Our hospital in Ca has security. You must get show ID and get a guest pass that says who you are seeing and in what wing. Also if you’re just visiting the cafeteria it says so in large print. I think it is due to the fact that several years ago a woman walked out with a baby that didn’t belong to her.
Yes, leaving with someone else’s baby would definitely call for review of procedures and security! Wow! Not sure the issues are the same as hotel security, but I guess vulnerable customers in each setting.
All of the hospitals I’ve worked at do have protocols in place to prevent a newborn kidnapping. If you’re ever in a hospital and hear the words “CODE PINK,” it means a baby has been stolen.
The general security stuff (having your picture taken!) sounds very regional.
I think that the amount is a lot, and it is likely even if a Jury awarded her that, the judge would drop it down, when we hear about these big cases we often don’t hear what the actual awards are and they often are much less.
As far as Marriott’s guilt in the matter, it was their hotel, and it was their setup that allowed this to happen and while you can argue caveat emptor, or people staying at a hotel have no reasonable expectations that their privacy won’t be breached, but the reality is when you stay at a hotel, there are all kinds of implied warranties in statements of fact as I understand it. When you read those statements saying that security is their priority (which at least the hotels I have stayed in have had), and for the guy to have gotten her room number like that, whether it was inside knowledge or because the house phone displayed the room number (they could argue that was meant only for employees, but why did a non employee have access to it?). The reality with hotels is that people have a reasonable expectation of security and privacy, and the hotel has very little wiggle room, especially if a jury decides this is negligence, that the creep could get her room number that easily, assuming the story about the phone is true.
The other thing I wonder about, is the story of the Marriot rep who apparently at a restaurant with another couple viewed the video in question, and were making disparaging remarks about Erin Andrews, as reported by a server. If I was the CEO of Marriott, I would have that investigated, and said rep would be fired (and I would have suspended that person the moment I heard that story). I don’t know what happened in the settlement talks, but I wonder if Marriott went in there loaded for bear and tried to intimidate her, the attitude of that rep seems to indicate that, that the corporation might have thought they could get away with a low settlement and try and sweep it under the rug, wouldn’t surprise me at all. Marriott from what I read seems to be in total deniability, rather than be embarrassed about this, they seem more like they thought it was no big deal and just wanted to sweep it under the rug.
As far as the harm to Ms. Andrews, being violated like that, having someone stalk you, record you in the nude and then publish it on the internet, has to be pretty downright scary and it had to have caused emotional trauma. Was it worth 75 million? I could argue no, compared to what some people go through, but there also is perhaps the idea here that maybe if they are faced with those kind of numbers, Marriott wouldn’t be so blase about it. When I read about the Marriott rep and what he did in that restaurant, that seems to indicate what the organization feels about that, that it is a joke or some such. Sometimes big organizations need a bit of humbling, the Catholic Church didn’t take the priestly abuse scandal seriously until it started costing them mega bucks, maybe this will do the same thing.
That is incorrect. As I said, I know the lawyer representing Marriott and I can assure you that Marriott takes this case very seriously and would certainly not enter into settlement discussions and conferences with anything like the attitude about which you are speculating. Geez- it’s not like Andrews is a shrinking violet! Marriott knows what they are facing and what horrific damage has been done to her.
Also the Marriott rep was not the one showing the video. His dinner companions started to show it and he asked them to immediately stop. He issued a sworn statement to that effect and the restaurant employee who witnessed the incident seems to have decided to go silent after her initial statement.
This is the sort of stuff that makes me crazy. Any inference that a corporate defendant would not take this seriously is just stupid.
I think she deserves every penny. Barrett unscrewed the peephole on her door and held his cellphone up to the hole and stood in the hallway filming her for 4 1/2 minutes. He also did this to 17 other women at hotels. Erin first sued for 10 million and asked the hotels to make changes. In January 2010 Marriott changed their Brand Standards to require all of their hotels to install interior swing covers over the peepholes. 6 years latter and no covers? Back in 2008 a serial rapist in Springfield, MO removed over 100 peepholes from apartment and hotel doors to pick his victims. Hotels know that a simple cover will protect their guests privacy and they do nothing. Let them pay up now because Erin is reminded of this invasion every time she checks in and sees an unprotected peephole, always wondering if the person she is talking to has viewed the video. If the hotels will not act keep a band-aide over the peephole.
@musicprnt I also heard the story from the server, and I believe what she said. Her “going silent” after her initial statement does not necessarily mean that she was not being truthful. Lots of reasons people go silent when dealing with a large company.
The amount she is asking for is quite extreme, for sure. That said, if it is a wake up call for the company to put in those peephole covers or the more secure elevator access requiring room keys (thats not perfect, but its better than nothing) thats a start. They had that kind of room key required security access in the elevator in the Hampton inn near DS#2’s college ever since we first moved him in-- in 2008!
Yes I was thinking the same thing. All she did was delete her tweets where she explained what went on at the table. She could have been threatened with a lawsuit for libel for all we know. Nicole Branigan is a waitress who happened to have the backbone to say something, but I could easily see her being silenced by a threat of having to defend against a lawsuit. She very well may not have the means to do so.
What possible reason would she have to lie about what she heard Peskind say? Who cares who the video belonged to - although I still think her version of events could be true. Just don’t see what purpose there would be for her to make something like that up. Nothing in it either way for her.
She wasn’t threatened with a lawsuit. That’s ridiculous. She had the facts mixed up and she retreated. It’s really not relevant anyway. There are plenty of hotels- even nice ones, with outside access to rooms and access to rooms that isn’t by elevator. Of the millions of hotel rooms, how many peepholes get reversed or tampered with? I think you are more at risk in a public restroom- like at a gas station.
I’m not saying she shouldn’t recover something from Marriott and the management company. I’m just saying a lot of people are inventing facts and theories that are not at all part of the evidence in the case in their eagerness to stick it to the big company. I defend a large company and I can assure you that every piece of litigation is taken seriously.
@MomofWildChild How can you be certain that the waitress was not threatened by a lawsuit?
I have no “eagerness to stick it to the big company”, I worked for one for many years and was treated extraordinarily well. But this restaurant thing kind of bugs me - something made her delete those tweets. She specifically stated in the tweets what Peskind said. She had no reason to make that up, and in fact reported it to the restaurant manager who then spoke to the table.
HIPAA privacy laws are pretty stringent and penalties for not securing private healthcare info can be steep, if it’s breeches in a big organization. Seems personal privacy in large organizations like hotels should have policies and consequences. Maybe it’s not a perfect analogy but it seems reasonable.
There would be no cause of action and these are reputable law firms that don’t threaten waitresses with lawsuits. She reported what she thought she saw, and it was not quite what actually happened. It’s a non-issue.
I see absolutely no relationship between HIPAA laws and this sort of mistake by a hotel. Not in the same ballpark at all. But, yes, there should be consequences for this lapse in policy and safeguards by the Marriott. Just not to the tune of $75M.
My analogy to HIPAA is that there are requirements of people/organizations that provide a service to provide for a level of privacy to these people, and this a should be true for hotels, motels, etc. When someone or an organization makes a mistake (records are not properly secured and something happens) there are consequences. The amount of the penalty corresponds to the size of the organization. This is a government penalty- not a lawsuit, so the amounts differ. I don’t recall them off the top of my head.
I don’t think the government needs to get involved in regulating hotels in that manner. HIPAA is federal law.
I am not saying that the government should get involved. Am equally disappointed that they stuck their noses into healthcare! Am merely comparing the consequences of a violation of privacy that is reasonably expected by the customer.
Personally, I think federal regulation should be at least investigated . I’m sure that many healthcare organizations felt federal regulation was unnecessary as well.
Federal regulation of private industry is a slippery slope. Don’t want to go there personally. But there are expected safety regulations (food service, elevator safety, fire extinguishers and sprinkler systems, etc.)
@jym626 Healthcare is also a private industry .