forums

Official Michael Irvin* Sues Marriott for $100 Million

AlexCane said:
Not sure I entirely agree with that.

-Mike has the burden to demonstrate that something defamatory was said about him by Marriot to the NFL. This burden is fairly heavy--he needs to prove his case in his case-in-chief or it gets tossed before the defense gets to put on their case. HASN'T THIS ALREADY BEEN DONE? MARRIOTT SAID THAT HE SAID XYZ TO HER. AND MARRIOTT REPEATED THAT TO THE NFL (PRESUMABLY).
-Once he meets that burden, then it is the burden of Marriot to demonstrate that something was conveyed to them by the lady that caused concern. This is likely a relatively easy burden met with simple testimony by a Marriot employee that "xyz" was conveyed to them. Then, it turns into a credibility battle between the young lady and Michael re: what was said. (Hence why I think this is a risky proposition.) Anyways, if a jury determines she is credible, Michael's case is likely over. THIS IS WHERE I THINK MARRIOTT CANNOT MEET ITS BURDEN

I've simplified it and cases can take turns (if, for example, Marriot misrepresented what she said to the NFL or Marriot ran with it without conducting its own investigation) but I'm keeping it big picture.
Click to expand...
my response in CAPS above
 
Advertisement
rsa coral gables said:
my response in CAPS above
Click to expand...
As to your first point, that's where things can get interesting. We don't know anything, but let's assume the woman just said that Michael made her feel uncomfortable. Entirely possible. What if Marriot twisted that into "Irvin sexually assaulted an employee." I tend to think that if Marriot just repeated what the woman said, they likely don't have too much exposure. If words got changed along the way, that's a more interesting case.

Has Michael sued the woman too, or just the hotel??
 
AlexCane said:
As to your first point, that's where things can get interesting. We don't know anything, but let's assume the woman just said that Michael made her feel uncomfortable. Entirely possible. What if Marriot twisted that into "Irvin sexually assaulted an employee." I tend to think that if Marriot just repeated what the woman said, they likely don't have too much exposure. If words got changed along the way, that's a more interesting case.

Has Michael sued the woman too, or just the hotel??
Click to expand...
to my knowledge, just the hotel. he doesn't even know her identity.
 
Advertisement
what jury would side with the playmaker? This is so ridiculous imo. Irvin would have to bring his pastor the church choir and his whole tearful family to court and he still wouldn’t win over the jury. On the other hand everything today is inappropriate. Social media is doing its job of eroding America. I dealt with many harassment cases in the work place. Can’t do this can’t do that can’t say this can’t say that and companies have mandatory harassment classes every year.corporations are under a lot of scrutiny in creating a safe non harassing workplace. HR will and have to investigate the whole situation. Either the woman is a scam or her interpretation of inappropriate is what it is. Today women want to be men men want to be women you have kids not sure if they’re *** or not, they’re not sure if they are male or female or non binary. This country has turned in to a pussified nation. So what if he touched her arm in conversation who cares if he hit on her. That hand shake was an employee dealing with a guest Nothing more nothing less.
 
The canesman said:
what jury would side with the playmaker? This is so ridiculous imo. Irvin would have to bring his pastor the church choir and his whole tearful family to court and he still wouldn’t win over the jury. On the other hand everything today is inappropriate. Social media is doing its job of eroding America. I dealt with many harassment cases in the work place. Can’t do this can’t do that can’t say this can’t say that and companies have mandatory harassment classes every year.corporations are under a lot of scrutiny in creating a safe non harassing workplace. HR will and have to investigate the whole situation. Either the woman is a scam or her interpretation of inappropriate is what it is. Today women want to be men men want to be women you have kids not sure if they’re *** or not, they’re not sure if they are male or female or non binary. This country has turned in to a pussified nation. So what if he touched her arm in conversation who cares if he hit on her. That hand shake was an employee dealing with a guest Nothing more nothing less.
Click to expand...

PREACH
 
AlexCane said:
Not sure I entirely agree with that.

-Mike has the burden to demonstrate that something defamatory was said about him by Marriot to the NFL. This burden is fairly heavy--he needs to prove his case in his case-in-chief or it gets tossed before the defense gets to put on their case.
-Once he meets that burden, then it is the burden of Marriot to demonstrate that something was conveyed to them by the lady that caused concern. This is likely a relatively easy burden met with simple testimony by a Marriot employee that "xyz" was conveyed to them. Then, it turns into a credibility battle between the young lady and Michael re: what was said. (Hence why I think this is a risky proposition.) Anyways, if a jury determines she is credible, Michael's case is likely over.

I've simplified it and cases can take turns (if, for example, Marriot misrepresented what she said to the NFL or Marriot ran with it without conducting its own investigation) but I'm keeping it big picture.
Click to expand...

Irvin has to prove Marriott acted with "actual malice" since he is a public figure. That means proving Marriott knew what they were telling the NFL was a lie or they acted with reckless disregard for the truth. And if the manager says the employee described what happened, and then the manager watched the video and said the video appeared to be consistent with the employees story, that's pretty much a wrap for the lawsuit since it shows that Marriott had something that showed the allegation could be true (note- it doesn't mean it has to be factually true, just they had a reason to think it might be).

Think about this in terms of a tabloid. Let's say an actor is happily married to his wife. Then a tabloid runs a headline saying the actor "may be having an affair" with an actress on the set of a movie. The "source" is an intern on the set who told the tabloid he saw the actor with his hand on the actress's shoulder and whispering in her ear, and the "source" said his body language and proximity suggested he was overly comfortable around the actress. Despite that thin evidence, there is zero chance the actor would win a defamation lawsuit again the tabloid because it would be virtually impossible to prove actual malice.
 
Last edited:
TimeBum said:
Irvin has to prove Marriott acted with "actual malice" since he is a public figure. That means proving Marriott knew what they were telling the NFL was a lie or they acted with reckless disregard for the truth. And if the manager says the employee described what happened, and then the manager watched the video and said the video appeared to be consistent with the employees story, that's pretty much a wrap for the lawsuit since it shows that Marriott had something that showed the allegation could be true (note- it doesn't mean it has to be factually true, just they had a reason to think it might be).
Click to expand...
Yup. It's a tough case unless something comes out we're not aware of just yet. This is why I think that if Irvin really had a gripe that he was somehow damaged, best to deal with this privately. Send some letters. Keep it on the down low. I really disagree with the way his lawyers have handled this.

I mean, being honest, there's a couple moments in the interaction between them where Irvin looks a little buzzed. Look at his body movement. I suspect he was drinking, which is why he claims he doesn't remember what was said. Marriot claimed he was inebriated. What time did this interaction take place?
 
Advertisement
AlexCane said:
Yup. It's a tough case unless something comes out we're not aware of just yet. This is why I think that if Irvin really had a gripe that he was somehow damaged, best to deal with this privately. Send some letters. Keep it on the down low. I really disagree with the way his lawyers have handled this.

I mean, being honest, there's a couple moments in the interaction between them where Irvin looks a little buzzed. Look at his body movement. I suspect he was drinking, which is why he claims he doesn't remember what was said. Marriot claimed he was inebriated. What time did this interaction take place?
Click to expand...
Irvin has 3 witnesses ready to testify on his behalf.
 
SWFLHurricane said:
Irvin has 3 witnesses ready to testify on his behalf.
Click to expand...

Please correct me if Im wrong- from what I could find online, the witnesses told reporters they didn't see any inappropriate behavior and that the interaction appeared friendly, but they didn't actually hear the entire conversation.

What the witnesses are saying seems to be in line with video. It doesn't look like he did anything wrong, but there isn't any audio. Unfortunately the issue is what he said or didn't say, so I don't think the witness testimony will be enough to prove that the Marriott acted with actual malice.
 
Advertisement
SWFLHurricane said:
Irvin has 3 witnesses ready to testify on his behalf.
Click to expand...
Man you’re not kidding, here they are…

1813E6C8-BC83-4BB3-BC1F-8B296085C064.jpeg
 
Advertisement
Advertisement
Back
Top