News: PFT: Judge grants Michael Irvin's request for expedited discovery against Marriott

[Staubacher]

I posted Marriott's official policies above for a reason. There have been some here who have questioned the manager or managers for the way they followed up on the accusers complaint. Hotel policy is very clear that they were required to follow up and not doing so would have been a violation of policy and grounds for their termination. So the Neanderthals here who assigned motives to the manager like he had a crush on the accuser and even questioned his sexual preference, when in reality management was doing exactly what they are instructed to do.

 

[Beaker42]

I'd rather hear what actually happened. That's what the case is about.

My money's on it showing neither ............ one big "he said - she said".

 

[Beast_from_East]

The real question is whether what she is claiming happened did so during that 45-60 second interaction window or did it happen before or after that interaction.

Everything is just speculation until that information is released.

Yeah, thats a good point.

 

[Beast_from_East]

Also very relevant:

"Marriott policy requires a prompt and thorough investigation of all sexual harassment
complaints. Sexual harassment complaints and investigations are, to the extent possible, strictly
confidential. Information concerning sexual harassment complaints and investigations is shared
internally or externally only with persons who have a legitimate need to know."

Most big corps now days have these in their policy statements, especially on the heels of what was going on at Activision Blizzard in California.

Once an employee reports an incident, management has no choice but to open an investigation. If they dont, it is considered a fireable offense at most big corps now days.

 

[Runwildboys]

I doubt it. On YouTube there's a whole channel devoted to reading people's lips wrong to make it sound like people are saying something else and some of it looks legit. It's called Bad Lip Reading. They even have ones dedicated to the NFL. Some funny stuff in there.

Yeah, I've seen the videos, but a good lip reader can probably get it right. Still don't know if it would be acceptable in court.

 

[gtb1943]

I posted Marriott's official policies above for a reason. There have been some here who have questioned the manager or managers for the way they followed up on the accusers complaint. Hotel policy is very clear that they were required to follow up and not doing so would have been a violation of policy and grounds for their termination. So the Neanderthals here who assigned motives to the manager like he had a crush on the accuser and even questioned his sexual preference, when in reality management was doing exactly what they are instructed to do.

You really need to exercise your time out card. We get it; you think Irvin is scum and are willing to post it 100 times.
And you think you are something special.

 

[MarcusRock]

Yeah, I've seen the videos, but a good lip reader can probably get it right. Still don't know if it would be acceptable in court.

But a bad lip reader "gets it right" too. If it were admissible it would probably be one of those stalemate things where each side has their "expert" that says Irvin said this and the other side says no he said that. The thing about this case though is it's likely that what the woman says Irvin said is written down because it went into Marriott's decision to move him. So if video confirms those words via their lip reader expert, it looks way stronger and Irvin's side is at a disadvantage as they would have to go the bad lip reader route to say he said something else or tries to prove that Marriott did the bad lip reading thing because they had the video in house from the start and crafted the woman's statement around what it looked like he said in a bad way but wasn't in a bad way. That's a tall order to prove.

 

[CouchCoach]

I wonder if his lips are readable, and if so, can that be used?

Easier than trying to understand his mush mouthing and they would need a professional with the right view.

The real question is whether what she is claiming happened did so during that 45-60 second interaction window or did it happen before or after that interaction.

Everything is just speculation until that information is released.

One thing that is a mystery, the only info their lawyers have released added harassing to inappropriate. That could mean there was more than one encounter.

 

[Staubacher]

You really need to exercise your time out card. We get it; you think Irvin is scum and are willing to post it 100 times.
And you think you are something special.

Appreciate the mature well thought out response. Adds a lot to the discussion.
There's an ignore button btw

 

[Captain-Crash]

didn't see the video, but she was wishing him well in his move to his new hotel, motel, or ho house. shrugs.

 

[Staubacher]

Easier than trying to understand his mush mouthing and they would need a professional with the right view.

One thing that is a mystery, the only info their lawyers have released added harassing to inappropriate. That could mean there was more than one encounter.

I've thought that is possible. Perhaps that's why she supposedly approached him (as an employee of the hotel) notifying him of some issue upon his return.

No telling yet at this point. Seems like everyone at Marriott followed protocol once the allegation was made though, in accordance with their company policy. I don't see them being held liable for following through on the incident.

 

[CouchCoach]

They have the right to conduct their business as they see fit and notifying the payer of the move was necessary.

From everything I've heard and seen so far, the woman and the hotel were done with this until the lawsuit was filed. And we do not know what the disposition of the NFLN was but that send home could have been because of the call in.

That one act started all of this rolling and I think it will end up killing his case, really a dumb move on his part.

 

[MarcusRock]

I posted Marriott's official policies above for a reason. There have been some here who have questioned the manager or managers for the way they followed up on the accusers complaint. Hotel policy is very clear that they were required to follow up and not doing so would have been a violation of policy and grounds for their termination. So the Neanderthals here who assigned motives to the manager like he had a crush on the accuser and even questioned his sexual preference, when in reality management was doing exactly what they are instructed to do.

These are good finds as they do show management had to investigate and do something. The question is what did they investigate that warranted a move from the hotel versus just a warning? With a public figure guest you probably want to keep things as non-controversial as you can so what brought it to the point that this could get out? As @Reality alluded to, was this even the first occurrence of "something" with Mike, or even the first employee there was an issue with or had he been given a warning already? Really, really want all the dirt to come out in a trial but unlikely.

 

[Diehardblues]

They have the right to conduct their business as they see fit and notifying the payer of the move was necessary.

From everything I've heard and seen so far, the woman and the hotel were done with this until the lawsuit was filed. And we do not know what the disposition of the NFLN was but that send home could have been because of the call in.

That one act started all of this rolling and I think it will end up killing his case, really a dumb move on his part.

Yea,I’m not sure how he can deny or refute any of her claims since he’s already stated he was too intoxicated to recall the specifics of the incident. Which is most damaging evidence he stupidly provided.

 

[CouchCoach]

Yea,I’m not sure how he can deny or refute any of her claims since he’s already stated he was too intoxicated to recall the specifics of the incident. Which is most damaging evidence he stupidly provided.

I am sure the "hiding out" comment didn't sit well with the NFLN who would have liked to have kept a lid on this. They're not keen on employees suing sponsors and if y'all have watched the NFLN as much as I have, they need all the sponsors they can get. Half their ad inventory is from the Ad Council in the form of PSA's.

What is interesting is if this goes to trial, will the Marriott lawyers call the NFLN to testify? They sent him home, based on what? If his call in was the breaker, how can the hotel or woman be responsible for that?

 

[Diehardblues]

I am sure the "hiding out" comment didn't sit well with the NFLN who would have liked to have kept a lid on this. They're not keen on employees suing sponsors and if y'all have watched the NFLN as much as I have, they need all the sponsors they can get. Half their ad inventory is from the Ad Council in the form of PSA's.

What is interesting is if this goes to trial, will the Marriott lawyers call the NFLN to testify? They sent him home, based on what? If his call in was the breaker, how can the hotel or woman be responsible for that?

Yep

I can’t machine this going to trial. The lawsuit is just stage antics in an attempt to spin Irvin is the victim .

If this does go to trial no network will want to hire him.

 

[Staubacher]

Yep

I can’t machine this going to trial. The lawsuit is just stage antics in an attempt to spin Irvin is the victim .

If this does go to trial no network will want to hire him.

Irvin's lawyer is a sharp cookie, he's Jerrah's personal lawyer/fix it man.
He knows the 100 million suit is laughable and no way he wants a trial. As you said he wants a PR "win".
Marriott certainly doesn't want all this press and attention and legal expense either.
There will be an "undisclosed settlement" at some point. I doubt Irvin gets a dime or apology but his side will claim victory anyhow.

 

[Diehardblues]

Irvin's lawyer is a sharp cookie, he's Jerrah's personal lawyer/fix it man.
He knows the 100 million suit is laughable and no way he wants a trial. As you said he wants a PR "win".
Marriott certainly doesn't want all this press and attention either.
There will be an "undisclosed settlement" at some point. I doubt Irvin gets a dime or apology but his side will claim victory anyhow.

Or it just fizzles out in its own especially if he’s reinstated on the network. That’s assuming the complaint has some validity to it.

 

[kskboys]

Yeah, I've seen the videos, but a good lip reader can probably get it right. Still don't know if it would be acceptable in court.

But a bad lip reader "gets it right" too. If it were admissible it would probably be one of those stalemate things where each side has their "expert" that says Irvin said this and the other side says no he said that. The thing about this case though is it's likely that what the woman says Irvin said is written down because it went into Marriott's decision to move him. So if video confirms those words via their lip reader expert, it looks way stronger and Irvin's side is at a disadvantage as they would have to go the bad lip reader route to say he said something else or tries to prove that Marriott did the bad lip reading thing because they had the video in house from the start and crafted the woman's statement around what it looked like he said in a bad way but wasn't in a bad way. That's a tall order to prove.

Way back when, the school of the deaf played football against another college. Or HS, don't remember which.

They slaughtered the better team. Why? The school of the deaf read lips and knew what play was coming, as they read the lips of the opposing team as they called the plays.

True story.

 

[kskboys]

These are good finds as they do show management had to investigate and do something. The question is what did they investigate that warranted a move from the hotel versus just a warning? With a public figure guest you probably want to keep things as non-controversial as you can so what brought it to the point that this could get out? As @Reality alluded to, was this even the first occurrence of "something" with Mike, or even the first employee there was an issue with or had he been given a warning already? Really, really want all the dirt to come out in a trial but unlikely.

Me too.

I have not taken a side on this because I absolutely do not know which side to take.

I do know this. I hate the ones who secksually assault others, but just as much I hate the ones who falsely accuse others. Both of these types are scum of the earth, and my hate for both is very equal.

I do not pretend to know what happened, so it's the wait game.