DALLAS — A motion for a protective order filed by Marriott International and denied in a civil case against them filed by former Dallas Cowboys player Michael Irvin details an encounter between Irvin and a female hotel employee.
The incident that spurred the case happened last month at a Marriott hotel in Arizona involving Irvin and the female staffer, which led to Irvin being sent home from Super Bowl coverage.
Irvin has denied the allegations and filed a suit against the hotel chain asking for $100 million in damages.
On Wednesday, Irvin spoke to media at a press conference about how the allegations are not true, but in the motion filed on Friday, the hotel chain accuses Irvin of mischaracterizing the video footage of the incident.
In a detailed account of the incident written in the filing, it states Irvin arrived at the hotel on Feb. 5, and that evening, returned to the hotel after dinner and drinks and appeared to be visibly intoxicated at the hotel bar. Later that evening, the suit states the victim walked toward the bar in the course of her normal duties and was flagged down by Irvin.
The two stepped into the hotel lobby, the motion continues, where Irvin shook her hand and after confirming she worked there, allegedly told the victim she was attractive and reached out to shake her hand and introduced himself.
Irvin then reportedly asked whether the victim watched football, the motion details, to which she responded that she didn't, and Irvin told her "she should look him up on the internet sometime."
The filing adds that Irvin reached out and touched the victim's arm without her consent during this exchange, causing her to step back, "becoming visibly uncomfortable."
Irvin then reportedly asked her whether she knew anything about "having a big Black man inside of [her]," the motion states. The victim reportedly said the comments were inappropriate and that she didn't want to discuss it further. Irvin then reportedly tried to grab her hand again and said he was "sorry if he brought up bad memories" for her.
The victim reportedly pulled her hand away, the motion details, and tried to back away as Irvin continued moving toward her. Two other hotel employees reportedly noticed the victim's look of concern and began moving toward the two. Irvin reportedly then said "security" had noticed him and extended his hand for another handshake, which she returned, "wanting the interaction to end."
Irvin reportedly told her he would come back to find her sometime that week when she was working, the filing added.
As the victim was walking away, the motion details, Irvin reportedly said to another hotel employee, "she bad, she bad" and "I want to hit that," and then slapped himself in the face three times telling himself "keep it together, Mike."
The motion states the victim reported the incident to her manager the next day and "expressed concern that she would have to continue to see Irvin that week."
Following the hotel's interview of the victim, the hotel's director of operations contacted the NFL and advised them of Irvin making "sexually harassing remarks to a female employee."
After the hotel's director of operations reviewed security footage and found it consistent with the victim's report, the document details, he concluded Irvin was a potential safety risk to her and other employees and believed he should leave the premises. But they took no further action at that time pending the NFL's investigation.
The NFL sent its investigator to the hotel on Feb. 6, the document states, who interviewed the victim and reviewed the video and afterward escalated the matter to additional NFL personnel, who soon arrived at the hotel and escorted Irvin out of the hotel.
In Friday's filing, Marriott then accuses Irvin in the motion of initiating "a media circus" and filing the lawsuit against them. The motion adds that Irvin told media he had been drinking that night and couldn't remember the interaction, and that his only physical contact with the victim was a handshake.
The hotel states that, since Irvin had filed suit against them, he continued to publicize the case and mischaracterize the hotel's decision to protect their employees' privacy, including that of the victim, by not publicly releasing the video footage as proof of it exonerating him.
Furthermore, the motion states the hotel began receiving threatening calls, voicemails and in-person inquiries about the footage and the victim's identity after Irvin left the hotel.
"For example, the Hotel received a call from an unknown individual seeking information about its security protocols, a voicemail regarding the Hotel burning down, a phone call threatening a public protest at the Hotel, and other inquiries from third parties at the front desk demanding to see the video footage," the filing reads.
The filing adds that the hotel also received "a battery of threatening and derogatory comments on its Google account and other social media outlets."
Marriott argues in the filing that Irvin mischaracterized the footage in a number of ways during the March 3 press conference, claiming it doesn't show whether he or the victim spoke to the other first, that the victim never acts upset during the footage and doesn't back away from him, that the hotel woke him up in the middle of the night and, without explanation, asked him to leave, and that the hotel is trying to use the hotel to destroy Irvin by not publicly releasing it.
The filing argued a protective order is necessary to protect the privacy and safety of hotel guests and employees visible in the video, and that the order should limit pretrial publicity in the case.
"Irvin’s counsel’s public comments to date appear designed not to inform the public about the status of this case, but to convince the public (including potential jurors) that the evidence definitively shows that Irvin did not engage in the harassment the Victim reported to the Hotel and that his claims against Marriott are therefore meritorious," the filing states. "Thus, it would be extremely prejudicial to permit Irvin and his counsel to continue to taint the potential jury pool through and otherwise prejudice Marriott’s right to a fair trial by continuing the public sideshow he has created."
The motion was denied by the court, and ordered Marriott to produce one copy of the video recordings for Irvin's counsel. All counsel in the case are also barred from making extrajudicial, or not legally authorized, statements regarding evidence in the case and what it does or doesn't show.
WFAA has reached out to the legal teams of both Irvin and Marriott for comment.