The Texans attempted to end their part in the Deshaun Watson saga Friday, settling 30 lawsuits with women who had made or were planning to make claims against the team related to alleged sexual misconduct by the former Houston quarterback, according to Houston TV station KPRC.
A civil suit against the Texans emerged not long after a lengthy New York Times report detailed the quarterback’s alleged improper behavior during massage therapy sessions. The first woman to file suit against the Texans, one of the four who did not settle with the embattled quarterback, accused the team of turning a blind eye to Watson’s off-field misconduct. The Texans believe the NFL, through recent inquiries, did not uncover wrongdoing on their part, Josina Anderson of USA Today tweets. Though, a thorough investigation of the Texans has not believed to have taken place.
That lawsuit alleged that the Texans, by giving Watson a Houstonian hotel and spa membership and arranging nondisclosure agreements for him, enabled their then-QB’s behavior, Aaron Wilson of ProFootballNetwork.com notes. Texans trainer Roland Ramirez confirmed in a deposition the team arranged for the hotel membership. Watson allegedly used the room for massages. The Times reported he received massages from at least 66 women from fall 2019 to spring 2021.
“We were shocked and deeply saddened when we first learned of the allegations against our then franchise quarterback in March 2021,” Cal, Hannah and Janice McNair, the family the owns the Texans, said in a statement. “Although our organization did not have any knowledge of Deshaun Watson’s alleged misconduct, we have intentionally chosen to resolve this matter amicably. This is not an admission of any wrongdoing, but instead a clear stand against any form of sexual assault and misconduct.”
Rumors of other accusers coming forward against Watson have surfaced this offseason, and while Friday’s count would seem to confirm those, no other lawsuits have been filed against the sixth-year QB. Watson attorney Rusty Hardin said Friday the Texans’ settlements have “no significance” to Watson’s cases, Wilson adds (via Twitter). Watson’s civil cases will run into 2023, with both Hardin and the plaintiffs’ lawyer, Tony Buzbee, agreeing on a moratorium which will last until March 1, 2023.
Watson and the Browns are awaiting disciplinary officer Sue Robinson’s ruling, which may not occur until after next week. The NFL has pushed for a full-season suspension, something the league could ensure upon appeal — unless Robinson rules Watson did not violate the league’s personal conduct policy. That scenario, one in which Watson is eligible to play Week 1, has long been considered unlikely.
If the Texans settled, what is their punishment from the league? Can’t suspend the player and let the team walk right?
Settling isn’t an admission of guilt
It’s just to make a problem go away.
They probably get fined 250,000 to 1 mill and the league donates it to women’s charities or something.
I’d be surprised if anything more than a fine happens.
So what’s the difference between Watson making problem go away and the Texans doing the exact same thing? Clearly, the team was aware enough to pay them off.
1. Watson did the actions. Texans didn’t. Unless you think the entire organization got massages
2. Itd be hard to prove the organization was aware of what Watson was doing but they’d spend next 5+ years in court. Cheaper to make it go away than spend 5+ years paying lawyers for 30 something individual cases. They were paid off cause that was the cheaper option.
They were aware of the actions, hence the payoffs.
My point is if the owners & teams can get away with payoffs but the players can’t; it’s gonna be one heck of a public fight. That the NFL won’t want public, like the Flores case.
Wonder how many players get NDAs from the team? Wonder if the lawyers would hand them over with out a bit of explanation. I doubt he said I need it because I am going to rub my junk on a bunch of masseuse. They had to know something odd was going on.
1. Settling lawsuits isn’t an admission of guilt or acknowledging they were aware. At all.
2. Settling a lawsuit is saying it’s cheaper to make the problem go away than fight a legal battle trying to prove your innocence when there’s nothing to gain from doing such and would cost you more money.
Payoffs are about what is the cheapest option.
3. Again
The team didn’t get the massages. The player did. Hence the difference in circumstances
4. To prove the team was aware you’d need proof such as texts emails voice-mails where someone was told what was going on.
Suspecting they were aware isn’t evidence they were aware. The women’s lawyer saying the team “should have known” is a pretty big reach legally and would be hard to prove.
But again. Settling makes the issue go away immediately. Not take 5 years and 10x the amount of money.
People on this thread are living proof of why the Texans did what they did lmao.
The Texans could fight for years. Come away victorious and you all would still suspect they knew and were aware without any verifiable proof or evidence…..just your own suspicions and what you think not what is fact.
Hence the “nothing to gain” from fighting a legal battle.
It’s like you comprehended nothing I’ve said. Might want to see a Dr if youre having trouble comprehending things man. That’s not a good sign
They’re also about forcing things to stay private and confidential rather than have them played out in an open courtroom.
Settling is by definition an admission of guilt. It is agreeing to pay damages. He went out of his way to say that the team was admitting no wrongdoing because settling is admitting too, and most importantly, paying for damages. If they had truly done nothing wrong, they would counter sue for defamation. If they admitted to and paid damages to make a problem go away, then they still admitted to and paid damages as part of the cost of “making it go away”.
Dude, this is so far from factual information I’m a little worried
Nearly every corporation on the planet would pay off the aggrieved party in a lawsuit no matter the circumstances. Almost none would prefer to fight it out. Why? Because they have to pay their attourneys anyway.
Even if the liable party assumes all legal costs of the injured party, there still is the massive amount of time, effort, and possible poor publicity that comes out of a lawsuit to avoid it. No to mention any lawsuit’s potential to expose private or sensitive information in general.
Most corporations have a legal team on retainer, so fighting a lawsuit is not really an extra expense. When “nearly every corporation on the planet” pays to make a problem go away they are acknowledging that they owe for damages that they caused. You can not say “we accept responsibility and we are paying money, but we accept no responsibility”. If you or I sue Watson and the Texans tomorrow, they are not sending us a check to make us go away. They will fight in court. Lots of companies choose to fight in court as a warning to other would be lawsuits. They would not just pay everyone, regardless of culpability, otherwise we would all quit working and just sue NFL teams for a living. Agreeing to pay damages is agreeing to pay damages, no matter how it is excused away.
Settlements do not accept responsibility for anything. That’s nearly always the language for the documents.
Legal costs means the cost of the OTHER party’s legal team as well. A good deal of the time, an awarded part of a judgement includes a provision for paying associated legal costs for the injured party. Sometimes settlements even include it. In either case, a quick settlement means fewer hours worked, and thus lower legal costs.
Most legal teams charge different rates for trial than out of trial work. A retainer might not cover active work done on a case, especially courtroom time, which is typically much more expensive than normal working hours.
Damages aren’t all the same. A judgement may include extra punitive damages, which are more damning because they are levied due to some negligent act by the responsible party. So, no, a settlement including compensatory damages because they don’t want to fight is not quite the same as a court holding one party actually responsible.
No. A party agreeing to pay damages in a case is not the same as the judge/jury ruling that one party pay the other. The first is one party admitting they have culpability for damages, and the second they are forced to pay even though they refuse to admit culpability. There is no situation where one party says, “we have done nothing wrong and have no culpability, but we are going to pay anyway”. That is absurd, and they would just be sued out of existence.
That’s not what I said. I said that they are different.
And, yes, companies FREQUENTLY pay out settlements without “admitting guilt” in a matter. People even do it in criminal cases-it’s called nollo contendere. They accept a punishment and being legally considered guilty without contesting it. They never admit guilt and may even maintain innocence, but they accept punishment.
I don’t know how else to explain this. It may not make sense logically, but you keep insisting that it does not happen when in fact it certainly does.
I understand the concept of paying out and then saying we admit nothing. I am suggesting it is intellectually dishonest and a load of BS. Innocent companies and individuals don’t “just pay” out frivolous lawsuits. I understand what you are saying. They pay out damages and “officially” state we admit nothing, but here is money for the nothing we did. I know that they “do it all the time” in legal documents. I also know it is a load of horse crap. They did the math, including the PR damage and how likely they are to lose in court, and then they choose to pay for a legitimate grievance. In short, they did the thing they paid for, whether they admit in legal documents and press releases or not, and the evidence is that they paid for it. I guess I’m judging what they do and not what they say in a carefully crafted press release. Actions speak louder than words and all that.
This is all true if they have culpability. They might even overpay to avoid a lengthy court battle and sensitive information coming out in depositions that become public record, but only if they have some culpability. They are not just writing checks to people that they have never met or done business with to avoid court.
Draft picks are the only real way to penalize teams. If the league knows the Texans were aware of his deviant behavior and helped cover it up, they should definitely lose a high pick.
Without question, strip them of those Cleveland picks. That’s my point.
K. Show proof they were aware of what was going on.
Emails
Texts
Phone records
Voicemails
Show something that would justify loss of draft picks and prove the Texans were aware.
Nfl will probably do its own investigation so something should turn up right. If it exists.
Great tweet from Andrew Brant.
Texans: “Although we did not have any knowledge of Deshaun Watson’s alleged misconduct, we have intentionally chosen to resolve this matter amicably.”
Lol.
Translation: “We knew nothing. We just give money away to whoever asks nicely!”
It’s the AMERICAN WAY
Where Get Out Of Jail Free cards aren’t cheap, but are for sale.
How is paying off the victims “a clear stand against any form of sexual assault and misconduct?”
The Texans obviously paid out this money because Watson is a good guy who did nothing wrong, obviously.
Obviously.
Hey I want in on the suit! I massaged him to. Btw I’m a dude….
user name checks out
NFL can’t afford to give a slap on the wrist to the Texans and Watson. They need to set a precedent here. Setting up a player with a hotel room and NDA after he refused the teams therapists should have been a major red flag. And considering team security it’s amazing they didn’t follow or ask to be outside the room on one of these excursions
Giving players hotel rooms is very common. Giving players NDAs is very common. What would be uncommon is for team security to be loitering outside of said hotel room..listening in… I question your logic.
NDAs are common? I highly doubt it especially with no explanation. Why would they open themselves to the liability?
Do you know how many athletes are unfaithful to their spouses?
Players that go to clubs
Players that have affairs
Players that have multiple partners
There’s many reasons players would have NDAs especially for their private life to protect them from frivolous lawsuits from women, or men, looking for a pay day.
bass… Where did you come up with “giving players NDAs is very common”? What’s your source? You don’t know that.
look up, it is common practice for NFL teams to make NDAs available to their players. Their players are targets of litigious individuals who see them as a bank to withdraw funds from. Not only is this a fact, it makes sense. It is a little sad, but that is America. The land of the lawsuit
Mistake
There’s no way the Houston Texans knew what the deviant sexual predator Deshaun Watson was up to. It is not uncommon for a player to ask for a hotel room for privacy. It is not uncommon for players to get massages. Matter of fact pretty much all of them do. It is a key component to recovery after playing and preparing for a brutally physical game.
But now none of that matters. You paid the money. Therefore you are guilty.
correction…theres no way TO PROVE that the Texans knew.. the south park se x addiction show comes to mind here
I think it is obvious some of them knew, but how many people knew? Did the owners know or just he legal/security dept, whose kept it quiet?
I don’t know how you would argue that it’s obvious. I think it’s reasonable to assume that there’s a really good chance someone at the very least suspected something. That there was some smoke with no investigation to see if there was a fire. But you’ll never know. You’ll never be able to prove it. And ultimately this is all DeShaun Watson’s criminal activity. The Texans have nothing to do with this. You can’t reasonably argue that they knew exactly what he was doing and were helping him.
The Texans clearly feel bad about what happened which is why they did what they did. It just disappoints me because they’re now guilty. There’s nothing you can really do to argue either way. Once you pay the money you own the guilt
that is fair.
I personally do not believe there is any way the Texans knew what DeRape was up to.
Payoff=team knew and a court hearing would expose team and team officials.
The Texans were essentially running a prostitution ring – and probably still are for other players. The NFL should take their #1 picks for the next 3 years.