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

[Diehardblues]

That may have happened. If it did, I might agree with the Lady a bit. But its still a far cry for a guy to lose his entire life over THAT. It seems over the top.

Losing a job isn’t losing your life. He’s been fired from ESPN for sexual misconduct. Hardly a stretch here if he lost his job at NFLN.

He’s currently showing a net worth of 12 million. Hardly an end of life situation

 

[CouchCoach]

Yea, it’s just another desperate attempt to deflect on Irvin’s behalf .

Not a very noble stance defending someone with his history . Let’s hope at some point we get the Playmaker under oath . And we can grill him on his other mishaps as well.

Not everyone considers history and some are truly innocent until proven guilty, a very noble stance.

I cannot forget his history and what I know about him but that does not make me right, it is just what I think.

 

[Cowboysheelsreds058]

a complaint with 0 witnesses that agree with her. Its just words until we see it. Their is 0 smoking gun. Its her word against his and several eyewitnesses that say he did nuthin. These are the facts that have been documented. Now lets see what else comes out.

This, she has no one coming out on her side, unless keeping it hush hush but 3 has come to Mike’s defense. Now if the video does not have audio, then to me she is behide the 8 ball.

 

[Diehardblues]

Yes but it wouldnt be a crazy thing that things were taking wrong or out of context, you cant just assume guilt because there is a complaint, again thats speaks of a system that has huge flaws in other parts of the world. That line of thinking leads down a horrible road for everyone, a fair system using proof of fact will miss some things but in the end its a much better system than "The complaint is fact until proven otherwise". If you were in a grocery store and the clerk said you said lude comments yet everyone in line said they didnt hear it... are you ok with the complaint being the smoking gun because the camera is clearly going to show you being there but not going to pick up what was said.

I guess it depends on what we’d define as guilt.

Inappropriate behavior to you or I could be taken in a different context to others.

Doesn’t sound like any laws were broken. Probably at the most company policies .

If this was anyone else not in the public eye it wouldn’t be anything more than asking a patron to leave or escort them out without any charges, etc.

 

[Rayman70]

Losing a job isn’t losing your life. He’s been fired from ESPN for sexual misconduct. Hardly a stretch here if he lost his job at NFLN.

He’s currently showing a net worth of 12 million. Hardly an end of life situation

when a person loses millions and the optics are he's guilty due to the actions of his employer etc. THAT is a HUGE deal man. This man cant walk down the street right nw. He hasn't even been given due process. We have 0 evidence 0 smoking gun. RELEASE THE AUDIO, RELEASE THE TAPE.

 

[Merlin]

Watched and listened. Is that an eyewitness only? Lol

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

 

[Rayman70]

if he's guilty, I want him punished, release the dang evidence. if HE'S innocent, same thing...let him have his life back.

 

[Reid1boys]

Eyewitnesses, not earwitnesses.

once again, go listen to the witness. He was asked what was said, and while he didnt repeat specifics, he did make statements in regards to what was said. How could he make any type of statement as to the tone of the conversation if he didnt hear it? The reporter asked him DID YOU HEAR EXACTLY WHAT WASSAID? His response was "It was a positive, like friendly conversation." He says more, but how can you possibly take from that statement that he did not hear what was said?
He said Michael kept his distance from her the entire time. He was then asked, " Was anything inappropriate said?" and his reponse was NO, NOT AT ALL.

So how the hell could he have those answers to those specific questions if he didnt hear what was said in the conversation?

2nd witness was asked... and he said she walked up and said hey, its michael irvin. Mike says Im mike, nice to meet you they shook hands and then he goes on explaining what happened from there. It sounds to me that he could hear what was being said as he repested what she said and what mike said. So again, where are you all getting they couldnt hear what was said.?

ACTUAL WITNESSES

 

[CouchCoach]

This, she has no one coming out on her side, unless keeping it hush hush but 3 has come to Mike’s defense. Now if the video does not have audio, then to me she is behide the 8 ball.

LOL, neither the woman or the hotel is talking to TMZ.

The hotel was already on her side because they took her word for what transpired.

We do not know anything about her but she may have a host of fellow employees on her side.

Those witnesses can only testify to what they saw and will try to interpret the facts from that but the Marriott lawyers will not allow them to draw conclusions without actually hearing the conversation.

Like I've mentioned before, we know nothing about this woman like her position at the hotel or tenure and is she in management or a hospitality role? Was she acting in that role when she addressed Irvin?

And what is her motive for fabricating this?

 

[Diehardblues]

when a person loses millions and the optics are he's guilty due to the actions of his employer etc. THAT is a HUGE deal man. This man cant walk down the street right nw. He hasn't even been given due process. We have 0 evidence 0 smoking gun. RELEASE THE AUDIO, RELEASE THE TAPE.

A little dramatic . Lol

 

[CouchCoach]

when a person loses millions and the optics are he's guilty due to the actions of his employer etc. THAT is a HUGE deal man. This man cant walk down the street right nw. He hasn't even been given due process. We have 0 evidence 0 smoking gun. RELEASE THE AUDIO, RELEASE THE TAPE.

He lost millions, where did that come from?

 

[CowboyFrog]

I guess it depends on what we’d define as guilt.

Inappropriate behavior to you or I could be taken in a different context to others.

Doesn’t sound like any laws were broken. Probably at the most company policies .

If this was anyone else not in the public eye it wouldn’t be anything more than asking a patron to leave or escort them out without any charges, etc.

it would to you or me if they called our employer and got us suspended from an assignment. Your trying to say no harm no foul when they did do harm to him by messing with his job. As an employer myself i would have for sure looked into this for an employee but i also would have gotten my HR involved before escalating this because once you consult the other parties employer your are harming them and it could certainly lead to letigation.

 

[CouchCoach]

once again, go listen to the witness. He was asked what was said, and while he didnt repeat specifics, he did make statements in regards to what was said. How could he make any type of statement as to the tone of the conversation if he didnt hear it? The reporter asked him DID YOU HEAR EXACTLY WHAT WASSAID? His response was "It was a positive, like friendly conversation." He says more, but how can you possibly take from that statement that he did not hear what was said?
He said Michael kept his distance from her the entire time. He was then asked, " Was anything inappropriate said?" and his reponse was NO, NOT AT ALL.

So how the hell could he have those answers to those specific questions if he didnt hear what was said in the conversation?

They will shoot that to hell. He did not hear all of the conversation and mentioned nothing specifically said, which he will have to do on the stand. As well as how much he'd had to drink. Happens when stuff happens in a bar.

 

[CouchCoach]

it would to you or me if they called our employer and got us suspended from an assignment. Your trying to say no harm no foul when they did do harm to him by messing with his job. As an employer myself i would have for sure looked into this for an employee but i also would have gotten my HR involved before escalating this because once you consult the other parties employer your are harming them and it could certainly lead to letigation.

You are assuming they messed with his job when we do not know what was said to them and by whom. He was still at the job for two days until he did that call in.

 

[Merlin]

You are assuming they messed with his job when we do not know what was said to them and by whom. He was still at the job for two days until he did that call in.

Your logic never adds up. When he did the call, he had already been pulled from the Superbowl coverage. That was the whole point of the call.

 

[Reid1boys]

H

LOL, neither the woman or the hotel is talking to TMZ.

The hotel was already on her side because they took her word for what transpired.

We do not know anything about her but she may have a host of fellow employees on her side.

Those witnesses can only testify to what they saw and will try to interpret the facts from that but the Marriott lawyers will not allow them to draw conclusions without actually hearing the conversation.

Like I've mentioned before, we know nothing about this woman like her position at the hotel or tenure and is she in management or a hospitality role? Was she acting in that role when she addressed Irvin?

And what is her motive for fabricating this?

what was the woman motive that accused MIke of sexual assault in 1996 only to recant and go to jail for her false accusation later? What was her motive?

 

[Reid1boys]

You are assuming they messed with his job when we do not know what was said to them and by whom. He was still at the job for two days until he did that call in.

EVERYTHING that happened is related to Marriott's actions. They removed him their hotel, they called his employer. Mike was talking to the radio because of their actions. This lawsuit is based upon their actions. No way to remove Marriott from all of this.

 

[CowboyFrog]

You are assuming they messed with his job when we do not know what was said to them and by whom. He was still at the job for two days until he did that call in.

What's more, the hotel manager is accused in reporting the incident to the NFL 'with the intention of damaging that relationship and canceling [Irvin].'

so we dont need proof of what she said but you do need proof that this report is wrong?

 

[Reid1boys]

He lost millions, where did that come from?

the lawsuit will be based upon ... well , go read the lawsuit, it clearly states what is covered. Merlin so graciously posted the link to the filing.

 

[Reid1boys]

They will shoot that to hell. He did not hear all of the conversation and mentioned nothing specifically said, which he will have to do on the stand. As well as how much he'd had to drink. Happens when stuff happens in a bar.

They wont shoot anything to hell. He will testify to what he heard, and again, here we go so quick to dismiss actual witness testimony because it supports the side you dont like.
The three friends were at a business dinner. Listen to both of them and tell me they dont sound very credible? Tell me what part of what they said you have a problem with. How exactly will the defendant lawyers "Shoot that to hell?"


Again, I cant wait to hear them when they go to court. They gave very specific details about their interaction with Mike, even saying Mike said he couldnt take pictures inside the hotel.... yea, sounds like Mike and the witnesses were all hammered.