Michael Irvin booted from SB coverage after complaint filed

[RiverDog]

Agreed, RD. I was surprised at my initial reaction…. Believing the worst because he’s an ass and has had other scrapes… but w/o knowing what is actually what. I came to my senses and am letting it play out. I’m glad you read my post the way you did. Not saying he’s guilty of this, and he’s a douchebag.

With Michael Irvin, it's one of those "if the shoe fits, wear it" types of things. Some people, say Russell Wilson, for example, making such lewd, unwanted advances towards a random woman as what Irvin is being accused of doing would be completely out of character and extremely difficult to believe. But not so with Irvin, especially when you toss alcohol into the equation.

I still think the hotel acted completely appropriately and were well within their rights by removing him, and I applaud their actions. The only thing I question is the leaking of what their employee claimed he said to her. What did they tell Irvin's employer? Are they the ones that made public the specifics of the unproven allegations? I think Irvin has a good case, for as whether or not the allegations are true, his broadcasting career is effectively over.

[ACES 13]

If in fact his career is over, that makes my heart Happy! I never could tolerate his Act.. He's all Bluster and no substance! I would routinely change the channel if he was on a broadcast. With his history he doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt in my opinion. Good riddance!

[Hawktawk]

Agreed, RD. I was surprised at my initial reaction…. Believing the worst because he’s an ass and has had other scrapes… but w/o knowing what is actually what. I came to my senses and am letting it play out. I’m glad you read my post the way you did. Not saying he’s guilty of this, and he’s a douchebag.

“ With Michael Irvin, it's one of those "if the shoe fits, wear it" types of things. Some people, say Russell Wilson, for example, making such lewd, unwanted advances towards a random woman as what Irvin is being accused of doing would be completely out of character and extremely difficult to believe. But not so with Irvin, especially when you toss alcohol into the equation.

I still think the hotel acted completely appropriately and were well within their rights by removing him, and I applaud their actions. The only thing I question is the leaking of what their employee claimed he said to her. What did they tell Irvin's employer? Are they the ones that made public the specifics of the unproven allegations? I think Irvin has a good case, for as whether or not the allegations are true, his broadcasting career is effectively over.[/quote]

The releasing of the contents of Irvin’s incredibly lewd comments was in direct response to irvin the martyr and his attorney to release the video publicly at a press conference while narrating what this video supposedly proves . They said so at the time they released the transcript . Tit for tat playing out in the court of public opinion so far . Not sure where irvin has a good case . Either he demonstrated he’s the same old mike or this employee decided to make up a fantastical story after a 1 minute cordial conversation . Not sure who would even consider that . If I see her on a podium with Gloria Steinem we can revisit . We won’t .

The NFL security did their own due diligence and it was the league that made the decision to remove him from the air and locate him in another hotel . He has no case . And once more I doubt this is the only incident . Just the straw breaker .

[RiverDog]

The releasing of the contents of Irvin’s incredibly lewd comments was in direct response to irvin the martyr and his attorney to release the video publicly at a press conference while narrating what this video supposedly proves . They said so at the time they released the transcript . Tit for tat playing out in the court of public opinion so far . Not sure where irvin has a good case . Either he demonstrated he’s the same old mike or this employee decided to make up a fantastical story after a 1 minute cordial conversation . Not sure who would even consider that . If I see her on a podium with Gloria Steinem we can revisit . We won’t .

The NFL security did their own due diligence and it was the league that made the decision to remove him from the air and locate him in another hotel . He has no case . And once more I doubt this is the only incident . Just the straw breaker .

First of all, unless there's audio in the security camera recording, Irvin's comments are alleged. You're referring to them as if they are a given fact.

Secondly, it's my opinion that Irvin has a good case. I do not feel that it's any of the hotel's business to tell Irvin's employer, a third party that was not part of this occurrence, exactly why it was that Irvin was booted from their premises. All they had to tell them was that he was removed from the premises because he violated the hotel's policies. I wouldn't have a problem if the hotel provided an opportunity for the league to interview their employee, if she was willing, and get the story straight from the horse's mouth. But the hotel wasn't obligated to tell the league anything regarding the encounter, only that a breach of their policy had occurred. Heck, they don't even have to tell LE unless there was reason to believe that a crime had been committed.

It seems to me that's why Irvin's lawyers have been asking about who it was from the league the hotel talked to and what it was they said about Irvin and the encounter. If the hotel was passing along uncorroborated, hearsay information to Irvin's employer and caused them to act on it, Irvin could claim that it caused irreparable damage to his career as a broadcaster.

Having said that, the hotel's lawyers aren't stupid, so if they actually are releasing details about the alleged conversation, then they must be pretty confident that doing so won't come back to haunt them.

[Hawktawk]

As I say one of 2 things happened . A woman spontaneously decided to manufacture a lie about a professional celebrity after a cordial 1 minute conversation . AND nfl security who didn’t fall off a turnip truck in front of the marriot bought her fantastic lies hook line and sinker . THEY made the decision to relocate him , not Marriot .


Or Irvin is a filthy dirty old man , priveledged , with a long record of sketchy behavior with women so drunk he can’t remember said extremely vulgar things . Make a pick . Her account is too real to be made up. Details far too disgusting . And there were employees including hotel security who witnessed the exchange although whether they could hear it was unknown . Security did move in his direction looking at him which is when he disengaged from the woman. The Marriot rebuttal including his verbatim language also states that in his comments after suggesting he’d like her to experience his ethnicity he said “ I’ll come find you when you’re working “
At that point she has every right to report it , an obligation really . What is it with shut up and take it woman ? Don’t mess up a good dudes career “ what about her career . Should she have to be treated in a lewd manner , threatened with stalking so Marriot doesn’t get sued by some power drunken celeb who is used to doing what he wants to women. My guess is he will be destroyed in discovery . If she was credible enough to convince NFL security she’s surely going to be an excellent witness in front of a judge . He may get a few million to walk away . Who knows . It will be a travesty if he does .

And one last time . I have great difficulty believing the network would have taken their actions as swiftly if Irvin had been a model citizen in the past . If it were sexual assault I would get it . It’s vulgar language and a couple brief touches on the arm.
Gotta be more to the story with Mike and the league .

[RiverDog]

And one last time . I have great difficulty believing the network would have taken their actions as swiftly if Irvin had been a model citizen in the past . If it were sexual assault I would get it . It’s vulgar language and a couple brief touches on the arm.
Gotta be more to the story with Mike and the league .

I agree. But the league's/network's actions aren't what is in question. The issue here is what was it they were told and who told them? Irvin is suing the hotel, not the league.

Let me put this in terms that might make it a little more understandable. You're a golf course superintendent, and a female groundskeeper comes up and tells you that a golfer made some very lewd, suggestive comments directly to her, at one point making physical contact. You have no doubts that your employee is telling you the truth, there's video evidence that supports her claim, and knowing who it was that was being accused and that they'd been drinking, it makes her story even more believable. What actions, if any, should you take?

One thing you could do would be to call the police, but you decide that's going way overboard and there's not a lot of evidence that a crime was committed. and they might not even respond. But you still have an option. As an employer, you are legally obligated to provide for your employees (as well as customers and vendors) an environment free of abuse, harassment, threats, etc. You have to kick the golfer off the links and report your action to the owner/operator of the course. As a representative of your company, you have the right to refuse service to anyone. Indeed, you've refused to let players golf in a tee shirt as your course has a dress code requiring that golfers wear a collared shirt. You bounce his arse off the course.

However, you DO NOT have the right to call up the golfer's employer, or anyone else not associated with your company, and tell them about the incident. As far as you're concerned, you do not have conclusive evidence that the harassment occurred, and what was discussed is between you, your employee, and the offending golfer.

[c_hawkbob]

However, you DO NOT have the right to call up the golfer's employer, or anyone else not associated with your company, and tell them about the incident.

You seem to be assuming she personally, of her own volition, got NFLN involved while my understanding is that Marriott Hotel security did, and is that not after all exactly what they should have done?

[RiverDog]

However, you DO NOT have the right to call up the golfer's employer, or anyone else not associated with your company, and tell them about the incident.

You seem to be assuming she personally, of her own volition, got NFLN involved while my understanding is that Marriott Hotel security did, and is that not after all exactly what they should have done?

No, that's not what I am assuming. By "you", I meant in my example a hypothetical Hawktawk as a representative of his employer (golf course superintendent), does not have the right to call someone else's employer and disclose details of a supposed conversation that he did not witness or have substantial evidence corroborating the claim. Doing so could expose him and/or his company to libel or defamation of character.

IMO the employee, since it happened to her and is not hearsay, does have the right to contact the offender's employer and file a complaint, although I'm not sure how applicable it would be if the accused were not 'on the clock', ie acting on behalf of his employer.

IMO it is not incumbent on hotel security to contact the league. If they are contacted by the league and questioned about the incident, the only information that they are authorized to disclose is that Irvin was removed due to his violation of hotel policy and leave it at that. If the individual employee is willing, they could refer them to her for more details. If she wishes to remain anonymous, then the hotel does not have the right to disclose any further information, not even the name or position of the complainant. As an employer, one of your obligations to your employees is to protect their privacy.

And once again, I want to add the disclaimer that this is my personal opinion based on my past experiences, training, etc, and that I am not a lawyer.

[c_hawkbob]

Well my opinion is that she, her employer (Marriott) and Irvin's employer (NFLN) all did everything that was done completely by the book and Irvin is filing all the legal face saving suits he's being advised by his legal team to file. I'm willing to see how it plays out now in court.

[RiverDog]

Well my opinion is that she, her employer (Marriott) and Irvin's employer (NFLN) all did everything that was done completely by the book and Irvin is filing all the legal face saving suits he's being advised by his legal team to file. I'm willing to see how it plays out now in court.

I don't know if what the hotel did was by the book or not because I don't know exactly what it was that they told NFLN. I'm basing my opinion on my past years as a member of management in a large organization and reflects how I've been trained to respond in situations such as this one.

Like you said, we'll see how this all plays out. If there's an out of court settlement, as I think is likely, then it would be an indication that the hotel did something wrong.

[c_hawkbob]

If there's an out of court settlement, as I think is likely, then it would be an indication that the hotel did something wrong.

I do not follow that logic at all. Unless there is a retraction of the accusation all a settlement indicates is expedience.

[RiverDog]

If there's an out of court settlement, as I think is likely, then it would be an indication that the hotel did something wrong.

I do not follow that logic at all. Unless there is a retraction of the accusation all a settlement indicates is expedience.

If Mariott is in the right, they are not going to settle for any kind of substantial sum. They are a large corporation with stockholders they are accountable to and will weigh their legal costs of continuing the case vs. a 7 or 8 digit payout that would be deducted straight off their bottom line, ie quarterly profit. I assume that they have their own legal department vs. hiring lawyers, so any costs incurred are merely for budging purposes, that there aren't very many actual costs to them as their lawyers are going to be employed by them whether they are working on Irvin's case or some other claim against them.

If their case is as airtight as you are suggesting, I see no reason why they wouldn't pursue it to the end or out wait Irvin and bleed him dry, forcing him to drop his suit. Why would they settle and pay out millions of dollars?

[c_hawkbob]

I don't necessarily agree with your assumptions. Most corporations would settle on reasonable terms just to bring an end to such a public case. Time matters.

[NorthHawk]

I’ve always said that an out of court settlement was the likely outcome, not only what Bob said, but because it’s expensive to litigate and defend. Do they really want to spend possible millions AND suffer the bad publicity? I doubt it, and that goes for both sides.

[RiverDog]

My point is that Mariott, with a legal department comprised of attorneys on their payroll that is for the most part a fixed cost, can afford to wait. But Michael Irvin is going to have to retain his attorneys and pay by the hour for each and every appearance his attorneys have to make. That's an inherent advantage that big companies have over smaller companies and individuals like Irvin.

This isn't a case that is getting a lot of media attention, so I don't see where dragging it out is going to result in any more bad publicity for the hotel or Irvin than settling it promptly would. And whether or not you agree with my assumption that the hotel would be admitting at least some degree of guilt if they were to settle out of court, there are going to be plenty of people that will make that assumption. Why pay out millions of dollars you are 100% in the right?

[obiken]

My point is that Mariott, with a legal department comprised of attorneys on their payroll that is for the most part a fixed cost, can afford to wait. But Michael Irvin is going to have to retain his attorneys and pay by the hour for each and every appearance his attorneys have to make. That's an inherent advantage that big companies have over smaller companies and individuals like Irvin.

This isn't a case that is getting a lot of media attention, so I don't see where dragging it out is going to result in any more bad publicity for the hotel or Irvin than settling it promptly would. And whether or not you agree with my assumption that the hotel would be admitting at least some degree of guilt if they were to settle out of court, there are going to be plenty of people that will make that assumption. Why pay out millions of dollars you are 100% in the right?

This is a who cares thread but okay I will play. Its going to come down in court to 51 vs 49.

[Hawktawk]

You seem to be assuming she personally, of her own volition, got NFLN involved while my understanding is that Marriott Hotel security did, and is that not after all exactly what they should have done?

“ rd
No, that's not what I am assuming. By "you", I meant in my example a hypothetical Hawktawk as a representative of his employer (golf course superintendent), does not have the right to call someone else's employer and disclose details of a supposed conversation that he did not witness or have substantial evidence corroborating the claim. Doing so could expose him and/or his company to libel or defamation of character.

IMO the employee, since it happened to her and is not hearsay, does have the right to contact the offender's employer and file a complaint, although I'm not sure how applicable it would be if the accused were not 'on the clock', ie acting on behalf of his employer.

IMO it is not incumbent on hotel security to contact the league. If they are contacted by the league and questioned about the incident, the only information that they are authorized to disclose is that Irvin was removed due to his violation of hotel policy and leave it at that. If the individual employee is willing, they could refer them to her for more details. If she wishes to remain anonymous, then the hotel does not have the right to disclose any further information, not even the name or position of the complainant. As an employer, one of your obligations to your employees is to protect their privacy.

And once again, I want to add the disclaimer that this is my personal opinion based on my past experiences, training, etc, and that I am not a lawyer.[/quote]
No real comparison here . On my course the few times there was abuse it was me receiving it . Those drunk nameless slobs were ejected and 86ed other then one who insisted on continuing to be an A hole after rolling a cart and wound up in jail. DUI in a golf cart .

Micheal irvin is a HOF player and television celebrity . His employer likely booked a block of rooms so they are directly involved in any situation with their employee . You reminded me the Seahawks knew about Geno within an hour of his arrest . Cops don’t normally do that . When a famous guy hits on a woman in the crudest possible terms and threatened to stalk her later it’s exactly what the hotel and also nfl security had to do .

[NorthHawk]

When a famous guy hits on a woman in the crudest possible terms and threatened to stalk her later it’s exactly what the hotel and also nfl security had to do .

I must have missed something. Do we have a transcript of what was said or just an allegation?

[c_hawkbob]

When a famous guy hits on a woman in the crudest possible terms and threatened to stalk her later it’s exactly what the hotel and also nfl security had to do .

I must have missed something. Do we have a transcript of what was said or just an allegation?

Obviously there was not a court stenographer within earshot but this what Marriott released after Irvin filed his suit:

“Irvin also reached out and touched the Victim’s arm during this conversation without her consent, causing her to step back, becoming visibly uncomfortable,” Marriott attorney Nathan Chapman wrote in the document. “Irvin then asked the Victim whether she knew anything about having a ‘big Black man inside of [her].’ Taken aback by Irvin’s comments, the Victim responded that his comments were inappropriate, and she did not wish to discuss it further. “Irvin then attempted to grab the Victim’s hand again and said he was ‘sorry if he brought up bad memories’ for her.’ The Victim pulled her hand away and tried to back away from Irvin as he continued to move towards her.” Upon noticing other employees watching them, Irvin offered good bye handshake. “Seeing that other Hotel employees were in the area and wanting the interaction to end, the Victim returned Irvin’s handshake,” Marriott said in the filing. “Irvin then stated that he would come back to find her sometime that week when she was working.” The Marriott court filing also included a description of Irvin “leering” at the woman as she walked away.

A second employee approached Irvin and allegedly heard him say, “She bad, She bad, I want to hit that. Irvin then supposedly slapped himself in the face three times before saying, “Keep it together, Mike.” The female staffer reported Irvin’s comments to her manager next day. The Marriott then reported the incident to the NFL, which had asked hotel to notify the league should any issues arise involving any employees booked at the property.

https://www.star-telegram.com/sports/nf ... rylink=cpy

[RiverDog]

When a famous guy hits on a woman in the crudest possible terms and threatened to stalk her later it’s exactly what the hotel and also nfl security had to do .

I must have missed something. Do we have a transcript of what was said or just an allegation?

Obviously there was not a court stenographer within earshot but this what Marriott released after Irvin filed his suit:

“Irvin also reached out and touched the Victim’s arm during this conversation without her consent, causing her to step back, becoming visibly uncomfortable,” Marriott attorney Nathan Chapman wrote in the document. “Irvin then asked the Victim whether she knew anything about having a ‘big Black man inside of [her].’ Taken aback by Irvin’s comments, the Victim responded that his comments were inappropriate, and she did not wish to discuss it further. “Irvin then attempted to grab the Victim’s hand again and said he was ‘sorry if he brought up bad memories’ for her.’ The Victim pulled her hand away and tried to back away from Irvin as he continued to move towards her.” Upon noticing other employees watching them, Irvin offered good bye handshake. “Seeing that other Hotel employees were in the area and wanting the interaction to end, the Victim returned Irvin’s handshake,” Marriott said in the filing. “Irvin then stated that he would come back to find her sometime that week when she was working.” The Marriott court filing also included a description of Irvin “leering” at the woman as she walked away.

A second employee approached Irvin and allegedly heard him say, “She bad, She bad, I want to hit that. Irvin then supposedly slapped himself in the face three times before saying, “Keep it together, Mike.” The female staffer reported Irvin’s comments to her manager next day. The Marriott then reported the incident to the NFL, which had asked hotel to notify the league should any issues arise involving any employees booked at the property.

https://www.star-telegram.com/sports/nf ... rylink=cpy[/quote]

My question is where did Marriott attorney Nathan Chapman get his information? Was there a recording? Was it from the alleged victim, and if so, is it corroborated by any other witness or witnesses, and if it was, why didn't he say so in his statement?

[Hawktawk]

“Ht
When a famous guy hits on a woman in the crudest possible terms and threatened to stalk her later it’s exactly what the hotel and also nfl security had to do .[/quote]

I must have missed something. Do we have a transcript of what was said or just an allegation?

Obviously there was not a court stenographer within earshot but this what Marriott released after Irvin filed his suit:

“Irvin also reached out and touched the Victim’s arm during this conversation without her consent, causing her to step back, becoming visibly uncomfortable,” Marriott attorney Nathan Chapman wrote in the document. “Irvin then asked the Victim whether she knew anything about having a ‘big Black man inside of [her].’ Taken aback by Irvin’s comments, the Victim responded that his comments were inappropriate, and she did not wish to discuss it further. “Irvin then attempted to grab the Victim’s hand again and said he was ‘sorry if he brought up bad memories’ for her.’ The Victim pulled her hand away and tried to back away from Irvin as he continued to move towards her.” Upon noticing other employees watching them, Irvin offered good bye handshake. “Seeing that other Hotel employees were in the area and wanting the interaction to end, the Victim returned Irvin’s handshake,” Marriott said in the filing. “Irvin then stated that he would come back to find her sometime that week when she was working.” The Marriott court filing also included a description of Irvin “leering” at the woman as she walked away.

A second employee approached Irvin and allegedly heard him say, “She bad, She bad, I want to hit that. Irvin then supposedly slapped himself in the face three times before saying, “Keep it together, Mike.” The female staffer reported Irvin’s comments to her manager next day. The Marriott then reported the incident to the NFL, which had asked hotel to notify the league should any issues arise involving any employees booked at the property.

https://www.star-telegram.com/sports/nf ... rylink=cpy[/quote]

A couple take aways . 1 is that NFL security had requested to be informed about any issues with guests . #2 is that Marriot does indeed have witnesses to at least part of the exchange . And hearing “ I wanna hit that , she bad “ kind of lays waste to his contention it was a non sexual cordial exchange . He has nothing in his favor except some cowboy fan judge if he gets one . You never know with a celebrity . Ask OJ.
But irvin did what he’s accused of .

[RiverDog]

A couple take aways . 1 is that NFL security had requested to be informed about any issues with guests . #2 is that Marriot does indeed have witnesses to at least part of the exchange . And hearing “ I wanna hit that , she bad “ kind of lays waste to his contention it was a non sexual cordial exchange . He has nothing in his favor except some cowboy fan judge if he gets one . You never know with a celebrity . Ask OJ.
But irvin did what he’s accused of .

I was just going to mention that. If that part is true, that the league made a blanket reservation vs. their employees booking the rooms in their own names, then IMO the hotel would be justified in contacting the league, especially if they specifically requested to be notified in the event of any problems.

However, I am not sure if that would allow the hotel to pass along uncorroborated information as to the details of what Irvin allegedly said to the 'victim.', that giving them a simple reason that their employee was removed was because in their opinion the hotel policy was breached would suffice.

And I agree, that if there is a 2nd employee that even if they weren't able to corroborate the conversation in question, was able to paint a picture of what Irvin's attitude and behavior was like moments afterwards, that it would tend to help the hotel's case.

And, of course, Irvin's original statement was that he couldn't remember anything because he'd been drinking is going to be tough for him to get around.

[Hawktawk]

Marriot had a female employee be subjected to a crude sexual slur then be threatened with stalking . What are they supposed to do with an agreement to notify the league ? Don’t tell on famous old pervert . Just be quiet bimbo . Right ?

Not that it matters but I don’t think she was housecleaning. Again a guess but I’d say a point of sale management type person . She is implicitly trusted by the organization obviously based on their response to stand with her over 100 million .

For all we know she’s worked there for years with zero issues. We don’t know which is why I look at actions taken by people as possibly revealing facts not publicly known . Kind of like NFL security hearing the account of her and I’m assuming the other witnesses and jerking him off the air so fast his head spun . I think it’s telling his legal team hasn’t issued a word against his employer. The nfl has some serious dirt.
Hypothetically . But not suing his employer that moved and booted him makes no sense . If it’s a lie they bought it

To me it’s a matter of who people will believe .

[RiverDog]

Marriot had a female employee be subjected to a crude sexual slur then be threatened with stalking . What are they supposed to do with an agreement to notify the league ? Don’t tell on famous old pervert . Just be quiet bimbo . Right ?

Not that it matters but I don’t think she was housecleaning. Again a guess but I’d say a point of sale management type person . She is implicitly trusted by the organization obviously based on their response to stand with her over 100 million .

For all we know she’s worked there for years with zero issues. We don’t know which is why I look at actions taken by people as possibly revealing facts not publicly known . Kind of like NFL security hearing the account of her and I’m assuming the other witnesses and jerking him off the air so fast his head spun . I think it’s telling his legal team hasn’t issued a word against his employer. The nfl has some serious dirt.
Hypothetically . But not suing his employer that moved and booted him makes no sense . If it’s a lie they bought it

To me it’s a matter of who people will believe .

I've already said that if Irvin was registered under the league's name and especially if they had requested to be notified of any problems related to their employees, that the hotel was within their right to contact Irvin's employer. My only question is specifically what it was that they told them. They can't just make up a bunch of chit and tattle on a customer's boss. If the employee melts on the witness stand and says that she was mistaken, the hotel could be held liable for damages if what they told the league was false. That's why I feel that they would have been better off just to say that Irvin was removed because he violated hotel policy and leave it at that. There was no reason for them to have gone any further. They have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason, so long as that reason doesn't involve a protected status (race, gender, age, etc).

But I do agree with you that Irvin should be suing the league rather than the hotel. Perhaps it's a 'don't bite the hand that feeds you' mentality, but they're the ones that made the call to remove him from the SB coverage team and brought it to everyone's attention, essentially torpedoing his career. Plus, it's likely the league that leaked the specifics of the accusations against him.

[NorthHawk]

I would expect it would be his lawyer's decision or rather direction as to who is better to sue.

[RiverDog]

I would expect it would be his lawyer's decision or rather direction as to who is better to sue.

.

Like any other profession, such as a doctor, when a lawyer is representing an individual client, it's never 'their' decision. All they do is give advice. It was Irvin's call as to who to sue. That much I'm sure of.

[Hawktawk]

[quote="Hawktawk"]Marriot had a female employee be subjected to a crude sexual slur then be threatened with stalking . What are they supposed to do with an agreement to notify the league ? Don’t tell on famous old pervert . Just be quiet bimbo . Right ?



" RD
I've already said that if Irvin was registered under the league's name and especially if they had requested to be notified of any problems related to their employees, that the hotel was within their right to contact Irvin's employer. My only question is specifically what it was that they told them. They can't just make up a bunch of chit and tattle on a customer's boss. If the employee melts on the witness stand and says that she was mistaken, the hotel could be held liable for damages if what they told the league was false. That's why I feel that they would have been better off just to say that Irvin was removed because he violated hotel policy and leave it at that. There was no reason for them to have gone any further. They have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason, so long as that reason doesn't involve a protected status (race, gender, age, etc).

But I do agree with you that Irvin should be suing the league rather than the hotel. Perhaps it's a 'don't bite the hand that feeds you' mentality, but they're the ones that made the call to remove him from the SB coverage team and brought it to everyone's attention, essentially torpedoing his career. Plus, it's likely the league that leaked the specifics of the accusations against him
As I follow this the specifics of what Irvin did were not initially released publicly. Not for days, not even a hint although it was an easy guess what was involved. it was only after Irvin had sued and released the footage in this big press conference trying to narrate a favorable view for Irvin. Based on footage Id say indicates her story is true. Marriott made clear they were releasing the specific language in response to the actions of Irvin.

Marriot was already being sued for 100 million and the guy was poisoning the jury pool. I have no idea if the NFL was given the details, Im guessing so but again, a lawsuit was filed before any of this became public. I dont see the hangup with this woman just telling the truth. Its what he said, his employer dumped him at warp speed which is still the most curious part of this to me. He sued which brought the thing more to light than anything else.
If Irvin was a decent human being he would have got his drunk rear end up, apologized to the woman he had admittedly not even remembered the conversation. Then called a press conference to say he had made a mistake and will be more careful when out on the town to keep himself under control.

Ive come to realize Irvin is a steaming pile. Really be unfortunate if he profits off being a creep.

[RiverDog]

Irvin is still sitting on the pine at NFL Network:

Michael Irvin has not appeared on NFL Network programming since an alleged incident with a Marriott hotel employee before the Super Bowl. The former Dallas Cowboys wide receiver will miss another significant event.

Per David Moore of The Dallas Morning News, NFL Network spokesperson Alex Riethmiller confirmed that Irvin "remains suspended" and won't participate in NFL Draft coverage.

https://thespun.com/nfl/look-nfl-networ ... hael-irvin

I'd be interested to know if Irvin is suspended with pay or without. If he's still getting paid, it might explain why he hasn't sued his employer. They could assign him to count all the elephants in the parking lot each morning and as long as he's getting paid his normal wages, there's not much he can do about it.

I can't say as I'm gonna miss him. I probably wouldn't watch draft coverage on NFL Net if he was one of the commentators as his jive is a turn off for me.

[NorthHawk]

PFT suggested that he might still be getting paid and that's why he hasn't sued his employer.

[RiverDog]

PFT suggested that he might still be getting paid and that's why he hasn't sued his employer.

Which would make sense.

Plus, as a current employee, suing his employer would likely go through a different process as he'd first have to exhaust any grievance procedures, should they exist, then take his case to the state Department of Labor, if it's like it is in this state, as his claim would constitute an unfair labor practice.

[NorthHawk]

Good point. Any he wouldn't want to burn any bridges if he could avoid it.

[RiverDog]

Good point. Any he wouldn't want to burn any bridges if he could avoid it.

At this point, I don't think any of the major networks would hire him anyway regardless of the outcome of his lawsuit, which is one of the reasons why I think he has a good case as regardless of who's fault it is, ie his own, his employer, the hotel, or the hotel employee, he's suffered irreparable harm to his career.

I'm pretty sure that those guys are contracted employees, and NFL Network could simply fail to renew Irving's contract and wouldn't have to worry about an unfair termination charge.

[Hawktawk]

Oh well he suffered irreparable damage to his career. How does it mean hes got a good case?

I find it interesting that NFL network security told the Mariott management to keep an eye on its guests and report anything improper. Was there a specific person in mind? I am a GCS and have been to many conventions including Vegas and I know what a dirty old man looks and acts like. I dont ever remember the association asking the hotel to watch the guests.
Hes damaged his own career by saying something so disgusting and filthy a woman who is likely in a position there to have to field lots of stuff from drunks couldn't let it go. Its his fault. That his own employer continues to suspend him and offer no defense whatever speaks volumes.
I actually liked his goofy delivery but really finding him to be a reprehensible fool, a total tool.

[RiverDog]

Oh well he suffered irreparable damage to his career. How does it mean hes got a good case?

I find it interesting that NFL network security told the Mariott management to keep an eye on its guests and report anything improper. Was there a specific person in mind? I am a GCS and have been to many conventions including Vegas and I know what a dirty old man looks and acts like. I dont ever remember the association asking the hotel to watch the guests.
Hes damaged his own career by saying something so disgusting and filthy a woman who is likely in a position there to have to field lots of stuff from drunks couldn't let it go. Its his fault. That his own employer continues to suspend him and offer no defense whatever speaks volumes.
I actually liked his goofy delivery but really finding him to be a reprehensible fool, a total tool.

Because it satisfies half of the elements deemed necessary for a successful case:

Elements

To prove prima facie defamation, a plaintiff must show four things:

1) a false statement purporting to be fact;

2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person;

3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and

4) damages, or some harm caused to the reputation of the person or entity who is the subject of the statement.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation#Elements

Irvin's lawsuit has met the conditions set forth in #2 and #4. The statements were made to a 3rd person (NFL Network) and there were unarguably 'damages' made to his reputation as it's unlikely that he'll be able to get a similar job as a commentator with an employer as notable as NFL Network because of those statements.

That doesn't mean I think he's going to win, only that he has a good argument or 'case.' To the contrary, I think Irvin has an uphill battle in proving that the comments were false as there doesn't appear to be any audio evidence or witnesses that were within earshot of the conversation and that, at least initially, he said that he had no recollection of the conversation and admitted to having been under the influence of alcohol when the comments were made. Since he is the plaintiff, the burden of proof falls on him.