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

[speedkilz88]

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?

Witnesses said she approached him as he was heading for the elevator in what looked like a fan interaction. That doesn't fit any kind of harassment on his part.

 

[speedkilz88]

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.

No, Irvin just needs to show that they made reckless claims to his employer. They would need to prove that the claims were true.

 

[jterrell]

Video is the issue.
Show the video and let what will be, be.

 

[ErikWilliamsHeadSlap]

wasn't he with hookers on the drug possession charge? hardly sexual abuse.

Wasn't the stripper the ex-girlfriend of the arresting officer?

 

[MarcusRock]

Video is the issue.
Show the video and let what will be, be.

Actually, audio is the issue. From the start Irvin said that the hotel told him he said something to their employee. So video, even if it shows nothing out of the ordinary, doesn't lend much unless there is audio. This is why Irvin's side wants the video so they can say, "See? Nothing out of the ordinary. Mike's innocent." and then rile up all those who want to see Mike beat this when the actual issue is what was said which does not have to be reacted to in the moment. But for image rehab purposes, they don't want people thinking that far. But with no audio, no one really has anything and Mike's side is hoping for a settlement from a company that doesn't want to drag this out so they can claim they didn't go to trial because Mike would have won. Might not be the truth but image rehab don't care about no stinkin' truth. They just want vocal Irvin-backers to say he won and there's at least a little saving face. Will Mike still have a job when it's over in that scenario? Who knows?

 

[MarcusRock]

No, Irvin just needs to show that they made reckless claims to his employer. They would need to prove that the claims were true.

So what you're saying is Irvin has to show proof because he's the one suing. Lol. Marriott doesn't have to prove anything and just need to show they followed protocol of an employee complaint when Irvin's side asks while trying to prove their case.

 

[kskboys]

Witnesses said she approached him as he was heading for the elevator in what looked like a fan interaction. That doesn't fit any kind of harassment on his part.

So, she approached him, but he was harrassing her. What a nimrod.

 

[Diehardblues]

Witnesses said she approached him as he was heading for the elevator in what looked like a fan interaction. That doesn't fit any kind of harassment on his part.

Maybe the harassment was on her part. Like she was wanting an autograph or selfie and he refused . So, she was pissed off and made a complaint totally fabricating the encounter . Irvin was just too intoxicated to recall. Lol

 

[Diehardblues]

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.

Apparently he did sound off on 105.3 before consulting his legal team. As the lawsuit came later.

 

[RonnieT24]

So, she approached him, but he was harrassing her. What a nimrod.

Wonder if it's going to come out that she was demanding payment for services rendered and things hit the fan when Irvin refused to pay up citing "sub par perfromance."

 

[Reid1boys]

Mike had 3 witnesses from the hotel that were there and all 3 have said nothing inappropriate happened. AND BAM, just like that, one woman says a man did something and thats all it takes. IM a teacher and have a very young para in my room with me as of yesterday. We are very secluded during lunch in my office. Paras normal leave during lunch, this one stayed in my office yesterday and closed the door... even if it was opened it wouldn't matter as we would still be completely alone. I am not comfortable with this as all it would take is for her to say I did something inappropriate and it would cause all sorts of trouble. Unfortunately, Mike should just stay away from any and all fan interaction.... and that just sucks as it is clear Mike enjoys being Mike.

 

[Reid1boys]

And as others have mentioned, Irvin already made comments about not remembering and having some drinks which makes a he said she said more difficult for him

except the 3 witnesses that were right there when it happened that were not drunk and all have said nothing inappropriate had taken place.

 

[Reid1boys]

Yes.

And a hotel has the right to eject a guest who makes "harassing and inappropriate" comments to their staff.
If anyone here isn't sure of that, check into a hotel tonight and try it yourself. Better yet do it on a work trip so your employer will hear about it.

I dont disagree, but if the hotel is going to call someone's employer and make these statements to his employer as statements of FACT, they better be prepared for what comes next. This is nothing more than a he said she said.... except Mike has 3 witnesses saying nothing happened. Does she have witnesses saying he said something ?

 

[Reid1boys]

Right. But it's not a he said she said. It's a she said and he doesn't remember.

his 3 witnesses remember

 

[Reid1boys]

Yep. Irvin himself said the hotel claimed he said something so this was never about physical, people just assumed it was because that's where everyone's mind goes, including Irvin's when he said he didn't touch her after stating the hotel claimed it was verbal. The only thing new is that Marriott never came out and described what was objectionable. So as most of the astute observers have been saying, video is not going to prove much without audio and the witnesses really don't lend much either because they didn't hear anything beyond saying the exchange looked normal which doesn't account for a person not reacting right there and then in the moment.

video could absolutely prove a lot with no audio. If they shake hands and she walks away with a smile on her face... that doesnt exactly look like someone who was just offended by some comments. Now if they are smiling and all of the sudden her facial expression changes from smiles to one of outrage or shock in an instant, that would back up her claim. If she is smiling the entire time and then smiling as they part from each other, that backs up mike. AND, the video will show how close those 3 men that stepped up on Mike;'s behalf were to the incident. Were they right there and could easily hear the conversation? If so, and they say nothing happened, the video backs them up.

BUT, why would Marriott be resisting releasing the video? If it helped them, you can be damn sure they would have already turned that video over.

 

[Creeper]

So he made some comments to an employee, which are not on the video and without corroboration the hotel employees went to Irvin's employers to get him fired from his job? Nothing surprises me in our courts today so predicting this case is impossible.

But now we know why the hotel was hesitant to release the video. Clearly, the video does not show anything. It has become a case of words exchanged which the woman took as offensive. But the hotel and the woman have been very hesitant to reveal what she claims Irvin said. Could it be, like the video, the actual comments were relatively harmless? Did Irvin say, "you are a very attractive woman", or something like that? Is that offensive enough to get a person fired? If this goes to trial, those words will have to come out. And then a jury or judge will decide if Irvin's comments could be rationally considered offensive. It is going to be an interesting trial to watch.

 

[MarcusRock]

video could absolutely prove a lot with no audio. If they shake hands and she walks away with a smile on her face... that doesnt exactly look like someone who was just offended by some comments. Now if they are smiling and all of the sudden her facial expression changes from smiles to one of outrage or shock in an instant, that would back up her claim. If she is smiling the entire time and then smiling as they part from each other, that backs up mike. AND, the video will show how close those 3 men that stepped up on Mike;'s behalf were to the incident. Were they right there and could easily hear the conversation? If so, and they say nothing happened, the video backs them up.

BUT, why would Marriott be resisting releasing the video? If it helped them, you can be damn sure they would have already turned that video over.

What you say is exactly what Irvin's lawyers want to be able to put out there so Marriott is not going to give free PR in an image rehab lawsuit. Again, none of that dismisses that someone could feel threatened in the moment and do all they can to exit the situation, including being as polite and smiley as possible to de-escalate any threat they feel. One could even make the case that they didn't realize the slight until afterwards when they had time to process. There is a known occurrence that women over apologize, even when not at fault for things and although I haven't seen the research, I'd assume some of it has to do with threat prevention/de-escalation, especially in power dynamic situations like this one. The witnesses only spoke to what they saw. None of them have said they heard anything so their testimony can again be countered with the "in the moment reaction not necessary" line.

This is about what was said. Irvin's team needs to prove what was said and he's on record as firstly stating he didn't talk to her before being corrected by the hotel then stating he didn't remember what was said, albeit in a joking manner that I don't give a whole lot of weight, but opposing lawyers will seize on that.

 

[TwistedL0g1k]

The video may not contain audio, but it's still possible the video contradicts the "victim's" statements. Did she allege Irvin touched her inappropriately?

Until her statement is known, we're left with speculation.

 

[Cowboys1966]

the video likely wouldn't show that anyway, he probably said she had a nice ,,,,

Then why hide it?

 

[blueblood70]

The video may not contain audio, but it's still possible the video contradicts the "victim's" statements. Did she allege Irvin touched her inappropriately?

Until her statement is known, we're left with speculation.

8 pages deep of speculation with witnesses saying they didnt see anything inappropriate.. apropos for this place. everyone's guilty until proven otherwise. Judgmental little ummm....................