Law&Crime Sidebar - Vince McMahon Strikes Back at Ex-Lover After Sex Assault Lawsuit: ‘She Will Be Exposed’

Episode Date: April 25, 2024

WWE founder Vince McMahon’s legal team filed a response to a salacious lawsuit from former WWE employee Janel Grant. In it, they allege that Grant lied or omitted key facts in her civil filing. The response also claims that Grant violated an ironclad arbitration agreement by taking her claims public. Law&Crime’s Jesse Weber takes a deep dive into the new motion’s bombshell revelations.PLEASE SUPPORT THE SHOW: If you’ve used Incognito mode in Google’s Chrome browser, find out if you have a claim in a few clicks by visiting https://incognitoclaims.com/sidebarHOST:Jesse Weber: https://twitter.com/jessecordweberLAW&CRIME SIDEBAR PRODUCTION:YouTube Management - Bobby SzokeVideo Editing - Michael DeiningerScript Writing & Producing - Savannah WilliamsonGuest Booking - Alyssa Fisher & Diane KayeSocial Media Management - Vanessa BeinSTAY UP-TO-DATE WITH THE LAW&CRIME NETWORK:Watch Law&Crime Network on YouTubeTV: https://bit.ly/3td2e3yWhere To Watch Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3akxLK5Sign Up For Law&Crime's Daily Newsletter: https://bit.ly/LawandCrimeNewsletterRead Fascinating Articles From Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3td2IqoLAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandcrime/Twitter: https://twitter.com/LawCrimeNetworkFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/lawandcrimeTwitch: https://www.twitch.tv/lawandcrimenetworkTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lawandcrimeSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Wondery Plus subscribers can binge all episodes of this Law and Crimes series ad-free right now. Join Wondry Plus in the Wondery app Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Agent Nate Russo returns in Oracle 3, Murder at the Grandview, the latest installment of the gripping Audible Original series. When a reunion at an abandoned island hotel turns deadly, Russo must untangle accident from murder. But beware, something sinister lurks in the grand. views shadows. Joshua Jackson delivers a bone-chilling performance in this supernatural thriller that

will keep you on the edge of your seat. Don't let your fears take hold of you as you dive into this addictive series. Love thrillers with a paranormal twist? The entire Oracle trilogy is available on Audible. Listen now on Audible. Months after an ex-WWE employee filed a bombshell lawsuit against him, Vince McMahon is firing back with allegations of his own. We are breaking down what's in his motion to compel arbitration. Welcome to Sidebar, presented by Law and Crime. I'm Jesse Weber.

Hey, everybody. This is a law and crime legal alert. Google Incognito tracked users' browsing data without their knowledge. And Mass Tort Alliance, one of our legal sponsors, is helping users file for compensation due to Google misleading the privacy

of their incognito browser. So if you've used Google Incognito any time since 2016, You can start your claim in less than 10 questions at incognito claims.com slash sidebar. Back at the beginning of this year, Vince McMahon, the founder of the World Wrestling Federation, which became known as World Wrestling Entertainment, was slapped with a huge 67-page lawsuit, and we covered it a lot here on Sidebar. And in it, a former employee, Janelle Grant, accused him of absolutely horrific behavior.

and we will now tell you what Vince McMahon's responses. But before we do that, here's some background. So Grant was a former staffer in WWE's legal and talent departments. She filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court against W.W.E., Vince McMahon, and a man named John Laurinitis, a retired wrestler and head of the Talent Relations Department for WWE. Now, the suit was filed in Connecticut since that's where WWE's headquarters is. And according to her lawsuit, Grant met McMahon in 2019, when they lived in the same comment, condo building. Grant's attorney say that she had been the full-time caregiver for her parents

who both died and the family home was lost in their bankruptcy. Complaint explained how she was in a really low place. Remember that. We'll get back to that. Well, after being introduced to McMahon, he essentially befriended her, showed her a lot of attention, and allegedly offered Grant a role with WWE, although what the role would be wasn't entirely clear at the time. And that seems to be something that McMahon allegedly took advantage of, because Grant says that she was coerced into a sexual relationship with McMahon in exchange for this new role at WWE. It was called Administrator Coordinator Coordinator in the Legal Department, and while she started there, McMahon transferred her to the Talent Relations Department headed up again by

John Laurenitis. Despite Grant's alleged pleased to end this essentially quid pro quo sexual a relationship, it did not, and according to Grant, it only got worse. She claimed that McMahon shared sexually explicit photos and videos of her with practically everyone, TV production teams, executives, producers, and even a W.W.E. star who wasn't named in the suit. As an example of what she claimed she was subjected to, the lawsuit says that on May 9th, 2020, McMahon defecated on Grant's head during a threesome and commanded her to continue the sexual encounter with the third person referred to as McMahon's friend. She later learned that that third person was McMahon's physical therapist.

Another allegation is that McMahon and Florinitis had sexual contact with her in an office at at WWE headquarters despite begging them to stop, but they each allegedly held her down as the assaults happened, and they allegedly said to her, no means yes. She sued under a number of legal theories, violation of the trafficking. Victim's Protection Act, negligence, battery, intentional, or negligent infliction of emotional distress. And she was also asking for the court to invalidate an NDA that she signed. That in mind.

Through his own attorney, Laurenitis, denied the allegations, which is counsel called, quote, a misguided complaint. In January of 2022, McMahon told Grant that his wife had found out about their sexual relationship. He said her time at WWE was at an end, but insisted she signed a non-disclosure. agreement. The lawsuit claims that multiple high-ranking employees at WWE knew about the sexual relationship, as well as assaults allegedly committed on Grant at the offices, but they did nothing to stop it. So that was back in January. Now, at the time, this lawsuit came out,

he denied the allegations, but he still resigned from WWE's new parent company, TKO Group Holdings. He said he did it out of respect for the WWE universe. In a statement at the time, McMahon said, quote, Ms. Grant's lawsuit is replete with lies. obscene, made-up instances that never occurred and is a vindictive distortion of the truth. I intend to vigorously defend myself against these baseless accusations and look forward to clearing my name.

Well, we finally have an update on that vigorous defense. In response to Grant's civil action, McMahon's team has filed a memorandum of law in support of his motion to compel arbitration. The preliminary statement section of this immediately goes after Grant.

It says, quote, By publicly filing her salacious, false, and defamatory complaint, plaintiff has brazenly and intentionally violated a binding contract to arbitrate. Don't forget that, because that's key. It goes on to say, the complaint's outrageous claims of sexual abuse and coercion are pure fiction, plainly intended to garner publicity, and are flatly contradicted by plaintiff's own contemporaneous statements. contrary to plaintiff's false allegations, plaintiff and defendant engaged in a consensual

relationship during which defendant never coerce plaintiff into doing anything and never mistreated her in any way. In fact, in a love letter, plaintiff wrote to defendant shortly before the parties ended their relationship. Plaintiff described defendant as my best friend, my love, and my everything, praising him for being the, quote, wonderful, tender, vulnerable, heart on your sleeve soul, you really are. It then goes on to state, quote, it is incredulous that plaintiff, a then 42-year-old woman who claims on a resume to have a law degree from Pace University, would have written these words to defend it months after all the events in the complaint of alleged abuse, coercion, and sex trafficking took place. Was that a dig, by the way,

claims to have a law degree from Pace? Now, at the time that this alleged love letter was revealed, Grant's attorney reversed the narrative. Grant's attorney said that her client had been forced into writing it, that the letter was sent via email to McMahon on Christmas Eve of 2019. While McMahon's team says the idea that he coerced her into this is ridiculous, so a spokesperson provided a photo of an alleged text conversation between McMahon and Grant to the New York Post from the 21st just a few days before the email was sent. And in the screenshot, Grant allegedly sent McMahon a photo of her index finger in a bandage,

and she says she just had surgery, and McMahon allegedly responds, Damn it, sorry, baby, with two heart emojis. Grant, then apparently replies, how will I write your letter? I can type and read it or try to write in a couple of days. I'm so sorry if I mess this up, I want you to have a nice letter. That's really interesting, because if I were her lawyer, Grant's lawyer, I could make the argument that that language of that message still could be that she was forced to write him the letter

and didn't want to mess it up for him and wanted him to have a nice letter. And let me just say this for a quick second. Let me take a moment to point this out. Assuming she wasn't coerced into writing the letter, the love letter would definitely be helpful to McMahon's claims that there was no abuse here. However, as we have noted in previous cases,

sometimes victims of sexual assault, they stay in touch with their abusers. They express their love to their abusers. They do not speak out. They do not go to authorities. We have a greater understanding of the psychology of sexual trauma today than we did in the past. And that has been proven vital for both plaintiff's claims in a lawsuit and prosecutors' cases in criminal trials. In other words, just because a letter like this exists doesn't necessarily mean that what Grant says happened didn't happen.

And also remember, this is a civil case. The burden of proof on her part to prove this happened is lower than a criminal trial. But having said that, got to get this. According to Grant's rep, who went unnamed in a New York Post article, Grant had written so many love letters to McMahon at his request that allegedly she started lifting lines about love from articles online. For example, the outlet matched up two sentences, almost word for word, that seemed to be taken from a GQ article about Megan Fox and Machine Gun Kelly from a couple months earlier. Now, the court filing continues, where again, McMahon cast doubt not only on Grant's claims of abuse, but even some basic preliminary information. Listen to this. It says, quote, at the time the parties met in 2019, plaintiff was not dealing with profound grief from her parents' deaths and struggling financially, as described. in her complaint, and she had not been devoting years to around-the-clock caregiving of

her parents. Those statements are complete falsehoods. Based on a foreclosure action against plaintiff and her parents, plaintiff's father passed away on April 18, 2017, two years before plaintiff met defendant, and his marital status was recorded as widowed, confirming plaintiff's mother had passed earlier. Court records further show that contrary to her claim of around-the-clock caregiving. Plaintiff's father lived in a senior care home in Stanford, Connecticut before he passed away, not with her. And the Grant's neighbor would bring plaintiff's mother dinner and help around the house before she passed. Wow. So those are significant pieces of background information about Grant that McMahon's team says are just not true. That's not a good look for Grant's lawsuit

if it contains these types of inaccuracies. But again, this is an allegation put forward by McMahon. But the McMahon response continues. And it also reveals that Grant was not only dating someone else at the time that she met McMahon, but the two were engaged. Quote, in addition to falsehoods about her own background, plaintiff's complaint is further riddle with fabrications and omissions about her relationship with defendant. During the party's consensual relationship, plaintiff and defendant knew that the other was also involved in other romantic relationships. Plaintiff was living in Park Tower, a luxury multi-million dollar building in Stanford, Connecticut with her long-time fiancé attorney Brian Gonsalves. Plaintiff and Gonsalves lived in the same luxury building as defendant

just four floors below when the parties began their affair in 2019. Plaintiff would often visit defendant at his condominium at all hours, including at 2.30 a.m. to pursue their affair and then return back to her condominium with Gonsalves the same night. Now, you might be saying, well, that doesn't mean the abuse didn't happen. listen carefully to this. Quote, it is nonsensical that the disturbing alleged acts

in the complaint including violence, coerced sex, and forcing plaintiff to be defecated on were taking place before plaintiff returned to her lawyer,

fiancee, four floors below without incident. So in other words, if this stuff was happening, Gonzávez, would have seen it. It goes on to state, quote, defendant was never

contacted by Gonzalves, who was on the board of the luxury building, anyone at the building, the police, any friends of the plaintiff, or any lawyer or advocate for plaintiff at any time about the fictitious, extensive, years-long abusive behavior alleged in the complaint.

Now, on the one hand, I can see what they mean here. On the other hand, if Grant was keeping this all a huge secret, as she alleges, then maybe it is plausible that no one ever contacted McMahon. That's reasonable that that didn't happen. Now, this is where things start to get really interesting and the reason for this motion. McMahon's team says, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, you're supposed to talk about any issues, any concerns you have with him in private during arbitration, not filing a lawsuit in district court. That's the whole point of this. The filing states, after three years and having decided to return to their partners in January 2022, plaintiff and defendant agreed to end their consensual affair and separate from each other with plaintiff leaving the company where they worked, World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc.

plaintiff and defendant entered into a binding contract to memorialize that agreement entitled Confidential Settlement Agreement, General Release, and Covenant not to sue. Plaintiff initially wanted to include a term in the contract mandating that defendant could not move out of their shared building, but defendant refused to include that term and did move out. Huh, McMahon can show that. That's a very big win for him. It goes on to state, plaintiff's contention that their contract between defendant and WWE on the one hand and plaintiff on the other is not enforceable is utterly meritless, but that is an issue for the arbitrator.

McMahon writes, in fact, because the parties wish to preserve the confidential and private nature of any disputes under the agreement, they specifically provided in the agreement that disputes would be resolved through arbitration. Plaintiff was represented by a lawyer who negotiated the agreement for her before she executed it. So we have confirmed that the agreement referred to here is what Grant's lawsuit refers to as the NDA. The suit claims that the NDA signed by Ms. Grant, McMahon, and WWE was entered into through

coercive tactics and it is legally unenforceable pursuant to federal statute and common law. Exhibit A attached here too is a true and accurate copy of the NDA. It goes on to say that Ms. Grant was moreover coerced into signing the NDA merely eight days after she first spoke to an attorney, an attorney who McMahon initially approved of and then cautioned Ms. Grant against trusting before she was railroaded into rejecting all of her own attorney's comments. This occurred because of relentless pressure, including implicit and explicit threats by McMahon. So Grant argued that the contract should be invalidated because it violates federal law, preventing contracts that permit sexual assault or harassment, and she also

argued that the agreement was too broad and that it was signed under duress. Well, let's go back to this new motion from McMahon. Quote, when defendant learned that plaintiff, despite her promises, had violated the agreement by wrongfully disclosing both the existence of the agreement and their relationship, he exercised his contractual right to withhold payment otherwise owed under the agreement. In response, plaintiffs sought to harm him. She intentionally violated the enforceable contract with her salacious, false, and defamatory public filing.

However, the FAA and binding United States Supreme Court precedent and plaintiff's own agreement require that if plaintiff wishes to proceed with her fictitious claim, she must do so in arbitration, not in this court, and that this action should be stayed pending arbitration. Stayed means a pause, that the lawsuit would be paused while they go through the arbitration process. By the way, arbitration clauses are written into contracts because arbitration is a preferred method of resolving disputes than go into court. It saves time.

It saves money. You usually see a faster resolution. But McMahon continues in his filing. for the avoidance of doubt, defendant vehemently and categorically denies all allegations of wrongdoing in the complaint, including plaintiff's outrageous claims that defendant coerced a plaintiff into unwanted sexual acts, sexually assaulted, and or battered her, trafficked her, and defecated on her. Those are false statements intended for publicity. The allegations and claims will be disproven and plaintiff will be exposed for the liar she is. Wow. So that is just part of the preliminary statement to kick off the 29-page filing.

I'm not going to go through absolutely everything, but there were several parts that stood out to us that I want to call out. So they dive a little bit into Grant's background, mentioning that she lived in L.A. for a few years to try to pursue a career in acting. She wanted an auction to be featured in the film. Who Wants to be a movie star? And she starred as a receptionist in the movie, the theory of everything. The attorneys claim that just before the relationship ended around January of 2022,

Grant sent him that letter. Then they started negotiating how much she would be paid to keep quiet. According to assertions from this filing, the negotiations went like this. McMahon offered Grant a monetary consideration in the range of $1 million to $1.5 million. Grant countered by saying that wasn't enough because she hadn't made it all the way to vice president, which was her career goal. She negotiated the price to $3 million, but wanted a large lump sum. The filing states, quote, a compromise was ultimately reached such that, as the agreement states, the first $1 million was to be paid upon the execution of the agreement, and the rest was to be paid in four installments.

that payment plan was set to give grant $500,000 in February of each year, 2023 to 2026, and if she did not stick to the confidentiality agreement, McMahon wouldn't have an obligation to pay her anymore and would want the money that he'd already sent return back. The next section of the filing is the agreement's release of claims. It states, quote, the parties mutually agreed to release any claims they may have against one another, specifically plaintiff agreed, among other things, to least defendant of all claims she ever had as a result of or in connection with her employment

relationship with WWE, the termination of that employment relationship, and or any and all matters involved in her relationship with McMahon and or other WWE personnel. Then, in all caps, it says, by signing this agreement, Grant acknowledges that she will have waived any right she may have had to pursue or bring a lawsuit or make any legal claims against McMahon and or WWE and or any of its directors, officers, employees, agents, and representatives. Actually, there were multiple sections in the agreement that said basically that, just using different words or phrases.

They made it very clear that Grant couldn't file a lawsuit like this if she wanted to abide by the agreement. And by the way, she signed the agreement. We saw the signature. Now, you might be saying what exactly was she not supposed to disclose? Well, according to the agreement, any information about McMahon, her relationship with McMahon,

WWE, any employees or independent contractors of WWE. She wasn't even permitted to reveal this agreement even existed. Now, there are two ways to interpret why this confidentiality agreement was even necessary in the first place.

In one hand, you could say, Vince McMahon's a public figure, he's having an affair, he didn't want anybody to know. Celebrities in general are very careful about details of their personal lives coming out and being exposed.

And she also worked at the organization organization. She learned things. She learned information regarding the company. So it's important that she signed this. On the other hand, she is accusing him of some truly horrific and vile stuff. Is it a bit suspicious that she signed this? What exactly did he not want to come out? In the next section, the filing goes into even more detail about the arbitration provision. The agreement also contains a broad arbitration clause, which requires that the parties must first attempt to resolve any dispute arising under or out of this agreement, its construction, interpretation, application, performance, or breach contains an arbitration

clause informally. If that attempt is unsuccessful, the arbitration clause mandates that the sole and exclusive legal method to resolve any and all disputes and or controversies is to commence binding arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act. In a footnote for this section, the attorneys say this. In this lawsuit, Grant is contending that the confidentiality confidentiality provision is unenforceable. Defendant, therefore, reserves the right to at the appropriate time and in the appropriate

forum demand that plaintiff return the monetary compensation of a million dollars, which defendant had already paid plaintiff under the agreement. Motion cites multiple prior rulings and case studies, case law to support the arbitration clause. They also cite state laws saying under Connecticut law when an agreement is reduced to writing and signed by all the parties, the agreement itself is substantial evidence that a meeting of the minds has occurred. That's a big term in contract law. Not only did the parties sign the agreement, they were represented by counsel when the agreement

was formed. Plaintiff also unequivocally represented that she entered into the agreement knowingly and voluntarily. She understood the agreement and its effect, and her lawyer explained the terms of the agreement to her, and they also point out again, indeed, plaintiff negotiated the agreement to her advantage. Grant, as I mentioned, wanted to avoid the agreement based on the Speak Out Act, which is a law that allows victims of sexual assault or sexual harassment to file a lawsuit like this. But according to the filing, McMahon says the Speak Out Act does not prohibit the arbitration of any claims asserted in this case.

Based on the text of the statute, Congress intended to limit the application of the Speak Out Act to only non-disclosure clauses and non-disparagement clauses in pre-dispute agreements. They note similar citations for the TVPA. I mentioned that before the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, because she sued under that theory, that it does void the agreement. For the foregoing reasons, defendant respectively requests that the court grant his motion and compel arbitration of all claims asserted in the complaint and stay the litigation pending arbitration. That is a lot of information to go through.

Yes, but the question is, is there enough there to say that Grant is lying about the abuse? McMahon's attorney seemed to be saying that he didn't do it, and even if he did do it, it wouldn't matter anyway, because she should. She violated the agreement by going public with this lawsuit. So now it's going to be up to the judge to decide whether Grant violated the agreement if it was voided under TVPA or the Speakout Act or common law, whether this needs to all go to arbitration. And we will see what happens. We will, of course, continue to follow any developments in this story.

That's all we have for you here on Sidebar. Everybody, thank you so much for joining us. As always, please subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, wherever you get your podcast. I'm Jesse Weber. Speak to you next time. You can binge all episodes of this long crime series ad free right now on Wondery Plus. Join Wondery Plus in the Wondery app, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify.