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

[Flamma]

Maybe because an accusation that can't be easily proven has cost him serious present and future $$$. The burden of proof should be in her court. It's not guilty until proven innocent. At least it shouldn't be. But in this day and age....

But it's never worked that way, ever. A person can accuse you of saying anything. They don't have to prove that. Never ever. If you're going to sue them, you have to prove they lied. It's been that way since the beginning of time. The individual that accused him of saying inappropriate things has no control over his employer and what his employer does as a result. End result, Irvin will get nothing. Even if she's flat out lying. Unless she actually comes out and says she's lying, he has zero proof for his case.

 

[JBS]

Hope mike wins. Get that $$ from them my man.

He’s not getting any money

 

[JBS]

But it's never worked that way, ever. A person can accuse you of saying anything. They don't have to prove that. Never ever. If you're going to sue them, you have to prove they lied. It's been that way since the beginning of time. The individual that accused him of saying inappropriate things has no control over his employer and what his employer does as a result. End result, Irvin will get nothing. Even if she's flat out lying. Unless she actually comes out and says she's lying, he has zero proof for his case.

Somebody in here knows what they’re talking about. Refreshing.

 

[CouchCoach]

Here is the confusing part for me. Who should he be filing a lawsuit against?

The woman didn’t go public so how was she trying to defame him? Same with the hotel, they had to notify the payer of the hotel charges of the change but they didn’t go public.

NFLN is the one that decided not to have him back on the coverage and I don’t know if that’s because they believed he’d done something or if that was a reaction to his call into 105.3. At the time of that call, he said he was “hiding out” waiting to see what was going to happen.

At this time, no one has spoken except Irvin and his lawyer.

If Irvin wasn’t suspended or fired and there was no income loss, what are the damages?

Seems to me the biggest contributor to any defamation of character is Irvin himself and he surely didn’t help that with his call into the radio show.

 

[speedkilz88]

One doesn’t even have to make harassing and inappropriate comments to get ejected from a hotel. A hotel, or any business for that matter, has the right to refuse service. There are limitations on this but if Marriott doesn’t want Michael Irvin staying at one of their hotels they can make that happen. It might not be best for business so it’s hard to say Irvin was simply skipping off to grandma’s with his basket of cookies when this big bad woman made viscous and false claims.

They contacted his employer (Mariott is a long time sponsor of the nfl), the burden of proof is on them.

 

[RonnieT24]

Maybe because an accusation that can't be easily proven has cost him serious present and future $$$. The burden of proof should be in her court. It's not guilty until proven innocent. At least it shouldn't be. But in this day and age....

It's Irvin who is filing suit so the burden of proof is on him. HE has to prove he was wronged by the hotel. Presumably something in the video will show it. If there is no audio then his case becomes pretty flimsy. If it goes to court and the chick is called to the stand for his lawyers to ..er.. undress her (pun intended) then it could interesting. Marriott posturing with the "we don't own the hotel" defense is garbage. Chances are every person working there aside from the security guards gets a paycheck that says "JW Marriott" on it. The management of the hotel acted on the word of this woman and apparently made no effort to verify what went on. While it may not be 100 million bucks worth of wronging it's still wrong.

 

[CouchCoach]

They contacted his employer (Mariott is a long time sponsor of the nfl), the burden of proof is on them.

No, It isn’t and we do not know what they told the NFLN beyond they were moving him.

They can say the only reason his employer was contacted was because they are the payer of the hotel bill.

 

[MarcusRock]

They contacted his employer (Mariott is a long time sponsor of the nfl), the burden of proof is on them.

They contacted his employer because they were footing the bill in all likelihood. If he was moving hotels, the payer has to know where to forward payment. The logical question for the employer is, "why'd you move him?" and they could answer if they wish. A business has the right to refuse service to anyone and here they didn't refuse, they merely moved. They don't have to prove anything because they're not the ones suing.

 

[MarcusRock]

It's Irvin who is filing suit so the burden of proof is on him. HE has to prove he was wronged by the hotel. Presumably something in the video will show it. If there is no audio then his case becomes pretty flimsy. If it goes to court and the chick is called to the stand for his lawyers to ..er.. undress her (pun intended) then it could interesting. Marriott posturing with the "we don't own the hotel" defense is garbage. Chances are every person working there aside from the security guards gets a paycheck that says "JW Marriott" on it. The management of the hotel acted on the word of this woman and apparently made no effort to verify what went on. While it may not be 100 million bucks worth of wronging it's still wrong.

Made no effort to verify? By Irvin's own account, they told him they had a video of him after he denied talking to anyone before heading to his room. So they at least verified that there was an interaction. If there's no audio then they simply chose to back their employee's claim. No harm in that.

 

[CouchCoach]

They contacted his employer because they were footing the bill in all likelihood. If he was moving hotels, the payer has to know where to forward payment. The logical question for the employer is, "why'd you move him?" and they would answer. A business has the right to refuse service to anyone and here they didn't refuse, they merely moved. They don't have to prove anything because they're not the ones suing.

As of Wednesday when he called into 105.3, unless I am missing something, he was still in AZ wherever they had moved him, and NFLN hadn’t told him what they were going to do.

I think his call into the radio show was the catalyst for their action.

If this makes it to court, NFLN will be called upon by Marriott’s lawyers to testify about why they took the action of sending him home.

 

[sacase]

not sure why people find this surprising. A case to dismiss is simply they don’t want to involve themselves in a long drawn out procedure.

Apparently, the fact Mariott doesn’t own the property is a pretty solid legal defense based on the comments I’m reading from those that do this type of thing.

It’s probably the EASIEST and QUICKEST way for them as a corporation to not have to deal with it. Do you think Marriott really cares what happened that night in one of their franchises outside them not being financially responsible. Whatever gets them out of it quickest is what them and their team of highly-paid lawyers are going to do.

They don't have high paid lawyers. They have corporate law lawyers who were so bad they couldn't make it in private practice. Also this isn't getting dismissed. But it shows you where Marriott is with this. B they are like whoa this ain't it fault go talk to the owner of the property. Unfortunately it's a Marriott branded property. It's not getting dismissed. Once again I ask what was said it 45 seconds that was so harassing and inappropriate? Especially when she approached him and it ended in a handshake.

 

[MarcusRock]

As of Wednesday when he called into 105.3, unless I am missing something, he was still in AZ wherever they had moved him, and NFLN hadn’t told him what they were going to do.

I think his call into the radio show was the catalyst for their action.

If this makes it to court, NFLN will be called upon by Marriott’s lawyers to testify about why they took the action of sending him home.

I don't think Marriott's lawyers would even go that far. They'd just say Irvin is suing the wrong party and to pay their attorney fees. They're already trying to some degree. NFLN and Irvin are the parties that could have done better here. Irvin could have kept quiet and NFLN had 2 full days to determine what to do after they found out which obviously put pressure on Irvin to do "something" which was not wise how it came out.

 

[lukin2006]

She was probably an Eagles fan and Mike told her straight up “your team is a trash organization.”

 

[RonnieT24]

They contacted his employer because they were footing the bill in all likelihood. If he was moving hotels, the payer has to know where to forward payment. The logical question for the employer is, "why'd you move him?" and they could answer if they wish. A business has the right to refuse service to anyone and here they didn't refuse, they merely moved. They don't have to prove anything because they're not the ones suing.

One aspect of the interaction between the hotel and NFL Network that is relevant to the lawsuit is what the hotel told them and what they subsequently told Irvin. We know at least one thing that they told him which was "go home you're not going to be on this assignment." I sincerely doubt that the network makes that move because the hotel said "Mike's out here hittin on a chick." They had to have said something more damning, using language like "sexual assault," "sexual harassment," repeated unwanted advances" and if they are not able to back up what they said then they have harmed Irvin professionally and have in fact slandered him. Obviously Irvin, NFLN and the hotel management are the only ones who know who told who what. The fact that Irvin is going after the hotel with such vigor tells me his bosses at NFLN told him that the hotel had told THEM something horrible and more importantly demonstrably false. At least in Irvin's mind. Obviously none of us was there so we have no idea what actually happened. But at least to this point it seems like the girl probably embellished what went on to her bosses and their bosses in turn embellished a little when they contacted NFLN. "He hit on me" turned into "He offered money to sleep with him" which turned into "Michael told one of our employees she looked like a prostitute and demanded sex from her. And he did it to more than one of our employees. At one point he even grabbed her boob! That's sexual assault! We are not pursuing charges but he must leave this hotel!"

 

[Staubacher]

They don't have high paid lawyers. They have corporate law lawyers who were so bad they couldn't make it in private practice. Also this isn't getting dismissed. But it shows you where Marriott is with this. B they are like whoa this ain't it fault go talk to the owner of the property. Unfortunately it's a Marriott branded property. It's not getting dismissed. Once again I ask what was said it 45 seconds that was so harassing and inappropriate? Especially when she approached him and it ended in a handshake.

How long does it take to make what was described as harassing an inappropriate comments? And you're completely wrong about the quality of lawyers a multi-million dollar international company like Marriott would have.

 

[CouchCoach]

They don't have high paid lawyers. They have corporate law lawyers who were so bad they couldn't make it in private practice. Also this isn't getting dismissed. But it shows you where Marriott is with this. B they are like whoa this ain't it fault go talk to the owner of the property. Unfortunately it's a Marriott branded property. It's not getting dismissed. Once again I ask what was said it 45 seconds that was so harassing and inappropriate? Especially when she approached him and it ended in a handshake.

Do you actually know anything about their corporate attorneys?

 

[sacase]

Here is the confusing part for me. Who should he be filing a lawsuit against?

The woman didn’t go public so how was she trying to defame him? Same with the hotel, they had to notify the payer of the hotel charges of the change but they didn’t go public.

NFLN is the one that decided not to have him back on the coverage and I don’t know if that’s because they believed he’d done something or if that was a reaction to his call into 105.3. At the time of that call, he said he was “hiding out” waiting to see what was going to happen.

At this time, no one has spoken except Irvin and his lawyer.

If Irvin wasn’t suspended or fired and there was no income loss, what are the damages?

Seems to me the biggest contributor to any defamation of character is Irvin himself and he surely didn’t help that with his call into the radio show.

Why do you keep repeating the same tired misrepresentation? It does not matter if she or Marriott went public. What matters if she and/or the Marriott communicated a known lie to a third party. That's it. Nothing in the law says anything about going public. You are just as bad as you claim florio is

This whole thing is stupid really. Marriott kick him out the hotel. Irvin said what did I do? They say talk you the NFL. Irvin talks to the NFL. They say what did you do to a female employee last night? He's confused cause he did nothing and says I did nothing. NFL says we have video, see this still image? Irvin says oh yeah I must have talked to her. What did I say. NFL says it was really bad trust us but we can't tell you what you said. This one is getting settled out of court.

 

[RonnieT24]

Made no effort to verify? By Irvin's own account, they told him they had a video of him after he denied talking to anyone before heading to his room. So they at least verified that there was an interaction. If there's no audio then they simply chose to back their employee's claim. No harm in that.

None at all.. If they had stopped there and simply advised Mike not to interact with this employee again. Forcing him to leave the hotel AND contacting his employer regarding the matter IMHO was the overreaction. By the time Irvin woke up the next morning he probably would not have even remember the interaction. He probably talked to a hundred people that day and more than a few of them attractive women. He very likely half jokingly hit on most if not of them. Especially after he had tossed back a few at the bar. I'm sure it's POSSIBLE that he said something egregious to this women as he stumbled towards the elevator. But in the amount of time they were talking it would be hard. I mean short of calling her the B-word or the C-word what could it have been? I mean I'm not a woman and I'm pretty politically incorrect so I don't really know what women get offended by these days. I am especially out of touch with what's causing heartburn for snowflake women. I mean is "Hey baby, wanna come up to my room?" then walking away when you get shot down grounds for getting kicked out of the hotel?

 

[sacase]

How long does it take to make what was described as harassing an inappropriate comments? And you're completely wrong about the quality of lawyers a multi-million dollar international company like Marriott would have.

I work with fortune 500 companies on the regular. I have dealt with many of their lawyers. Most are terrible and they only know a very narrow area of corporate law knowledge. I am not impressed with many corporate lawyers. All the best ones are in private practice where they make a lot more money.

 

[sacase]

Do you actually know anything about their corporate attorneys?

Far more than you. Gonna ignore the elements of definition again? Why dint you address that part? Or are you gonna keep ignoring it and peddle your slanted version of events.