WWE responds to Janel Grant lawsuit, supports motion to compel arbitration

Originally published at WWE responds to Janel Grant lawsuit, supports motion to compel arbitration

WWE has responded to the lawsuit filed by Janel Grant and supports Vince McMahon’s motion for the case to be adjudicated in arbitration.

The company’s lead lawyer Daniel Toal filed a 24-page Memorandum of Law to support the motion for arbitration:

WWE disputes Grant’s allegations. But, as a threshold matter, this dispute cannot be heard in court because Grant agreed to arbitrate her claims. WWE therefore moves to compel this action to arbitration.

Simply put, Grant has no claims actionable in this Court because the separation and non-disclosure agreement she signed with McMahon and WWE (the “Agreement”)—the monetary benefits of which she concededly accepted and retained—contains an arbitration provision that unambiguously precludes this Court from adjudicating her claims.

Among its arguments is that Grant’s non-disclosure agreement signed in January 2022, contained the following passage:

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.

WWE argues that Grant negotiated (through legal representation), signed, and accepted the benefits of the NDA and that the agreement “contains a clear and unambiguous arbitration provision.”

They also challenge Grant’s argument that the Speak Out Act and Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 make the NDA nonbinding:

Grant alleges that the Agreement as a whole is unenforceable under the Speak Out Act. But the Speak Out Act concerns pre-dispute “nondisparagement” and “nondisclosure” clauses. It does not mention or concern arbitration, and thus does not evince any congressional intent to preclude arbitration. Id. A claim brought pursuant to the Speak Out Act therefore is still subject to the claimant’s agreement to arbitrate.

Grant also asserts violations of the TVPA. The TVPA likewise does not mention or refer to arbitration. Nor is there any indication in the TVPA’s legislative history that Congress intended claims brought under it to be non-arbitrable. To the contrary, courts routinely find TVPA claims are subject to arbitration.

WWE’s response to the suit came just hours after a filing by Vince McMahon’s legal representation to support their side’s motion to compel arbitration.

No morals these people.

So now WWE is clearly trying to silence Janel Grant too.

But everybody will claim “it’s just a Vince problem!”.

I don’t think anyone has ever claimed that corporate lawyers play nice.

I’d add that company management who stood by and were complicit in a culture of sexual misconduct also weren’t playing nice.

Seriously though, shouldn’t WWE try to figure out what went wrong all these years and get rid of the smell in the company?

2 Likes

Yes they should, I’ve said all along they should be doing an internal investigation.

A company is just a name on paper, it’s individuals who were complicit if anyone was (which I’m sure some were). Like I responded to @Gerrit and you many times, this is why an internal investigation should be done. Fan speculation is ultimately just guess work, and we’ve already seen instances where speculation has been proven to be wrong.