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

[CouchCoach]

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?

The hotel contacted NFLN because they are the payer of the bill and it is a common practice for them to set up direct billing when sending that many employees and this enables them to negotiate a better rate.

It is highly likely NFLN asked why he was being moved but this happened Sunday night and he was still in AZ Wednesday morning when he called into the radio show. What were they doing during that time period?

 

[CouchCoach]

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.

Talk about slanted versions. You have imagined the Irvinverse.

 

[sacase]

Talk about slanted versions. You have imagined the Irvinverse.

So basically you are not going to address it cause it ruins your BS argument. You call facts slanted not me. Facts are pesky little things huh?

 

[Staubacher]

If a female hotel employee receives harassing and inappropriate comments from a guest it is her duty to report them. Not simply for her own protection but to keep this person from making similar advances to any of the other female guests and employees in the hotel.
But those "little" people don't matter, right jocksniffers? Women should just shut up and take it because he's a Super Bowl Champion Dallas Cowboy

 

[sacase]

The hotel contacted NFLN because they are the payer of the bill and it is a common practice for them to set up direct billing when sending that many employees and this enables them to negotiate a better rate.

It is highly likely NFLN asked why he was being moved but this happened Sunday night and he was still in AZ Wednesday morning when he called into the radio show. What were they doing during that time period?

Do you know how anything works? Companies often issue a corporate credit card to the employee or the employee pays it out of pocket. The employee submits for reimbursement after the trip with itimized expenses. They don't directly pay the bill because often times employees will charge things to the room that are not reimbursable. What happens is a company calls multiple properties and says we want to rent 200 rooms on these dates what price would you give us? Employees are given a code to make the reservation.

 

[Miller]

If a female hotel employee receives harassing and inappropriate comments from a guest it is her duty to report them. Not simply for her own protection but to keep this person from making similar advances to any of the other female guests and employees in the hotel.
But those "little" people don't matter, right jocksniffers? Women should just shut up and take it because he's a Super Bowl Champion Dallas Cowboy

Agree with this. There are some things not going his way.....1) he shouldn't have talked but did and said he was drinking and didn't remember 2) the "witnesses" were fan boys who said nothing inappropriate happened but all they saw was 45 seconds of no touching, not words and 3) Irvin hasn't been the cleanest guy. Listen, I get it, we didn't hear what he said and she could have made this up or just been easily offended. No doubt. But overall you just can't dismiss what she reported because he is throwing a fit about something he doesn't remember.

 

[MarcusRock]

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!"

If it were something more damning, they'd not have just moved him, they'd have kicked him out completely and then explained it to NFLN .... if they chose to. They are not amateurs. They knew to play this close to the vest, including only being as forthcoming as was advisable. And Irvin is suing for PR image rehab reasons. He stated he didn't remember what he said and initially told the hotel he didn't speak to anyone before they told him they had a video that proved he did. So to automatically assume the woman is embellishing is faulty as Irvin is already on record for being corrected by the hotel about the interaction itself and further claims to not remember what he said (which is not out of the ordinary when you talk to a lot of people) so how do you prove a lie took place when you can't remember the truth of what actually took place? You can't. So you sue for a gazillion dollars for optics in a case you have very little chance of winning a cent hoping they'll settle and try to claim victory off that.

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

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.

actually his evidence he didn't say anything is his "proof", whether a jury believes him is a separate issue

 

[Staubacher]

Agree with this. There are some things not going his way.....1) he shouldn't have talked but did and said he was drinking and didn't remember 2) the "witnesses" were fan boys who said nothing inappropriate happened but all they saw was 45 seconds of no touching, not words and 3) Irvin hasn't been the cleanest guy. Listen, I get it, we didn't hear what he said and she could have made this up or just been easily offended. No doubt. But overall you just can't dismiss what she reported because he is throwing a fit about something he doesn't remember.

Best way to stay out of trouble and keep your job and your reputation is treat everyone with respect - women, men, everyone. Then you don't have to try to remember or deny what you said.

It's not too much to ask to not talk dirty to women you don't know. That's not some "me too" denial of rights it's common decency.

I'd love all the big men here to stand next to a woman they care about and have someone say stupid and inappropriate stuff to them. Would it be ok if it were 45 seconds or less?

 

[MarcusRock]

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?

You'd have to know what was said and you also can't determine what another should or shouldn't be bothered by and further that they had to be bothered by it in the moment. When you're in the public eye it's just best to just keep it clean and go your way with a sweet gig like he has but I get wanting to let loose every now and then. You just do it at your own risk is all.

 

[DallasEast]

From the article:

Marriott argues that it doesn’t own the Phoenix hotel at which Irvin engaged in some type of alleged wrongdoing, prompting a complaint to NFL Network and, in turn, Irvin’s removal from Super Bowl-week programming. Instead, Marriott says it only “leases its brand” to the owner of the property.

https://www.franchisebusinesslawgroup.com/franchise-liability-101-who-is-liable-for-the-franchise/

Are Franchisors Liable for the Acts of Their Franchisees?

If you are a franchisor, you won’t typically incur liability on behalf of your franchisees. That includes their contracts, debts, or any other obligations.

The whole point of a franchisee is that it is an entirely separate entity. The franchisee purchases the right to use your name, trademark, copyrights, trade secrets, and marketing system as an independent business.

However, there is one exception where you may be liable for a franchisee’s obligations: when a court establishes that you have retained a high degree of control over their business. In such cases, the law will treat the franchisee as your agent or employee, and you will incur vicarious liability.

Examples of situations where a court may find a relationship of agency include:

The franchise agreement sets out stringent rules that govern the day-to-day operation of the franchisee
The franchisor carries out regular inspections of the franchisee facility
The franchisee shares profits with the franchisor instead of making royalty payments

___________________________

My guess is that the judge will review the specific working agreement of Marriott and this particular franchisee. The judge may agree with Marriott if it maintains a 'name only' relationship with the franchisee. Or the judge will laugh at the motion if Marriott is more directly involved with the operations of its franchisee. Should be interesting how this singular argument within the case works out.

 

[CouchCoach]

So basically you are not going to address it cause it ruins your BS argument. You call facts slanted not me. Facts are pesky little things huh?

Which facts are you addressing?

 

[CouchCoach]

Do you know how anything works? Companies often issue a corporate credit card to the employee or the employee pays it out of pocket. The employee submits for reimbursement after the trip with itimized expenses. They don't directly pay the bill because often times employees will charge things to the room that are not reimbursable. What happens is a company calls multiple properties and says we want to rent 200 rooms on these dates what price would you give us? Employees are given a code to make the reservation.

Yes, I worked with companies during my career and setting up direct billing when sending a lot of employees was standard and the hotel preferred it as it stremmlined the check-in/check-out for them.

You asked if I know how anything works and while that is insulting, I do not know how everything works. The Thermos bottle is still a mystery to me.

 

[CowboyFrog]

Best way to stay out of trouble and keep your job and your reputation is treat everyone with respect - women, men, everyone. Then you don't have to try to remember or deny what you said.

It's not too much to ask to not talk dirty to women you don't know. That's not some "me too" denial of rights it's common decency.

I'd love all the big men here to stand next to a woman they care about and have someone say stupid and inappropriate stuff to them. Would it be ok if it were 45 seconds or less?

Yes, but is this not the whole argument, what proof is there he said anything wrong....again no one knows, its not like it would be crazy outlandish that what the employee said is false either. Somewhere in this "Me Too" thing the whole innocent until proven guilty seemd to go out the window. NFL network is for sure on the hook here also.. you just suspended (yeah i know they wont call it that) an employee without proof, unless we KNOW what happened making any judgment is the wrong move.

 

[CouchCoach]

Yes, but is this not the whole argument, what proof is there he said anything wrong....again no one knows, its not like it would be crazy outlandish that what the employee said is false either. Somewhere in this "Me Too" thing the whole innocent until proven guilty seemd to go out the window. NFL network is for sure on the hook here also.. you just suspended (yeah i know they wont call it that) an employee without proof, unless we KNOW what happened making any judgment is the wrong move.

One thing different with this "Me Too" movement, it all started with what this is, he said/she said. There are seldom witnesses and these women that spoke out against Cosby and Weinstein backed each other's stories or they lose out to popular or powerful men.

There is little evidence in this without audio and even with it, some women may say they were not offended and others disagree. The difference is that this woman is in a position of thinking about all of the female guests they have.

And one thing we don't know, is this woman married and wearing a wedding ring? What if he propositioned her? Every husband here OK with your wife being propositioned?

The word "harassed" was used by the hotel, that takes on a little stronger meaning than inappropriate and I think most women wearing a wedding ring would feel insulted, at best, to be propositioned because that speaks to her character. If I cuss in front of a woman I do not know, that's inappropriate. If I come onto her and put her in an uncomfortable position, that could be considered harassing whether she is married or not.

I think the "proof" for the hotel is the woman employee. I can tell you that I have had female employees that I felt I knew their character well enough that if they came to me with this, I would believe them and act upon that.

We know nothing about this woman, nothing.

 

[CowboyFrog]

One thing different with this "Me Too" movement, it all started with what this is, he said/she said. There are seldom witnesses and these women that spoke out against Cosby and Weinstein backed each other's stories or they lose out to popular or powerful men.

There is little evidence in this without audio and even with it, some women may say they were not offended and others disagree. The difference is that this woman is in a position of thinking about all of the female guests they have.

And one thing we don't know, is this woman married and wearing a wedding ring? What if he propositioned her? Every husband here OK with your wife being propositioned?

The word "harassed" was used by the hotel, that takes on a little stronger meaning than inappropriate and I think most women wearing a wedding ring would feel insulted, at best, to be propositioned because that speaks to her character. If I cuss in front of a woman I do not know, that's inappropriate. If I come onto her and put her in an uncomfortable position, that could be considered harassing whether she is married or not.

I think the "proof" for the hotel is the woman employee. I can tell you that I have had female employees that I felt I knew their character well enough that if they came to me with this, I would believe them and act upon that.

We know nothing about this woman, nothing.

You can act as an employer of the accuser thats fine, as an employer of the accussed you probably need some evidence to act on. Thats my point why does one person get the benefit of doubt over the other when thier is no proof to make any legit judgement on what happened? Married not married that has nothing to do with anything unless your saying you know he said something wrong....The hotel moved him thats fine, then called his employer and made a hearsay claim in which the NFL networked acted on with no proof other than the hearsay, that is not fine... now anything else discussed in this thread is strickly opinion on who is lying with no proof to back it up... the fact is he may have said something she heard wrong or took out of context...thats my point we dont know.

 

[CouchCoach]

You can act as an employer of the accuser thats fine, as an employer of the accussed you probably need some evidence to act on. Thats my point why does one person get the benefit of doubt over the other when thier is no proof to make any legit judgement on what happened? Married not married that has nothing to do with anything unless your saying you know he said something wrong....The hotel moved him thats fine, then called his employer and made a hearsay claim in which the NFL networked acted on with no proof other than the hearsay, that is not fine... now anything else discussed in this thread is strickly opinion on who is lying with no proof to back it up... the fact is he may have said something she heard wrong or took out of context...thats my point we dont know.

No, I do not need evidence if I know my employee really well because this is often one person's word against another and in this case, one of the persons has said that he doesn't remember because he had a few drinks.

So, is the hotel to ignore their employee with a guest that can't even defend himself with what he did or didn't say?

How many situations occur like this in hotels that are only he said/she said? These people have a protocol to follow and once she reported this, they put that in motion. And what do they find?

First off, Irvin says he didn't encounter anyone and they bring up a video that disputes that and then he can't remember. Who is the hotel to believe?

Now, after NFLN hears that radio interview, what are they to believe? That was beyond dumb on his part.

Froggy, doubt we will ever know. I only know what I think.

 

[CowboyFrog]

No, I do not need evidence if I know my employee really well because this is often one person's word against another and in this case, one of the persons has said that he doesn't remember because he had a few drinks.

So, is the hotel to ignore their employee with a guest that can't even defend himself with what he did or didn't say?

How many situations occur like this in hotels that are only he said/she said? These people have a protocol to follow and once she reported this, they put that in motion. And what do they find?

First off, Irvin says he didn't encounter anyone and they bring up a video that disputes that and then he can't remember. Who is the hotel to believe?

Now, after NFLN hears that radio interview, what are they to believe? That was beyond dumb on his part.

I said as the emplyer of the accuser you can act, and to the point did the hotel not claim they had video proof of a physical encounter then moved it to only verbal when pressed for the video? Thats not giving off the "I'm completley right" vibe either. Again like #88 dont like him it really does not change they way we as a country handle accusations, The Hotel had a obligation to thier employee to move him, the NFL network has alot on the line if this comes out to be nothing and they acted without anything that proves he said something wrong, again like it or not we are suppose to work off your innocent until proven guilty, when this changes it will change everyones life and not for the better.

 

[Diehardblues]

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.

Right. I’m not sure most would have even known anything happened . Except for those who missed him in the SB coverage .

Irvin’s outburst on this as you said was the only public comment.

Interesting he hasn’t filed suit on the NFL Network cause he knows what that would mean. If it doesn’t already. He’s done .

 

[Diehardblues]

No, I do not need evidence if I know my employee really well because this is often one person's word against another and in this case, one of the persons has said that he doesn't remember because he had a few drinks.

So, is the hotel to ignore their employee with a guest that can't even defend himself with what he did or didn't say?

How many situations occur like this in hotels that are only he said/she said? These people have a protocol to follow and once she reported this, they put that in motion. And what do they find?

First off, Irvin says he didn't encounter anyone and they bring up a video that disputes that and then he can't remember. Who is the hotel to believe?

Now, after NFLN hears that radio interview, what are they to believe? That was beyond dumb on his part.

Froggy, doubt we will ever know. I only know what I think.

Yep
It’s all incriminating on Irvin. Throw in his history of sexual abuse. And it doesn’t look good for him.