News: PFT: Marriott tries to dismiss Michael Irvin's lawsuit, claims he made "harassing and inappropriate comments"

[Diehardblues]

NFL Network has not fired him. They did the same thing that happens when someone that works for a big company has something like this happen. They are put in a corner while HR does an "Investigation." Mike is not a typical employee, he actually has a contract with specific language in it in regards to behavior, Im sure. So HR is likely waiting to see what the outcome of all this is, and if they do fire Mike, you can bet they will also be sued. Why is the NFL network not in the lawsuit filed by Mike? Because he is still getting paid, and that is the ONLY thing that the NFL network is legally required to do... pay him. Remember when they put Ray Rice in the corner just to get him out of the public eye? Well he was still paid, so there was nothing he could do as far as filing a grievance.

Right, still being paid while under investigation.

The most damaging aspect thus far is Irvin’s comments . I’m not sure what a video without audio will reveal except it could validate an encounter .

 

[Diehardblues]

Yes.

And a hotel has the right to eject a guest who makes "harassing and inappropriate" comments to their staff.
If anyone here isn't sure of that, check into a hotel tonight and try it yourself. Better yet do it on a work trip so your employer will hear about it.

Right

And that doesn’t just apply to a hotel. It could happen at any establishment .

Throw in being intoxicated, celebrity status history of sexual misconduct .

And the hotel didn’t just kick him out , they moved him to one of their sister hotels . I’d say more accommodating than most of us would have received .

 

[ErikWilliamsHeadSlap]

Has it occurred to anyone that the alleged victim may have been victimized in the past? And understandably jumped to the wrong conclusion? We all have histories that influence our present. We simply don't know either of them well enough and we haven't walked a mile in their shoes. So I am not judging anyone.

 

[Reid1boys]

You just placed him in same entertainment category as Stephen A. Only some Cowboy fans are interested in one of their own presenting an overly homeristic or unbiased viewpoint.

The entertainment factor is the only attraction. Similar to the attraction entertainment factor our owner presents.

IM just telling you what he is. You view him being a homer as some negative... he is not paid to be aikman. He is a homer, his employer knows he is a homer, he gets paid to be a homer because him being such a homer is great foder for his cohosts... its ENTERTAINMENT. If you dont like that entertainment, do as you apparently already do, dont watch him.

Sharpe plays a character to oppose skip. Sharpe, when not playing his character to oppose Skip is actually one of the best there is. He has passion, is extremely bright and OFF of his crap show with skip, I can listen to Shannon Sharper for days. But in his role as a character, I dont prefer him either, so I can get why you dont like MIke. But remember, they are playing a role.

 

[MarcusRock]

wow... talk about arrogance... well Ill feel you in on something. I actually have a degree in criminal justice and went to McGeorge School of law... so please spare me with your deep analysis. The FACT is this was not a court room, there was no questioning by a lawyer, just a witness giving an account of what he saw while NOT being pressed for details. So get off your legal soap box to which you already admitted you are no legal scholar.

Nope, I'm no legal scholar but I can think critically and use a logic. The dude never named a single topic they talked about. His entire spiel was descriptive of the conversation, not the contents of the conversation. As I said in the thread that addressed the witnesses, they are not as helpful as people think seeing as the issue has to do with audio, not how the two of them "appeared" which didn't have to be an in-the-moment reaction by her. They'd be great witnesses if something physical was alleged. There was not according to Irvin himself.

So you can't come in here stating I'm "wrong" for saying the witnesses "have not said they heard the contents of the discussion because they were at a distance" then provide me with an account I heard already, picked apart here showing they gave not one topic of what was talked about ("not said they heard the contents"), showed they looked for things that only someone at a distance would look for ("because they were at a distance"), and then turn around and defend that with a "but, but, they were being interviewed by TMZ, not a lawyer in court." No spit, Sherlock but it's not like they didn't have tons of room to add specific detail and this one was asked point blank if he heard what was said and did not even give a yes/no answer but went into describing the nature of the convo. Maybe logic being logic and all, they didn't have specific conversation detail to contribute. This is why even with your law background you and I aren't debating "their actual words" as you put it because their actual words hardly lend anything to hearing what Irvin and the woman talked about. Not even a topic and dang sure not specifics within a topic. Am I still wrong?

 

[Reid1boys]

Right

And that doesn’t just apply to a hotel. It could happen at any establishment .

Throw in being intoxicated, celebrity status history of sexual misconduct .

And the hotel didn’t just kick him out , they moved him to one of their sister hotels . I’d say more accommodating than most of us would have received .

you are so quick to come to conclusions here.... just like you did with Zeke.

 

[Reid1boys]

Nope, I'm no legal scholar but I can think critically and use a logic. The dude never named a single topic they talked about. His entire spiel was descriptive of the conversation, not the contents of the conversation. As I said in the thread that addressed the witnesses, they are not as helpful as people think seeing as the issue has to do with audio, not how the two of them "appeared" which didn't have to be an in-the-moment reaction by her. They'd be great witnesses if something physical was alleged. There was not according to Irvin himself.

So you can't come in here stating I'm "wrong" for saying the witnesses "have not said they heard the contents of the discussion because they were at a distance" then provide me with an account I heard already, picked apart here showing they gave not one topic of what was talked about ("not said they heard the contents"), showed they looked for things that only someone at a distance would look for ("because they were at a distance"), and then turn around and defend that with a "but, but, they were being interviewed by TMZ, not a lawyer in court." No spit, Sherlock but it's not like they didn't have tons of room to add specific detail and this one was asked point blank if he heard what was said and did not even give a yes/no answer but went into describing the nature of the convo. Maybe logic being logic and all, they didn't have specific conversation detail to contribute. This is why even with your law background you and I aren't debating "their actual words" as you put it because their actual words hardly lend anything to hearing what Irvin and the woman talked about. Not even a topic and dang sure not specifics within a topic. Am I still wrong?

Here is where you are "Wrong." You come to the conclusion that they were far away and didnt here the specifics of the conversation. I make no such claim. You come to conclusions here. I do not. Until they are deposed by actual lawyers, you and I can not know for sure what they heard. The video shown online, I think came from them and that video is within arms reach of Michael. The ladies were at a table... again, I dont even know if the ladies in the video involved the lady making whatever claim she made. So where you are wrong is trying to make any conclusion whatsoever in regards to what happened. We simply do not know based upon the information available to us. Until this gets into a court... we have no idea what exactly took place.

 

[CouchCoach]

you are so quick to come to conclusions here.... just like you did with Zeke.

Was he wrong about Elliott? That is still a he said/she said unresolved event but she did have cause being the woman scorned. And he might have had cause with her being bat poopoo crazy.

 

[CouchCoach]

Here is where you are "Wrong." You come to the conclusion that they were far away and didnt here the specifics of the conversation. I make no such claim. You come to conclusions here. I do not. Until they are deposed by actual lawyers, you and I can not know for sure what they heard. The video shown online, I think came from them and that video is within arms reach of Michael. The ladies were at a table... again, I dont even know if the ladies in the video involved the lady making whatever claim she made. So where you are wrong is trying to make any conclusion whatsoever in regards to what happened. We simply do not know based upon the information available to us. Until this gets into a court... we have no idea what exactly took place.

Think you are going to have a better handle on this if it gets to court? It is still going to be a he said/she said situation and if a jury is involved, Irvin's attorney will have to show motive to them.

Why would she make this up? That's the question I keep asking myself but I do not have an ax to friend with women as some do. Knowing absolutely nothing about her, she was called a gold digger, hooker, ho and skank in the first thread on this topic.

I think she was probably following the protocol in the Marriott Employee Manual regarding any irregular contact with guests. Hotels are liable for the safety and security of their guests.

 

[MarcusRock]

Here is where you are "Wrong." You come to the conclusion that they were far away and didnt here the specifics of the conversation. I make no such claim. You come to conclusions here. I do not. Until they are deposed by actual lawyers, you and I can not know for sure what they heard. The video shown online, I think came from them and that video is within arms reach of Michael. The ladies were at a table... again, I dont even know if the ladies in the video involved the lady making whatever claim she made. So where you are wrong is trying to make any conclusion whatsoever in regards to what happened. We simply do not know based upon the information available to us. Until this gets into a court... we have no idea what exactly took place.

Ay, Dios. That "video" circulating has nothing to do with the incident that took place. If you'd listened to your own witness accounts, they went outside to take pics with Mike and when Mike came back in the lobby, this woman approached him before he went to the elevators to go upstairs and those guys went back to the bar. The witness you presented even said he "saw Michael. He was heading towards the lifts" when he got called by the woman. So again, was this witness right next to Irvin if he saw him headed towards the elevators? That does imply distance, does it not?

Again, there's a reason we aren't debating the witnesses' very words, isn't there? Because what I say about them is right. They were at a distance. I never said "far away" I only said at a distance because their speech said they were, they provided no specific convo details even when asked directly, and they didn't say how close or far they were away but they were away from Irvin and the woman clearly.

Completely vet your sources next time. Logic trumps emotion.

https://www.tmz.com/2023/02/10/mich...ells-story-nfl-network-super-bowl-misconduct/

 

[Diehardblues]

IM just telling you what he is. You view him being a homer as some negative... he is not paid to be aikman. He is a homer, his employer knows he is a homer, he gets paid to be a homer because him being such a homer is great foder for his cohosts... its ENTERTAINMENT. If you dont like that entertainment, do as you apparently already do, dont watch him.

Sharpe plays a character to oppose skip. Sharpe, when not playing his character to oppose Skip is actually one of the best there is. He has passion, is extremely bright and OFF of his crap show with skip, I can listen to Shannon Sharper for days. But in his role as a character, I dont prefer him either, so I can get why you dont like MIke. But remember, they are playing a role.

I totally understand what he is , why I’m calling it out and why I’m not interested in viewing .

At least we agree on his intent and substance .

 

[Reid1boys]

I totally understand what he is , why I’m calling it out and why I’m not interested in viewing .

At least we agree on his intent and substance .

I actually think his substance is fine...... when he is called on to have substance. You can hear in his voice when he gets serious. he slows down, his voice doesnt go up and down and he is very well thought out. It just doesnt happen all the time

 

[Diehardblues]

you are so quick to come to conclusions here.... just like you did with Zeke.

I profile them like I would anyone with history as such. Been around athletes all my life . Most jocks like this are used to getting away with just about anything .

And I was pretty much right about how the Elliott situation would unfold and play out .

 

[Runwildboys]

Ok. This is something that keeps getting missed. Marriot doesn't need proof. Zero proof. They are not suing anyone. Irvin is suing Marriot. Irvin has to show proof. They can't sue someone and make them show proof. That's not how it works, EVER! The Marriot is under zero obligation to show proof of anything.

I believe that since they made accusations to Irvin's employer, and he's suing them for lost income, they need to verify their claim.

 

[Staubacher]

I profile them like I would anyone with history as such. Been around athletes all my life . Most jocks like this are used to getting away with just about anything .

Wait til the woman's name comes out. The #freemike brigade will turn every stone to find something about her character and history. It will matter then, it just does not with a celebrity jock who won us dem Super Bowls

 

[Staubacher]

I believe that since they made accusations to Irvin's employer, and he's suing them for lost income, they need to verify their claim.

Nope. Irvin's side needs to:
-Prove she lied/exaggerated
-Prove the hotel knew she lied/exaggerated
-Prove the hotel then told NFL Network with the express intent of damaging his career

 

[Diehardblues]

Wait til the woman's name comes out. The #freemike brigade will turn every stone to find something about her character and history. It will matter then, it just does not with a celebrity jock who won us dem Super Bowls

Yea, if this was a rival player they’d be bashing him. I get it .

These are the same type of fans who bash Troy and Jimmy for example for saying something negative about an aspect of the Cowboys.

Some either think they have to defend the Star or blatant homers . Not everyone can be unbiased within their own house.

 

[Runwildboys]

Nope. Irvin's side needs to:
-Prove she lied/exaggerated
-Prove the hotel knew she lied/exaggerated
-Prove the hotel then told NFL Network with the express intent of damaging his career

So I can just lie to someone's employer about that person, get them fired, and not worry about any consequences whatsoever?

 

[Staubacher]

So I can just lie to someone's employer about that person, get them fired, and not worry about any consequences whatsoever?

He wasn't fired.
And you skipped a lot of steps in there.

 

[Diehardblues]

So I can just lie to someone's employer about that person, get them fired, and not worry about any consequences whatsoever?

Pretty much. That’s how it works with HR.

You’d have to basically prove this was a false claim . Or at least taken in the wrong context.

And any video , circumstantial evidence or other testimony provided along with any of your own personal history can go against you.