Vince McMahon Sex Trafficking Lawsuit Update – McMahon & WWE Files Motion Seeking Arbitration

As noted before, former WWE employee Janel Grant filed a lawsuit this past January against former TKO Executive Chairman Vince McMahon accusing McMahon of committing sex trafficking and sexual abuse towards her during her time in the company. Grant’s lawsuit had been on hold from this past April to early December due to the U.S. Department of Justice’s criminal investigation into McMahon and joined the lawsuit as an “interested party.” The federal investigation stay on Grant’s lawsuit had officially expired on December 11th.

PWInsider’s Mike Johnson reported that attorneys for both McMahon and WWE each filed motions on Monday before the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut requesting for the court to order that the lawsuit be moved to arbitration.

In his filing, McMahon claims that an agreement he and WWE entered into Grant included a clause that “any dispute arising under or out of” that agreement to be arbitrated and Grant filing her lawsuit was “in direct violation of her agreement to arbitrate.”   

McMahon’s motion also claimed that “The Settlement Agreement was drafted when Plaintiff and Defendant McMahon, who had engaged in a consensual, intimate relationship for approximately three years, sought to memorialize the end of that relationship. In January 2022, Plaintiff and Defendant McMahon, each represented by counsel, negotiated and executed the Settlement Agreement, with Defendant McMahon signing on his own behalf and, in his capacity as Chairman, on behalf of WWE. That agreement, which explicitly sought “to avoid any damage caused by public disclosure of private matters known to Grant and McMahon,” included, among other provisions, terms for Plaintiff’s departure from the company where they both worked (WWE), the payment of $3 million to Plaintiff, mutual releases, and a comprehensive agreement to arbitrate any and all disputes.”

In the motion, McMahon confirmed he had paid the initial $1 million but “When Defendant McMahon later learned that Plaintiff, despite her representations and warranties, had breached the Settlement Agreement by wrongfully disclosing both the existence of the Settlement Agreement and their relationship, he exercised his contractual right to withhold further payment otherwise owed under the Settlement Agreement. In response, Plaintiff sought to besmirch him. She intentionally violated the Settlement Agreement’s arbitration provision and filed a false and defamatory public lawsuit.”

McMahon’s motion also stated “As this is a pre-answer motion, Defendant McMahon does not specifically address the legal sufficiency or substantive merits of Plaintiff’s counts asserted against him. For the avoidance of doubt, however, Defendant McMahon vehemently and categorically denies all allegations of Case 3:24-cv-00090-JAM Document 85-1 Filed 12/23/24 Page 8 of 33 3 wrongdoing in the Complaint, including Plaintiff’s outrageous false claims intended for publicity. When the Complaint’s allegations are adjudicated in the proper forum (arbitration), witnesses are called to testify under oath, and all communications between the parties are produced (including those authored by Plaintiff, many of which were intentionally omitted from the Complaint), the allegations and claims will be disproven.2 Meanwhile, for the foregoing reasons and as set forth further below, Defendant McMahon’s Motion to Compel Arbitration should be granted.”

McMahon is also claiming that in signing the agreement, Grant had agreed that she would not bring any additional claims against McMahon not him against her and that would also release Grant from being able to bring any futur complaints against WWE.

McMahon’s motion also stated “The Settlement Agreement also contains a clear severability provision: “In the event that any provision of this Agreement is held to be void or unenforceable by any arbitration panel or court reviewing an arbitration decision, the remaining provisions shall nevertheless be binding provided, however, if any of the confidentiality obligations of this Agreement are ever contended to be unenforceable by Grant, or are found to be unenforceable by any tribunal, Grant agrees that she shall return all monies paid pursuant to this Agreement to McMahon.””

In regards to McMahon’s request for arbitration, the motion claimed “Defendant McMahon will establish in arbitration that each argument Plaintiff raises to invalidate the Settlement Agreement fails under applicable law.”  The Motion also argues that Grant’s claims that she signed the agreement under duress would not stand in Connecticut Court as “courts in Connecticut have repeatedly held that “if the party who executed the contract under duress accepts the benefits flowing from it or remains silent or acquiesces in the contract for any considerable length of time after opportunity is afforded to annul or avoid it,” that party, because of his or her ratification of the contract, cannot assert duress or undue influence as a matter of law.”

Johnson reported that WWE’s motion mostly covers the same ground as McMahon’s motion. WWE’s motion reportedly states that the McMahon-Grant negotiations for their agreement took place over a period of eight days. This motion also mentioned that there were previous attempts by McMahon and John Laurinaitis to move the case to arbitration in April of 2024 and “Grant did not file an opposition to the then-pending Motions to Compel Arbitration by the June 4, 2024 deadline to do so.”

Johnson reported that Grant and her attorney’s have until January 13, 2025 to officially respond to McMahon and WWE’s motions.