BuffaloBill Posted March 8, 2016 Share Posted March 8, 2016 Good for Erin. Half the settlement coming from the corporate defendant so she'll see a good chunk of it. Look what happened to her was atrocious but the payout is ridiculous and way overreaching. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Hindsight Posted March 8, 2016 Share Posted March 8, 2016 I don't think this would completely ruin his life. Just make it harder. Sorry, can't feel sorry for him. It's not like he accidentally did something wrong. He planned to invade her privacy and release it to the world. F him. Pretty much my thoughts. If it was my wife/sister/daughter.... No patience or respect for some dude like that. He basically wanted to profit off her celebrity. What an ass Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted March 8, 2016 Share Posted March 8, 2016 Pretty much my thoughts. If it was my wife/sister/daughter.... No patience or respect for some dude like that. He basically wanted to profit off her celebrity. What an ass That's what he was thinking too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gugny Posted March 8, 2016 Share Posted March 8, 2016 That's what he was thinking too. NICE!!!!!!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cugalabanza Posted March 8, 2016 Share Posted March 8, 2016 I'm glad for the big $ amount. Surely it's meant to be punitive to the individual scumbag and the hotel who put her at risk. I think it sends the right message in this culture which has routinely not respected individual privacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dib Posted March 8, 2016 Share Posted March 8, 2016 I guess she was so upset she had her hair in a pony tail and no make-up, unlike her on air persona. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maury Ballstein Posted March 8, 2016 Share Posted March 8, 2016 Nothing to do with this case but I dislike her as an on air personality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cugalabanza Posted March 8, 2016 Share Posted March 8, 2016 I guess she was so upset she had her hair in a pony tail and no make-up, unlike her on air persona. What's your point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted March 8, 2016 Share Posted March 8, 2016 What's the stalker do ? He have a 260.00 savings balance ? His spank bank overfloweth. Perhaps he can make a withdrawal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Turk Posted March 8, 2016 Share Posted March 8, 2016 (edited) Must be a lot of women and "white knights" on that jury...I mean seriously? I'll bet if the same situation happened to me, I'd be laughed out of the courtroom if I tried to sue them. Unrelated to this situation, I find it humorous feminism aims to destroy male testosterone turning them into pansy beta's and at the same time complain there are no "real men" anymore. The cluelessness of it all is laughable. Anyways...I guess it's better than ever to be cute and have boobs these days... Edited March 8, 2016 by matter2003 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dib Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 What's your point? refer to my earlier post about playing the jury like a fiddle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cugalabanza Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 (edited) refer to my earlier post about playing the jury like a fiddleIm sure her lawyers advised that she not glam it up in court. Obviously any lawyer would do the same in any similar case. Also, its not unusual that she would want to look nice when at work on camera, being seen by many thousands of people. I dont agree that any of that would constitute bad faith on her part. Edited March 9, 2016 by Cugalabanza Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 I know that it's probably not THAT big of an issue to a company like Marriott, but while I agree it was a really stupid move by the employee, I have a hard time believing it was a $25M+ stupid move. It's not like the guy helped set up the camera. He connived his way getting the room number and his subsequent booking. She was checked in under an alias. Im sure her lawyers advised that she not glam it up in court. Obviously any lawyer would do the same in any similar case. Also, its not unusual that she would want to look nice when at work on camera, being seen by many thousands of people. I dont agree that any of that would constitute bad faith on her part. She was also prancing around when she was spied on... What does that have do with looking good for work? That is what stung her the worst IMO. How do yoy explain that? I'm glad for the big $ amount. Surely it's meant to be punitive to the individual scumbag and the hotel who put her at risk. I think it sends the right message in this culture which has routinely not respected individual privacy. It also sends the wrong message to hire a woman for their looks... How many others did she beat out for the ESPN job? More qualified but worse looking...??? Come on, it was fine that she got the job because of her looks, but not fine when her looks becomes objectified! She was wronged... And badly wrong, the amount is excessive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 I guess she was so upset she had her hair in a pony tail and no make-up, unlike her on air persona. That move must work. Seems to happen at a lot of trials. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 I guess she was so upset she had her hair in a pony tail and no make-up, unlike her on air persona. That move must work. Seems to happen at a lot of trials. Yeah, it's called "being yourself." Erin Andrews the person isn't always made up for camera. Part of proving her case is showing a jury that she's a "normal" person, even if she has a high profile job. Surely you guys understand this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gugny Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 Yeah, it's called "being yourself." Erin Andrews the person isn't always made up for camera. Part of proving her case is showing a jury that she's a "normal" person, even if she has a high profile job. Surely you guys understand this? Surely, they don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnC Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 (edited) This guy was following her around city to city. She is lucky that she wasn't raped or killed. The hotels have common sense and easy to follow rules about giving out information regarding their customers. They didn't follow it. During the trial at a dinner one of the corporate officials of the hotel with friends was watching some of the Andrew clips on a phone in front of the restaurant customers and staff. They weren't very discreet about their video viewing. This upset some of the customers and staff to the point that the media were alerted about their cavalier attitude toward an issue that not only affected Andrews but was also a serious issue for the company he worked for. I wonder what this fool's attitude would be if his wife, daughters, sisters were on the receiving end of a multi-city stalking and video that will forever be on the internet? I wonder if this fool has an updated resume when he looks for his next job. Edited March 9, 2016 by JohnC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cugalabanza Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 He connived his way getting the room number and his subsequent booking. She was checked in under an alias. She was also prancing around when she was spied on... What does that have do with looking good for work? That is what stung her the worst IMO. How do yoy explain that? It also sends the wrong message to hire a woman for their looks... How many others did she beat out for the ESPN job? More qualified but worse looking...??? Come on, it was fine that she got the job because of her looks, but not fine when her looks becomes objectified! She was wronged... And badly wrong, the amount is excessive. You're all over the place. Being an attractive woman is not a crime. If you have a problem with her credentials as a journalist or with ESPN's hiring practices, then you could make those arguments. But none of this has anything to do with the fact that she was stalked and spied on and abused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 You're all over the place. Being an attractive woman is not a crime. If you have a problem with her credentials as a journalist or with ESPN's hiring practices, then you could make those arguments. But none of this has anything to do with the fact that she was stalked and spied on and abused. Fair enough. But don't think she isn't "abused" every time somebody is watching her do a legit report and views her as "eye candy." The award is excessive, plain and simple. The hotel will just pass the price on to the consumer. Why should we pay for the creep and her vanity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 Fair enough. But don't think she isn't "abused" every time somebody is watching her do a legit report and views her as "eye candy." The award is excessive, plain and simple. The hotel will just pass the price on to the consumer. Why should we pay for the creep and her vanity? It's not excessive, it's based on the law. Look up the legal definition of punitive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts