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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Diehardblues

Well-Known Member
Messages
58,152
Reaction score
38,759
I don't know but the question is why haven't they released it yet. And they will have to release it soon.
I’m thinking the video doesn’t tell us anymore than verifying there was a conversation. And or any physical expressions . Most video surveillance as such isn’t going to have audio.

They probably haven’t released it yet cause one, it doesn’t reveal much and two they legally haven’t had too.

The more compelling evidence is going to be her complaint and testimony. The video will only support contact was made.
 

Merlin

Well-Known Member
Messages
698
Reaction score
341
I’m thinking the video doesn’t tell us anymore than verifying there was a conversation. And or any physical expressions . Most video surveillance as such isn’t going to have audio.

They probably haven’t released it yet cause one, it doesn’t reveal much and two they legally haven’t had too.

The more compelling evidence is going to be her complaint and testimony. The video will only support contact was made.
A 2nd judge has ordered them to release it by a certain date. You are incorrect.
 

Diehardblues

Well-Known Member
Messages
58,152
Reaction score
38,759
A 2nd judge has ordered them to release it by a certain date. You are incorrect.
You asked why it hadn’t been released yet and I said cause it wasn’t ordered to. Of course another judge has ordered it. I believe they have a closing date to adhere?

I doubt it’s going to reveal much. The smoking gun is probably her testimony.
 

Merlin

Well-Known Member
Messages
698
Reaction score
341
You asked why it hadn’t been released yet and I said cause it wasn’t ordered to. Of course another judge has ordered it.

I doubt it’s going to reveal much.
That's not what you said. Be for real. There is an legal order for them to produce by March 7. That's a deadline. They don't have to wait that long.
 

Diehardblues

Well-Known Member
Messages
58,152
Reaction score
38,759
That's not what you said. Be for real. There is a legal order for them to produce by March 7. That's a deadline. They don't have to wait that long.
I understand but you asked why haven’t they released it. And because they hadn’t had to UNTIL the judges order .

I’m not here to speculate why not release earlier than the deadline. I’m not sure that’s a worthy argument . But my speculation is the video isn’t going to reveal much.

My question is when do we get to see the Employees complaint. Like I said , that is probably the smoking gun.
 

Diehardblues

Well-Known Member
Messages
58,152
Reaction score
38,759
Several people keep speculating that the NFL wasn't notified by Marriott. Irvin's lawyer alleges those facts in the lawsuit. https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/irvin-marriott-complaint-collin-county.pdf
I haven’t seen anyone present that. I know Couch Coach and I both speculated before it was revealed that the Marriott must have notified the NFL. And probably before Irvin’s call in to 105.3

It only makes sense in notifying the NFL immediately since the network was his employer footing his room although as you stated it wouldn’t have been necessary as far as billing purposes.
 

sacase

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,267
Reaction score
2,502

Diehardblues

Well-Known Member
Messages
58,152
Reaction score
38,759
This is key. Marriott had no right to inform the NFLN. Irvin is not a NFLN employee, he is an Independant contractor. NFLN definitely did not pay his room. Irvin will pay and seek reimbursement or claim it as a business expense.
That’s the first I’ve heard Irvin’s employment with NFLN regarded as such. Not sure if that’s correct or not .

According to this link he signed with NFLN but doesn’t stipulate whether he’s an independent contractor .
https://barrettsportsmedia.com/2022/08/30/michael-irvin-inks-extension-with-nfl-network/

Regardless they still have the authority to bench him from their SB coverage. And we can see why the Marriott would have contacted them.
 

Staubacher

Well-Known Member
Messages
12,192
Reaction score
23,503
Several people keep speculating that the NFL wasn't notified by Marriott. Irvin's lawyer alleges those facts in the lawsuit. https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/irvin-marriott-complaint-collin-county.pdf
If you're gonna reference the lawsuit, maybe read it better.

His lawyer specifically said in the lawsuit the NFL instructed Irvin to stay at that Marriott as it is the designated NFL hotel for the Super Bowl.

So Marriott contacting the NFL about moving Irvin is completely appropriate and in compliance with their own internal policy to notify "relevant parties" when a guest is removed.
 

Staubacher

Well-Known Member
Messages
12,192
Reaction score
23,503
This is key. Marriott had no right to inform the NFLN. Irvin is not a NFLN employee, he is an Independant contractor. NFLN definitely did not pay his room. Irvin will pay and seek reimbursement or claim it as a business expense.
Wrong.
 

Merlin

Well-Known Member
Messages
698
Reaction score
341
If you're gonna reference the lawsuit, maybe read it better.

His lawyer specifically said in the lawsuit the NFL instructed Irvin to stay at that Marriott as it is the designated NFL hotel for the Super Bowl.

So Marriott contacting the NFL about moving Irvin is completely appropriate and in compliance with their own internal policy to notify "relevant parties" when a guest is removed.
Maybe you should learn how to read the whole thing regarding a Marriott manager contacting them making false complaints. If you are going to try to correct someone, teach yourself something first and get a clue.
 

Staubacher

Well-Known Member
Messages
12,192
Reaction score
23,503
From Irvin's lawsuit:

"At the time that the Manager contacted the NFL he was aware that Plaintiff had an
on-going contractual relationship with the NFL. He contacted the NFL with the intention of
damaging that relationship and “cancelling” Irvin."

First off, lawyer is assuming the motive. And he is wrong.

As the lawyer himself states, the NFL is a relevant party which according to Marriott internal policy must be contacted when guest is removed.

It's nice hyperbole and spin to bring up "cancelling" for PR effect, but Marriott management was simply following company protocol, which I posted earlier as part of their conduct policy.
 

Staubacher

Well-Known Member
Messages
12,192
Reaction score
23,503
Maybe you should learn how to read the whole thing regarding a Marriott manager contacting them making false complaints. If you are going to try to correct someone, teach yourself something first and get a clue.
I'm 100 percent correct and I've demonstrated it here as to their protocol. The "false complaint" is unproven lawyer spin. Manager was following company policy period.
 

Merlin

Well-Known Member
Messages
698
Reaction score
341
From Irvin's lawsuit:

"At the time that the Manager contacted the NFL he was aware that Plaintiff had an
on-going contractual relationship with the NFL. He contacted the NFL with the intention of
damaging that relationship and “cancelling” Irvin."

First off, lawyer is assuming the motive. And he is wrong.

As the lawyer himself states, the NFL is a relevant party which according to Marriott internal policy must be contacted when guest is removed.

It's nice hyperbole and spin to bring up "cancelling" for PR effect, but Marriott management was simply following company protocol, which I posted earlier as part of their conduct policy.
You have no idea what they told the NFL about Irvin. I would speculate that the manager that contacted the NFL is just like some of you guys that make up anything and he thought he could get Irvin in trouble with little to no consequences. He didn't count on a lawsuit though. Since we speculating about everything.
 

Diehardblues

Well-Known Member
Messages
58,152
Reaction score
38,759
Why did they contact them then and what was alleged? Smh
We don’t know exactly what was alleged in the employee's complaint .

And we can only speculate why they’d contact them.

Sounds like you’re assuming it was a false complaint . At this point I can only assume the complaint was valid. But no one has seen the complaint except for the ones who initially responded to it.

You appear to assume this was a conspiracy by everyone involved against Irvin.
 

Merlin

Well-Known Member
Messages
698
Reaction score
341
I'm 100 percent correct and I've demonstrated it here as to their protocol. The "false complaint" is unproven lawyer spin. Manager was following company policy period.
There's a 100% chance that you have no idea what they told the NFL.
 

Staubacher

Well-Known Member
Messages
12,192
Reaction score
23,503
You have no idea what they told the NFL about Irvin. I would speculate that the manager that contacted the NFL is just like some of you guys that make up anything and he thought he could get Irvin in trouble with little to no consequences. He didn't count on a lawsuit though. Since we speculating about everything.
I've demonstrated WHY they contacted the NFL, and posted proof/facts they are a relevant party that by Hotel policy must be contacted when a guest is removed.
 

Staubacher

Well-Known Member
Messages
12,192
Reaction score
23,503
There's a 100% chance that you have no idea what they told the NFL.
Again, I've been addressing and proving exactly WHY they were in contact with the NFL. You're diverting it to WHAT they said.
I can see you're unwilling or unable to keep up.
 

Merlin

Well-Known Member
Messages
698
Reaction score
341
I've demonstrated WHY they contacted the NFL, and posted proof/facts they are a relevant party that by Hotel policy must be contacted when a guest is removed.
You haven't demonstrated anything unless you know what they told the NFL and you don't know nor does anyone of us on this board have access to that information.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top