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

[Merlin]

I am not insisting on anything, that is my opinion based on the lack of information available.

It's irrelevant anyway. What was communicated to the NFL and ESPN is the issue. Irvin's attorney alleged that a male manager from Marriott contacted the NFL and made a complaint against Irvin.

 

[kskboys]

Never thought I'd see the day that this country would go back to witch hunts. The internet is going to spell the end of life in this country as we know it.

 

[CouchCoach]

Never thought I'd see the day that this country would go back to witch hunts. The internet is going to spell the end of life in this country as we know it.

Did this country ever stop?

Cavemen were better prepared for hot plates than the human race was for the internet.

 

[CouchCoach]

It's irrelevant anyway. What was communicated to the NFL and ESPN is the issue. Irvin's attorney alleged that a male manager from Marriott contacted the NFL and made a complaint against Irvin.

That “complaint” will be one of the more interesting revelations.

 

[kskboys]

Did this country ever stop?

Cavemen were better prepared for hot plates than the human race was for the internet.

Now that is a great point!!!!

 

[Merlin]

That “complaint” will be one of the more interesting revelations.

That we agree on. Lol

 

[Merlin]

This is a copy of plaintiff's original petition. https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/irvin-marriott-complaint-collin-county.pdf

 

[Diehardblues]

I am not insisting on anything, that is my opinion based on the lack of information available.

Yep

I’m not sure everyone here understands the concept of a forum social media setting as such in which we can make speculative assertions forming our own opinions .

And if we believe them to be true we can present them as such. This isn’t a deposition we are providing . It’s simply anonymous fans providing their take based on the info available.

We just aren’t allowed to intentionally present false information . Arriving at assertions from the info provided in a speculative opinion format is allowed. And others are allowed to argue against and present their own opinions.

 

[Diehardblues]

This is a copy of plaintiff's original petition. https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/irvin-marriott-complaint-collin-county.pdf

I thought this would be the original plaintiff’s complaint from the Marriott employee .

I don’t agree at this time that Irvin is the victim here despite his lawsuit .

And until we see or hear that complaint I’m not sure how anyone else can conclude Irvin is the victim.

 

[Diehardblues]

Never thought I'd see the day that this country would go back to witch hunts. The internet is going to spell the end of life in this country as we know it.

The internet provides everyone a voice we’d normally never hear from. But as far as the narratives that can be presented , it’s no different than we have seen on some Cable News programming.

And witch hunts and conspiracy’s have always been in play. The internet simply allows for it to reach more people in a much faster or immediate format along with everyone’s access to spread and comment.

There’s always the good and bad to digest with progress whether it be books, newspapers, radio , TV and now the Internet. It’s up to every individual and organizations to interpret them correctly for what they are. Too many are easily influenced based on their beliefs and bias coming in.

 

[Diehardblues]

I’m not really sure how some aren’t more suspect of an individual with Irvin’s history?

If you want to argue about how these accusations in general in todays society are out of control along with the sensitivity in our current culture then that’s a fair subject.

But we must remember where we have come from with generations past where most of this info wasn’t as readily available or went undetected even swept under the rug or in the closet as minorities, women or children were afraid to speak out and file complaints.

It’s exposed an ugly side of our society that’s always been but not as visible . Unfortunately it has also allowed there to be some falsely accused with possibility of opportunistic plaintiffs.

I’d like to think having the ability for this immediate knowledge and access does present some new challenges but it also requires all of us to become more filtered and aware of the words and actions we converse with these more sensitive aspects.

And if you have history of such action whether it’s false accusations or not then you must take action in order to better protect yourself from future accusations. Someone who continues to place themselves in these more vulnerable situations where their actions can be more questionable based on their history then they can fall victim of their own doing.

 

[Jumbo075]

Standard lawfare tactics. Any attorney who doesn’t file a motion to dismiss is committing malpractice. Try to avoid discovery process.

Doesn’t really mean anything. If the case has merit, it will proceed.

 

[Calvin2Tony2Emmitt2Julius]

This is actually Irvin’s 4th sexual misconduct accusation/ altercation. I think he also had some issues at Miami as well. How many do you need before you begin to question him?

And I’d argue that the Networks should decide for themselves. ESPN made their decision years ago and I’d expect if this is similar incident then NFLN will as well.

Personally there’s far too many sports personalities and former athletes to employ without risking the negative publicity someone like Irvin presents.

I gotcha man no worries

 

[MarcusRock]

Hey, people. I'm back after my forced 3-day vacation, lol. Time to discuss this again.

While I was away I thought about this video that's due to Irvin's team tomorrow. People have been saying that the video will show what the woman's reaction could have been to what Irvin might have said to her but it probably won't because:

1. Marriott got a ruling from the judge that the woman can remain anonymous so any video would likely have at least her face and maybe all of her blurred out.
2. As I've been saying for a while once these witnesses popped up, any offensive/threatening comment does not always have to be reacted to in the moment. In a lot of cases, people just try to remain as pleasant as possible to not escalate and get out of there for safety's sake. Heck, it might be why the conversation was so short and not longer than a minute/45 seconds in the first place. So the "appearance" of a pleasant conversation can include that because these witnesses were clearly at a distance by their own words and have not cited a single specific item the two of them talked about to boot.

So all that will be left is a video showing 2 people talking with nothing physical going on (which wasn't claimed per Irvin himself) besides a handshake which doesn't tell us anything unless there's audio with the video or elsewhere. Maybe the actual internal account via the claim will be made available so we can finally hear from Marriott to glean their reasoning for action.

 

[Merlin]

Hey, people. I'm back after my forced 3-day vacation, lol. Time to discuss this again.

While I was away I thought about this video that's due to Irvin's team tomorrow. People have been saying that the video will show what the woman's reaction could have been to what Irvin might have said to her but it probably won't because:

1. Marriott got a ruling from the judge that the woman can remain anonymous so any video would likely have at least her face and maybe all of her blurred out.
2. As I've been saying for a while once these witnesses popped up, any offensive/threatening comment does not always have to be reacted to in the moment. In a lot of cases, people just try to remain as pleasant as possible to not escalate and get out of there for safety's sake. Heck, it might be why the conversation was so short and not longer than a minute/45 seconds in the first place. So the "appearance" of a pleasant conversation can include that because these witnesses were clearly at a distance by their own words and have not cited a single specific item the two of them talked about to boot.

So all that will be left is a video showing 2 people talking with nothing physical going on (which wasn't claimed per Irvin himself) besides a handshake which doesn't tell us anything unless there's audio with the video or elsewhere. Maybe the actual internal account via the claim will be made available so we can finally hear from Marriott to glean their reasoning for action.

The ruling said her name had to be redacted. Did you assume the rest or where did you get that from?

 

[Merlin]

From what I have read the judge ordered Marriott to provide Michael Irvin any and all video recordings, witness statements and written reports. The redaction order might just be for the public but I haven't seen the oder so I am not sure.

And Marriott can file an objection to further delay as well. That's been their strategy so far. So no guarantee that the defense will get the records tomorrow but that depends on the judge.

 

[MarcusRock]

The ruling said her name had to be redacted. Did you assume the rest or where did you get that from?

According to this quote from the ruling, there's more than just the name on reports. People can debate "reasonable measures" but in this day and age of social media presence, seeing someone's face makes them almost easily identifiable so it makes sense to me that any video that could allow her identity to be revealed would be protected.

"The Court does … find that Marriott’s concern for the privacy of the hotel employee who allegedly reported [Irvin’s] misconduct is well founded,” Mazzant wrote. “Thus, the Court will allow Marriott to redact the employee’s name from any written reports and to take reasonable measures to protect the employee’s identity as necessary at this early stage of the case.”

https://frontofficesports.com/federal-judge-grants-michael-irvins-request-to-obtain-video-footage/

 

[Merlin]

According to this quote from the ruling, there's more than just the name on reports. People can debate "reasonable measures" but in this day and age of social media presence, seeing someone's face makes them almost easily identifiable so it makes sense to me that any video that could allow her identity to be revealed would be protected.

https://frontofficesports.com/federal-judge-grants-michael-irvins-request-to-obtain-video-footage/

It says redact her name from written reports. He's met her already. It doesn't say what you are suggesting.

 

[MarcusRock]

It says redact her name from written reports. He's met her already. It doesn't say what you are suggesting.

It says they're allowed to redact her name AND take other reasonable measures to protect her identity. The headlines have all screamed "there's video, video, video." The judge is not ignorant of this and mentioned the concern was "well-founded." You don't think it's reasonable to protect her identity in this video everyone wants to see?

 

[Merlin]

It says they're allowed to redact her name AND take other reasonable measures to protect her identity. The headlines have all screamed " there's video, video, video." You don't think it's reasonable to protect her identity in this video everyone wants to see?

No. The defense might already know who she is. I think you are interpreting it the way you want to. I quoted what had to be turned over already directly from an article. Her identity will come out eventually regardless if the lawsuit has merit.