the company from further suit if anything happened.

 

[CowboyFrog]

We're operating off the assumption that her allegations are true, though. You said if they were true, the hotel could kick him out because they're a private business. So I asked if the NFL could take action based on it being true.

I would think they could because most business contracts have clauses protecting or punishing the parties and his actions could be seen as a breech. I would assume there's something in that contract about conduct detrimental, etc.

for sure they could take action but it wouldnt keep Irvin from comming back with a wrongfull lawsuit against his employer, not saying wether its a strong case or not because that would depend generally on the state laws the suit would be in.

 

[MarcusRock]

Well, I suppose that's a start. Here's my counterargument. One of the witnesses, I think it was the Australian, said that he did not hear anything derogatory.



Perhaps but that doesn't change the timeline that he turned down a drink from the witnesses, who then took a picture with him, and then the alleged victim approached him, is how I understand the timeline. The question then is what was said. One of the witnesses says that he didn't think anything that was said was derogatory. I don't know what was said, but the witness thinks that whatever was said wasn't vile, so, I'm inclined to think that it may have been either a miscommunication or she took something he said way out of proportion. Either way, I'm doubtful that it was anything rising to level of harassment.

Well Irvin's witnesses did not give details of what was said, they only described how the encounter looked. The Australian in particular described Mike as "headed to the lifts ..." and then a woman called him back. So this guy is already looking at Mike from a distance. He also said that there was "nothing that would cause me to take notice" which refers to a physical encounter rather than saying he heard the contents of the conversation and there was nothing off about the contents he heard. Marriott now says it had 2 staffer witnesses to the incident who saw that the accuser was uncomfortable and that Irvin took notice of them and then let up. So we'll see.

 

[Haimerej]

for sure they could take action but it wouldnt keep Irvin from comming back with a wrongfull lawsuit against his employer, not saying wether its a strong case or not because that would depend generally on the state laws the suit would be in.

I would think it would rest on the wording of their contract. The fact he isn't suing the NFL tells me his contract has a provision that this conduct breeched. That's why he's going after the hotel and not the NFL.

 

[CouchCoach]

We're operating off the assumption that her allegations are true, though. You said if they were true, the hotel could kick him out because they're a private business. So I asked if the NFL could take action based on it being true.

I would think they could because most business contracts have clauses protecting or punishing the parties and his actions could be seen as a breech. I would assume there's something in that contract about conduct detrimental, etc.

Usually called the "morals clause" of the employee contract. I have had them with some employees.

 

[CouchCoach]

Once this "I will see you when you are working" statement by Irvin to her can be taken several different ways but Marriott could only take that in one context. Did letting Irvin stay constitute allowing a hostile or unsafe work environment? If borderline yes, they had no choice.

The weirdest part of what he, allegedly, said was the "sorry if I brought up a bad past experience" and didn't follow that with "which was probably Jerry Rice, Cris Carter or Randy Moss but I am better than them".

 

[Reid1boys]

We're operating off the assumption that her allegations are true, though. You said if they were true, the hotel could kick him out because they're a private business. So I asked if the NFL could take action based on it being true.

I would think they could because most business contracts have clauses protecting or punishing the parties and his actions could be seen as a breech. I would assume there's something in that contract about conduct detrimental, etc.

there is no question there is something in his contract about actions that are embarrassing to the network. By Im not assuming they are true.

 

[Reid1boys]

Yes, if she decides this is a payday.

Yes he is getting sued? Or yes you think he may get sued?? And if Irvin said whatever he is accused of saying... there will be no payday for her.