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

[RustyBourneHorse]

there is more to the story than he said she said.....someone told the NFL and the NFL thought it was bad enough to park Irving during the NFL's...biggest game of the year, the Superbowl.......Marriot better have proof...or it's gonna be messy.....the question is...why did the Michael Irvins employer get notified....

Exactly, which is why it's a story. If they'd just kept it to where he had to move to a new hotel, it'd be a non-issue imo.

 

[MarcusRock]

That's the issue though. It seems to be a he said she said thing. He thinks he didn't say anything outlandish apparently. She apparently does. That's why it's a difficult situation. If it was just about him moving hotels, I think this would be a non-story. The fact that he was sent home from SB week and appears to have been "benched" is why I think this is a story.

What we don't know is if this would have been a story if Irvin doesn't go on the radio about it. No one had said anything public to that point. For all we know, the NFLN and Marriott, an NFL sponsor, were trying to work it out behind the scenes and Irvin got impatient. I do kinda get it because this happened Sunday night and then as of Wednesday morning it didn't appear that Irvin knew what his fate would be which was more than enough time to make a determination, IMO. But we don't know what would or wouldn't be known if Irvin didn't break the story.

 

[RustyBourneHorse]

What we don't know is if this would have been a story if Irvin doesn't go on the radio about it. No one had said anything public to that point. For all we know, the NFLN and Marriott, an NFL sponsor, were trying to work it out behind the scenes and Irvin got impatient. I do kinda get it because this happened Sunday night and then as of Wednesday morning it didn't appear that Irvin knew what his fate would be which was more than enough time to make a determination, IMO. But we don't know what would or wouldn't be known if Irvin didn't break the story.

Perhaps, but I'd also imagine his legal team would be in touch with the NFL Network if this was the case. This is purely speculation on my part, but I don't think Irvin would make this move without consulting his legal team.

 

[CouchCoach]

I think his point was simply that the article reads as though this is a revelation.

It is a revelation because this is the first statement to come from Marriott's lawyers. We have yet to hear anything from NFLN.

 

[CouchCoach]

there is more to the story than he said she said.....someone told the NFL and the NFL thought it was bad enough to park Irving during the NFL's...biggest game of the year, the Superbowl.......Marriot better have proof...or it's gonna be messy.....the question is...why did the Michael Irvins employer get notified....

Because they're paying for the room. We do not know what the hotel told NFLN but they waited 48 hours before taking action. Right after his call in to 105.3 and I think that really stirred the pot. His comment about hiding out probably didn't sit well with them.

 

[Staubacher]

Because they're paying for the room. We do not know what the hotel told NFLN but they waited 48 hours before taking action. Right after his call in to 105.3 and I think that really stirred the pot. His comment about hiding out probably didn't sit well with them.

The only side of this that hasn't used any discretion is Michael Irvin and his Jerry Jones fix it man who is looking for 33 million

 

[CouchCoach]

Perhaps, but I'd also imagine his legal team would be in touch with the NFL Network if this was the case. This is purely speculation on my part, but I don't think Irvin would make this move without consulting his legal team.

His legal team is Booger's lawyer and he did not show up until Irvin was back in Dallas. No lawyer worth his salt is having his client talk to the media, especially a loose cannon like Irvin.

This is a textbook he said/she said except for one thing, the plantiff said he didn't remember what he said on that call in to the radio show, no way any lawyer, even a bad one, is telling his client to do that.

Once the lawyer showed up, not another peep out of Irvin. Personally, I think the damage is done with Irvin talking before the lawyer got involved.

 

[CouchCoach]

I really don't think we are going to know much more than we know now, which isn't much.

The only new thing I've seen is the term "harassing" added to inappropriate by the hotel.

 

[KingCorcoran]

Well if Marriott isn’t the owner Irving can just change the lawsuit to whoever owns it, but also then why is Marriott making these comments if they have nothing to do with it. Plus how can you call yourself a Marriott and not be a Marriott? So weird.

Probably feel they can comment because they’re being sued. I’m not familiar with Marriott’s franchise agreements, but you can bet they are between Marriott and a corporation and the agreement has protections in it for Marriott.​

 

[Pass2Run]

Almost every defendant files a general denial and motion to dismiss.

We'll know more when it comes to the motion summary judgement phase....

I've covered hundreds of these kinds of lawsuits, and this is standard.

 

[Runwildboys]

It is a revelation because this is the first statement to come from Marriott's lawyers. We have yet to hear anything from NFLN.

I meant a "revelation" that it was only a verbal exchange. I thought we already knew that.

 

[cristglo]

In this day and age, information seems to always get leaked so this is puzzling. Supposedly Irvin was harassing and said something inappropriate. The key word is Harassing-
Webharass verb ha· rass hə-ˈras ˈhar-əs 1 a : to tire out by continual efforts b : to annoy persistently c : to create an unpleasant situation for by unwelcome verbal or physical
Marriot and Irvin Employer know what was supposedly said. Why is this being kept a secret?? If Irvin's stay there consisted of more than one meeting with the accuser then ok I can see the harassing This is speculation only because I don't know and neither do any of you here so we're all just guessing. Asf ar as he witnesses. How close were they? In a lobby seems you would have to be close to being able to hear anything, all they can say is they didn't see them talk very long and the only touching was the handshake. So yes He said She said is all we got. If there was more than one incident I could see Marriott acting because the accuser may have felt unsafe at work therefore having Irvin removed would be what's best for both parties. The NFLN must have felt in some way there was something to the accusations and felt it in their best interest to have Michael removed from the SB till it was cleared up. NFLN would have looked bad if it came out and he was on-air. Was Irving paid? Has Irvin been fired?

 

[khiladi]

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.

Wait what? Many lawyers from Ivy League schools go into corporate law and corporate law includes many things, among them mergers and acquisitions. You can get a sleazy lawyer who sucks in private practice too.

Again, of course it shows where “Mariott is with this”, as I stated in the post. Why the hell would they want to get themselves involved, if they can get out of it as quick as possible. Based on what I read, courts are generally reluctant to hold franchisers responsible for what happens at franchises and this case is probably one of them.

 

[khiladi]

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.

No, Mariott didn’t do anything. The “FRANCHISE management” of the hotel that was licensing the company name did…

 

[khiladi]

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.

So do you know anything about THEIR corporate attorneys and do you think all “private” attorneys are good?

Do you think a company like Marriott would put its most incompetent lawyers (even if we assume your ANECDOTAL experience is generally with bad ones) on such a high profile, costly case?

 

[CowboyFrog]

A private employer doesn't need a standard of "convicting" you; they only need to have you be seen as an embarrassment of some kind and they can let you go if they wish. Public figures only have that standard magnified when it comes to how they reflect on their employer. The only court in the corporate world is the one that protects their dollars. In other words, their court.

Depends on the state, some states are easier than others, but any employee can sue its company for wrongful discipline/ termination what have you.

 

[CouchCoach]

I meant a "revelation" that it was only a verbal exchange. I thought we already knew that.

Oh, I misunderstood. Physical was ruled out early on, according to the video. If there had been unwanted physical contact, they might have involved the cops.

 

[CouchCoach]

Almost every defendant files a general denial and motion to dismiss.

We'll know more when it comes to the motion summary judgement phase....

I've covered hundreds of these kinds of lawsuits, and this is standard.

Just as it is standard practice to drag it out. Some were saying the hotel and lawyers were hiding something because they didn't give up the goods right away.

They filed to move it to Federal and that was granted on the day they were ordered to give the name of the woman and video to Irvin's lawyer and he tried to raise a stink about it.

Irvin's lawyer is doing everything he can to sway public opinion because he knows that call in to 105.3 is going to hamstring him.

This is every lawyer's nightmare case, their client talked to the media before they were involved. That was his first act, shut Irvin up.

 

[stinkface]

The world just gets weirder every day. Years ago we had an attractive blonde named Carla in her mid 20's who worked in our office, who like to show off her assets. Me and another guy walked by her desk one day, when she stood up from her chair (good timing) and she had on the tightest sweater you could ever imagine. The fellow with me commented "Nice Sweater". She smiled and said thanks and we both kept walking. The next day we were both called into HR and told what he had said was harassment. We asked if she had complained and they said no, but a lady two desks down felt it was inappropriate. Lady was in her mid 40's (as were we). This folks was over 30 years ago and its gotten even more nuts. Who knows what really went on, but part of it is just the world we live in.

 

[Flamma]

there is more to the story than he said she said.....someone told the NFL and the NFL thought it was bad enough to park Irving during the NFL's...biggest game of the year, the Superbowl.......Marriot better have proof...or it's gonna be messy.....the question is...why did the Michael Irvins employer get notified....

Ok. This is something that keeps getting missed. Marriot doesn't need proof. Zero proof. They are not suing anyone. Irvin is suing Marriot. Irvin has to show proof. They can't sue someone and make them show proof. That's not how it works, EVER! The Marriot is under zero obligation to show proof of anything.