Marriott tries to dismiss Michael Irvin’s lawsuit, claims he made “harassing and inappropriate comments”

A Marriott International Hotel Ahead of Earnings Figures
Getty Images

Faced with a $100 million lawsuit filed by Hall of Fame receiver Michael Irvin, Marriott is hoping for an early exit.

Via Daniel Kaplan of TheAthletic.com, Marriott has filed a motion to dismiss the complaint that Irvin filed 18 days ago.

Marriott argues that it doesn’t own the Phoenix hotel at which Irvin engaged in some type of alleged wrongdoing, prompting a complaint to NFL Network and, in turn, Irvin’s removal from Super Bowl-week programming. Instead, Marriott says it only “leases its brand” to the owner of the property.

That may not matter. The hotel is a Marriott location. It’s hard to imagine Marriott avoiding responsibility based on the technical legal relationship between the corporation and the actual owner/operator of the hotel, especially if the hotel identifies itself as a Marriott property.

The paperwork filed by Marriott also sheds light for the first time on the specific allegation made against Irvin. Via Kaplan, Marriott claims that Irvin made “harassing and inappropriate comments.”

That’s a far cry from the vague notion that he engaged in some sort of offensive physical touching or contact. And it likely will make the surveillance video far less relevant, since it won’t include audio.

Marriott’s claim also will make the discovery process critical on the question of what the employees of the hotel specifically said to NFL Network. Whatever it was, it was enough to get NFL Network to shut him down.

Likewise, it will be interesting to know whether the hotel employees identified themselves as Marriott employees when making the complaint. Because Marriott is a long-time NFL sponsor, complaints from Marriott would be more likely to resonate with NFL Network than complaints from a chain that doesn’t give the NFL a lot of money every year.

Ultimately, someone may be giving Irvin a lot of money for jumping the gun and/or telling tall tales about his behavior. Absent a quick settlement, this case could reveal plenty of intriguing facts about the communications and other discussions that resulted in NFL Network moving so swiftly to take him off the air.

Perhaps, as the evidence eventually may demonstrate, too swiftly.

66 responses to “Marriott tries to dismiss Michael Irvin’s lawsuit, claims he made “harassing and inappropriate comments”

  1. The people responsible for Irvin’s troubles deserve the same penalty Irvin would’ve/has received had he actually done what was/is alleged.

  2. I hope Irvin takes them all to the cleaners if it’s found he was unfairly pulled off the air

  3. Team Michael Irvin and shame on the Marriott for trying to hurt his public persona.

    I find him to be charming and could not see him pushing himself on women.

    Someone saw $$$ signs and I will never stay at Marriott again!

  4. I’ve been a loyal Marriott patron for 15 years. I’m the highest status you can be and I have it for life, however if this settles or goes Michael’s way, I’ll be switching to Hilton. It makes me sick that people try to ruin people’s lives with this stuff. We now live in a world where accusation is guilt. Horrible and scary.

  5. I don’t have a dog in the fight but it appears that this just went from aw shucks man to aw yeah man for Michael Irvin.

  6. Never imagined I’d root for Irvin. But the more Marriott stalls and withholds the video that almost certainly shows nothing, I’m about positive the woman was going for a money grab and nothing at all happened. Go after everyone you can Mr Irvan.

  7. This may have more than a little to do with the fact that Irvin has had numerous run ins with the law in the past. He’s probably seen as not the most credible of people.
    Ask the NFL Network if they’d yank Kurt Warner off the air that quickly.

  8. Then give up the security tapes ! I don’t believe they are even remotely trying to find the truth.

  9. With regard to legal liability, I do this for a living.
    Marriott may have no control over the property. It may just be naming and logo.
    There also may be indemnification provisions or defense provisions in the contract.
    Right now, simply saying “It said Marriott” does not end the analysis.
    Who had control either contractual or otherwise? That’s huge.

    Until we know, we can’t judge it.

  10. Marriott is grasping at straws. The legal ownership claim is laughable and desperate. And it certainly sounds like it’s going to be the employee’s word against his, with the video showing nothing. If the video showed anything, they’d be eager to provide it. Warm-up the checkbooks and public apologies, folks!

  11. Surprised the nfl has not come out with some kind of statement, about all of this. Being they have a deal with the Marriott. Nfl was quick to remove Irvin but yet nothing about the Marriott

  12. I would love to see the discussion between Marriott and the NFL. I’m pretty sure the NFL doesn’t. A settlement is on the way .

  13. Harassing and inappropriate comments for that one Karen in the room. Apparently no one else had similar reactions otherwise they would’ve came forward.

  14. This seems to be similar to a franchiseotfranchisee matter. Unless Irvin can show that Marriott had specific control or instructions, as to how this matter got handled, it might be a longshot for liability. For example, in the famous McDonald’s “ coffee spill case,” it was the McDonald’s corporation, and not the local branch, that required the coffee to be served as hot as it was. That’s why corporate McDonald’s could be found liable.

  15. Michael has witnesses not associated with him that said nothing happened and he was cordial. Now we’re are the witnesses not associated with Marriott that can say the opposite?

  16. It was his bosses that jumped to conclusions and pulled him off the air. They are the one’s culpable here.

  17. Hey Marriot, time to duck, cover and pull out your check book. Things are not going well for you in the Court of Public Opinion. And how long do you think you can hide the evidence? Wow, just wow!

  18. If I was Mike, I’d be more than just a little angry at my employer for pulling me off a job with a knee-jerk reaction to an accusation without any type of investigation. Way to trust and back up your employee NFL Network.

  19. After they pay Michael Irvin every hotel in the world under the Marriott name is gonna add 50 dollars to your bill as a “resort” fee…

  20. Now if they only had some video proof. Then that would make Marriot’s case easier. Yeah, a video of what happened. Something like what the Irvin team has bee asking for. Hmm…

  21. I’m not an Irvin fan, but this one smells fishy. I hope if he’s cleared, he takes them to the cleaners. So tired of the “guilty until proven innocent” social mindset.

  22. With his background if there wasn’t a zero tolerance incident clause in his contract, somebody wasn’t doing their job. He broke that. He probably solicited the young woman in a filthy manner and was too drunk to remember. He probably does remember and is playing stupid. He said he was drinking. Anytime any of us have ever heard anybody say; “I only had a few,” means they were hammered. He lost all that TV money because he was inappropriately drunk after midnight (when nothing good happens,) did something bad and stupid (which usually happens,) remembers and regrets it, and he wants somebody to pay for how stupid he is. Rich guy problems.

  23. Given his history, Michael Irvin is most likely guilty. Proving that in court is a different story.

  24. Or Marriott doesn’t have access to the tape because of its contractual arrangement with the actual owner of the hotel, and there will be a fuller description of that when Marriott files an answer to the complaint in the next 10 days. And probably cross complaints against the NFLN and the hotel operator.

    I just don’t get why people don’t want to wait for the process to play out. I guess rage sells.

  25. “Marriott says it only “leases its brand” to the owner of the property.”

    Oh eff that. It’s your name on the hotel, you collect the revenue, you’re responsible

  26. minime says:
    February 27, 2023 at 7:25 pm
    Let’s see the proof.
    ________________

    Marriott does not have to prove anything. Irvin is bringing the claim, it is his burden of proof.

  27. They are changing their initial claims to now being inappropriate comments because they have no proof of any physical interaction. That actually hurts their chances of winning because they are admitting in a sense that they caused damage to Irvin personally and monetarily with no actual proof of what they accused. That is the very basis of his suit

  28. hsbuck69 says:
    February 27, 2023 at 6:44 pm
    I hope Irvin takes them all to the cleaners if it’s found he was unfairly pulled off the air
    ______________

    Do you really think that missing two television appearances is worth 100 million dollars? The reality is that Irvin was never fired and continues to be employed by the NFL Network to this day. Irvin has not lost one penny because of this.

  29. As the article notes, Irvin’s Complaint was filed 18 days ago. According to the civil procedure rules, discovery does not begin until Marriott files an Answer. Marriott is not required to file an Answer until this initial motion is decided (although it may have filed an Answer along with this motion).

    Folks claiming that Marriott should have to turn over video now simply do not understand how the civil rules work. No party in a civil case is required to provide information before the discovery process begins, absent extraordinary circumstances. No such extraordinary circumstances exist here, therefore neither Marriott nor Irvin are entitled to early discovery.

  30. If he did that as claimed, and as claimed there is evidence…then show us. Folks will jump right on that if you show us.

    On the other hand, whenever someone crows about evidence they have but are making excuses over showing it that lacks credibility.

    So bluff time is over, stop making excuses and show us.

  31. Irvin claims he was with three associates, and at the time of the incident management at Marriott did not want to hear what they had to say. If they claim Irving didn’t engage in anything that would be considered harassing or threatening or physical Irvin is going to get paid.

  32. I don’t see it worth $100MM no matter what. And Marriott can react to something that Irvin did negative in the way they choose, as long as it is legal. Irvin said he was drinking. I’ve seen him out there when he was not drinking, and he has said things that made me cringe.

  33. “however if this settles or goes Michael’s way, I’ll be switching to Hilton”

    Lol no you won’t.

  34. Don’t pay attention to the man behind the curtain!! Believe everything we say, especially since we’re withholding the main evidence! But it happened trust us!

  35. This happened before with Irvin and Erik Williams- where they was falsely accused and it was proven it was a made up story in attempt to get money.

  36. Based on first-hand accounts the woman wanted to meet him, spent all of 30 seconds talking to him and it ended cordially. Doesn’t mean he didn’t say something harassing, as it’s pretty normal for someone not to react negatively in that situation, but whatever it was it was brief. I feel like at most he might have come on to the woman and propositioned her. So if we assume that is the worst and there was no unwanted physical contact, what would the appropriate punishment be?

  37. dirtywater says:
    February 27, 2023 at 6:54 pm
    Team Michael Irvin and shame on the Marriott for trying to hurt his public persona.

    I find him to be charming and could not see him pushing himself on women.

    Someone saw $$$ signs and I will never stay at Marriott again!

    ————

    OK, lets not go that far. His sordid past is well documented. I’m sure that part of the reason the NFL took it so seriously is because of previous accusations and settlements. That doesn’t mean he did something wrong here and it definitely could be a cash grab, but he has been accused of this kind of behavior 3 other times. While he’s come away mostly unscathed, he’s not necessarily a good guy.

  38. Marriott has very good lawyers and iron clad franchise agreements.Irvin isn’t getting a dime from them. See the Erin Andrews lawsuit where she also sued the corporation. The case was dismissed against Marriott. The franchise owner was found liable though.

    Why isn’t Ievin sueing the NFL and NFLN? THEY were the people who suspended him.

  39. stellarperformance says:
    February 27, 2023 at 11:37 pm
    With his background if there wasn’t a zero tolerance incident clause in his contract, somebody wasn’t doing their job. He broke that. He probably solicited the young woman in a filthy manner and was too drunk to remember.
    ———————————

    So the accounts of 3 independent witnesses contradicting Marriott’s claim mean nothing to you?

  40. Marriot lawyers seem to be missing the fact that the point of defamation is accusing someone of doing or saying something that hurts their reputation, public view and or monetarily affects them in some way. It is defamation if you cannot prove what you have said is true. So, if Marriot has no way of proving their accusations and will not give up the employees name and or video, then they admit they without any thought did defame Irvin.

  41. gibson45 says:
    February 28, 2023 at 7:30 am
    As the article notes, Irvin’s Complaint was filed 18 days ago. According to the civil procedure rules, discovery does not begin until Marriott files an Answer. Marriott is not required to file an Answer until this initial motion is decided (although it may have filed an Answer along with this motion).

    Folks claiming that Marriott should have to turn over video now simply do not understand how the civil rules work. No party in a civil case is required to provide information before the discovery process begins, absent extraordinary circumstances. No such extraordinary circumstances exist here, therefore neither Marriott nor Irvin are entitled to early discovery.

    _______________________________________________________________________

    Showing your lack of knowledge again. Nothing matters other than the Federal judge ordered them to give up the names and video. Simple. I am sure he knows more than you. He will turn down their dismissal as well. You are also missing how defamation claims work. You cannot make claims about someone with causes them damage without being able to prove they are true. Quote of legal definition.

    “Defamation of character occurs when someone makes a false statement against you, which they publish or state as fact, causing harm to your personal and professional reputation and other damages, such as emotional distress and financial loss.”

  42. lawrence stacy says:
    February 28, 2023 at 10:51 am
    gibson45 says:
    February 28, 2023 at 7:30 am
    As the article notes, Irvin’s Complaint was filed 18 days ago. According to the civil procedure rules, discovery does not begin until Marriott files an Answer. Marriott is not required to file an Answer until this initial motion is decided (although it may have filed an Answer along with this motion).

    Folks claiming that Marriott should have to turn over video now simply do not understand how the civil rules work. No party in a civil case is required to provide information before the discovery process begins, absent extraordinary circumstances. No such extraordinary circumstances exist here, therefore neither Marriott nor Irvin are entitled to early discovery.

    _______________________________________________________________________

    Showing your lack of knowledge again. Nothing matters other than the Federal judge ordered them to give up the names and video. Simple. I am sure he knows more than you. He will turn down their dismissal as well. You are also missing how defamation claims work. You cannot make claims about someone with causes them damage without being able to prove they are true. Quote of legal definition.

    “Defamation of character occurs when someone makes a false statement against you, which they publish or state as fact, causing harm to your personal and professional reputation and other damages, such as emotional distress and financial loss.”
    _____________

    The Federal Judge has not ordered that video be turned over. Instead, he ordered that Marriott had a certain amount of time to file a response to Irvin’s motion for the video to be provided. Big difference.

  43. lawrence stacy says:
    February 28, 2023 at 10:51 am
    gibson45 says:
    February 28, 2023 at 7:30 am
    As the article notes, Irvin’s Complaint was filed 18 days ago. According to the civil procedure rules, discovery does not begin until Marriott files an Answer. Marriott is not required to file an Answer until this initial motion is decided (although it may have filed an Answer along with this motion).

    Folks claiming that Marriott should have to turn over video now simply do not understand how the civil rules work. No party in a civil case is required to provide information before the discovery process begins, absent extraordinary circumstances. No such extraordinary circumstances exist here, therefore neither Marriott nor Irvin are entitled to early discovery.

    _______________________________________________________________________

    Showing your lack of knowledge again. Nothing matters other than the Federal judge ordered them to give up the names and video. Simple. I am sure he knows more than you. He will turn down their dismissal as well. You are also missing how defamation claims work. You cannot make claims about someone with causes them damage without being able to prove they are true. Quote of legal definition.

    “Defamation of character occurs when someone makes a false statement against you, which they publish or state as fact, causing harm to your personal and professional reputation and other damages, such as emotional distress and financial loss.”
    ______________

    The definition of defamation is irrelevant to who has the burden of proof in a civil case. Irvin is the Plaintiff, therefore it is his burden to show that Marriott’s report was false. Furthermore, since Irvin is a public figure he must prove under the Sullivan v. New York Times standard that Marriott had actual knowledge that the report was false at time it was made. Only after Irvin proves that does the burden of proof shift to Marriott.

  44. lawrence stacy says:
    February 28, 2023 at 7:14 am
    They are changing their initial claims to now being inappropriate comments because they have no proof of any physical interaction. That actually hurts their chances of winning because they are admitting in a sense that they caused damage to Irvin personally and monetarily with no actual proof of what they accused. That is the very basis of his suit
    _______________

    Incorrect. No one knows what the initial report was. That information has never been made public. Moreover, sexual harassment exists in verbal as well as physical form. Likewise, Marriott has not accused Irvin of anything. Marriott’s franchisee simply passed along the report of its employee. And again, Irvin has no monetary damages. He was not fired and continues to work for the NFL Network.

  45. gibson45 says:
    February 28, 2023 at 7:30 am
    As the article notes, Irvin’s Complaint was filed 18 days ago. According to the civil procedure rules, discovery does not begin until Marriott files an Answer. Marriott is not required to file an Answer until this initial motion is decided (although it may have filed an Answer along with this motion).

    Folks claiming that Marriott should have to turn over video now simply do not understand how the civil rules work. No party in a civil case is required to provide information before the discovery process begins, absent extraordinary circumstances. No such extraordinary circumstances exist here, therefore neither Marriott nor Irvin are entitled to early discovery

    ———————————

    I think everyone knows where the legal requirement lies. What folks are telling you is that since Marriot is choosing to push their claim in the public that they have evidence that backs the claim against Irvin they are also pushing in order to bolster that claim, they should produce that evidence. If they really have it. Otherwise they should not be out in public saying that. They might not be legally required to, but they really should. And if later, when the legal requirement does kick in. It turns out they had nothing and knew it as they were sayimg that publicly, then that just helps Irvin get paid.

  46. gibson45 says:
    February 28, 2023 at 2:22 pm
    lawrence stacy says:
    February 28, 2023 at 7:14 am
    They are changing their initial claims to now being inappropriate comments because they have no proof of any physical interaction. That actually hurts their chances of winning because they are admitting in a sense that they caused damage to Irvin personally and monetarily with no actual proof of what they accused. That is the very basis of his suit
    _______________

    Incorrect. No one knows what the initial report was. That information has never been made public. Moreover, sexual harassment exists in verbal as well as physical form. Likewise, Marriott has not accused Irvin of anything. Marriott’s franchisee simply passed along the report of its employee. And again, Irvin has no monetary damages. He was not fired and continues to work for the NFL Network.

    ——————————

    Marriot has said publicly that they have a video that proves he is guilty of what they claimed. But has also said they cannot share it for various reasons. They have been resisting providing this video, and then as the conversation continued they altered their claim of what the video showed. Originally it was supposed to reveal contact, now they are saying it was only words, something the video of course cant prove or disprove. The story change was indeed a bad look on Marriot’s side of the story, and Irvin’s lawyers Im sure are going to stick with what was originally claimed the video showed and how that was false. If Marriot all of a sudden does produce such a video then this is all over and Irvin is cooked as he should be in such case. But since they did claim to have something it can be demanded in the discovery, so they will have to produce it or admit there wasn’t such a video at the time they were claiming there was.

  47. Football says:
    February 28, 2023 at 3:05 pm
    gibson45 says:
    February 28, 2023 at 2:22 pm
    lawrence stacy says:
    February 28, 2023 at 7:14 am
    They are changing their initial claims to now being inappropriate comments because they have no proof of any physical interaction. That actually hurts their chances of winning because they are admitting in a sense that they caused damage to Irvin personally and monetarily with no actual proof of what they accused. That is the very basis of his suit
    _______________

    Incorrect. No one knows what the initial report was. That information has never been made public. Moreover, sexual harassment exists in verbal as well as physical form. Likewise, Marriott has not accused Irvin of anything. Marriott’s franchisee simply passed along the report of its employee. And again, Irvin has no monetary damages. He was not fired and continues to work for the NFL Network.

    ——————————

    Marriot has said publicly that they have a video that proves he is guilty of what they claimed.
    __________________

    Absolutely untrue. Marriott has never issued a statement about any video. It has never even claimed that video exists. The only party talking about video is Irvin’s attorney who is merely grandstanding and has no clue if video exists or not.

  48. gibson45 says:
    February 28, 2023 at 6:03 pm
    Football says:
    February 28, 2023 at 3:05 pm
    gibson45 says:
    February 28, 2023 at 2:22 pm
    lawrence stacy says:
    February 28, 2023 at 7:14 am
    They are changing their initial claims to now being inappropriate comments because they have no proof of any physical interaction. That actually hurts their chances of winning because they are admitting in a sense that they caused damage to Irvin personally and monetarily with no actual proof of what they accused. That is the very basis of his suit
    _______________

    Incorrect. No one knows what the initial report was. That information has never been made public. Moreover, sexual harassment exists in verbal as well as physical form. Likewise, Marriott has not accused Irvin of anything. Marriott’s franchisee simply passed along the report of its employee. And again, Irvin has no monetary damages. He was not fired and continues to work for the NFL Network.

    ——————————

    Marriot has said publicly that they have a video that proves he is guilty of what they claimed.
    __________________

    Absolutely untrue. Marriott has never issued a statement about any video. It has never even claimed that video exists. The only party talking about video is Irvin’s attorney who is merely grandstanding and has no clue if video exists or not.

    ———————————-

    Dont know what to say to you pal. You are on here arguing with everyone on here telling the whole world they are all wrong and you are right. That takes a special kind of stubborn that also explains how there is so much you have wrong or just don’t know.

  49. Football says:
    February 28, 2023 at 8:03 pm
    gibson45 says:
    February 28, 2023 at 6:03 pm
    Football says:
    February 28, 2023 at 3:05 pm
    gibson45 says:
    February 28, 2023 at 2:22 pm
    lawrence stacy says:
    February 28, 2023 at 7:14 am
    They are changing their initial claims to now being inappropriate comments because they have no proof of any physical interaction. That actually hurts their chances of winning because they are admitting in a sense that they caused damage to Irvin personally and monetarily with no actual proof of what they accused. That is the very basis of his suit
    _______________

    Incorrect. No one knows what the initial report was. That information has never been made public. Moreover, sexual harassment exists in verbal as well as physical form. Likewise, Marriott has not accused Irvin of anything. Marriott’s franchisee simply passed along the report of its employee. And again, Irvin has no monetary damages. He was not fired and continues to work for the NFL Network.

    ——————————

    Marriot has said publicly that they have a video that proves he is guilty of what they claimed.
    __________________

    Absolutely untrue. Marriott has never issued a statement about any video. It has never even claimed that video exists. The only party talking about video is Irvin’s attorney who is merely grandstanding and has no clue if video exists or not.

    ———————————-

    Dont know what to say to you pal. You are on here arguing with everyone on here telling the whole world they are all wrong and you are right. That takes a special kind of stubborn that also explains how there is so much you have wrong or just don’t know.
    _____________

    How about giving us a citation to any report of Marriott claiming that video exists.

  50. “..Marriott does not have to prove anything. Irvin is bringing the claim, it is his burden of proof…”

    How do you prove you didn’t do something?

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.