Unsurprisingly, Janel Grant’s complaint against WWE leader Vince McMahon for being negligent, battery, intentional inflicting emotional distress, and violating the national Trafficking Victims Protection Act has become a key issue in the case. McMahon’s prosecutors filed an objection to Grant’s new activity to reach the initial statement contained in McMahon’s request to convince arbitration on Monday. The WWE, nevertheless, filed its unique movement to compel arbitration Tuesday.
Four months ago, Grant sued McMahon, WWE and former head of skill relationships John Laurinaitis. She claims that McMahon sexually trafficked and defecated on her, and that he forced her to engage in sexual acts, some of which she claims were” sadistic.” In a text she received from McMahon, including one where he allegedly said, “i’m the only one who owns U and governs who I want to [expletive deleted ] U,” she is referred to in Grant’s problem.

McMahon, who resigned all opportunities at TKO in the midst of this petition, “vehemently and unequivocally” denies Grant’s says, which his lawyers say are “false claims intended for publicity”. The 78-year-old billionaire claims that he and Grant, 43, were in a sexual relationship that ended in early 2022. He also alleges that Grant sent him” biologically explicit pictures of herself” as well as texts informing him that she was in love with him and that she wanted to give her clothes and presents.
Whether Grant or McMahon—or neither—is telling the truth is not yet ascertainable. The prosecution, which is before Judge Jeffrey Meyer of Connecticut’s federal district court, is rather focused on an arrangement, dated Jan. 28, 2022, negotiated by lawyers for Grant and McMahon. In it, Grant and McMahon agreed to security, a transfer of claims and a contract never to sue. Grant claims that McMahon made the first payment but did not the subsequent ones. He also agreed to pay Grant$ 1 million within 10 days and to make four additional payments of$ 500,000.
Important to the situation is Section X of the deal. It states that “in the event of any debate” concerning the deal, Grant and McMahon agree that the” single and exclusive legal approach” to resolve the dispute is through “binding mediation”. So, Part X clearly covers “any” debate and forbids a jury from deciding disputes brought by Grant or McMahon.
If the prosecutor enforces this speech, which both Grant and McMahon freely signed while advised by prosecutors, Grant’s situation would be dismissed to mediation.
And perhaps never heard from afterwards.
Unlike dispute, where there are officially- available court papers and court hearings are available to the public—and to journalists—arbitration is conducted in secret. Although a party who loses in mediation can ask a federal judge to uphold the mediation decision, judges are required by the law to give a higher degree of respect when reviewing arbitration choices.

Arbitration is highly valued for professional sports leagues and leisure companies because of how closely their fans, followers, and press follow them. That is evident in the complaints brought against the NFL by previous Las Vegas Raiders head coach Jon Gruden and Minnesota Vikings defensive coordinator Brian Flores. Arbitration clauses have severely hampered both educators ‘ cases.
The fact that WWE’s caregiver is TKO Group Holdings, a publicly traded company, is also important. Publicly traded companies tend to value the private interactions of mediation because, in stark contrast, high-profile lawsuits may appear on the Wall Street Journal and The New York Times and have an impact on stock prices.
The challenge presented by Area X was anticipated by Grant’s lawyers. Grant requests a criminal declaration that the deal is unlawful under the Speak Out Act. The Act, which was signed by President Biden in 2022, aims to make sure survivors of sexual harassment and assault may report abuse even if they have written contracts that forbid disclosure. In order to accomplish this, the Act makes prenuptial and nondisparagement legal terms in predispute agreements illegal.
McMahon and WWE insist that Grant is misreading the Act’s relevance. They stress the Act does n’t address arbitration provisions and thus does n’t render them unenforceable. Indeed, the Act does n’t mention the word “arbitration”.
However, Grant contends that because the majority of her contract with McMahon involves nondisparagement and nondisclosure, it should be interpreted as illegal. McMahon says there’s no legitimate aid for that understanding. Because Grant’s attorneys are aware that the arbitration clause is binding, he claims Grant does n’t object.
Related to this discussion is Grant’s require the jury reach what she says are “unsupported assertions” in McMahon’s movement to convince arbitration.
Through his attorneys, McMahon wrote that Grant’s complaint contained” complete falsehoods” when she claimed she had been struggling financially and suffering from grief. Grant discussed “devoting years to around- the- clock caregiving” of her parents, whose home had been foreclosed. McMahon challenged this account. He said Grant’s father passed away two years before she met McMahon and that Grant’s father was living in a senior care home —” not with]Grant ]” —and also widowed. McMahon added that, far from being in a destitute position, Grant lived “in a luxury multimillion dollar building with another man” who was an attorney, “during her entire relationship” with McMahon.
In her motion to strike, Grant argues McMahon’s assertions are “baseless, irrelevant and false” and “designed to harass and intimidate his longtime victim”. Grant claimed that her father “was in in-home hospice care during his final days” and that the attorney she resides with was an “ex-fiancee” who “generously allowed” her to stay while she “rebuilt her life” following the passing of her parents.
In response, McMahon wrote Grant’s arguments are “meritless and the height of hypocrisy”. He said Grant has chosen to “violate” their “explicit agreement” to keep their relationship confidential by commencing the lawsuit. McMahon chastises Grant for “unnecessarily” including “private sexual text messages” he sent without revealing her replies, which he says are “equally and often more aggressive and provocative”. Further, McMahon added that Grant’s reference to her late parents ‘ situation is pertinent because she is contesting the validity of the agreement in part because of her vulnerability when she met McMahon.