Tag: janel grant vs. vince mcmahon

Janel Grant is continuing to put herself out in the public more as her lawsuit against Vince McMahon and WWE for alleged sexual assault and trafficking continues, launching an Instagram account Tuesday.

In her bio, she wrote that “I am still surviving, still advocating, still persevering through each day…and I’m still showing up to be part of the solution.”

Grant’s first posts were images of her correspondence with the FBI over the last three years which included pamphlets for those who are victims of crime. She is doing so in support of Raised S.B. 355, which is a bill before the Connecticut General Assembly for the purpose of prohibiting the use of nondisclosure agreements in certain instances in the workplace.

​Her signing of a nondisclosure agreement in January 2022 with McMahon is what his side is arguing should bring her lawsuit to arbitration as the agreement states. On June 10, a judge will rule on the language of the agreement, whether it’s valid, and how things should proceed if that is the case.

She wrote the following (transcription courtesy of Post Wrestling) in her first posts:

“This is the first letter I got from the FBI. I got these letters between May 2023 and December 2025. I never thought I’d get a letter like this, much less years of them.

Ahead of the vote in CT on Raised Bill S.B. 355, I believe it’s important to share this letter in service of the broader conversation. When the lack of NDA policy is the status quo, I believe this letter will help others see and understand the real-life impact of that baseline.

The evolution of doing business led to a destination point where a company’s public announcement of an internal investigation, during the summer of 2022, was followed by the launch of a federal investigation related to “hush money payments” made from 2006 through 2022 (per Wall Street Journal)

If the Feds reached out to interview any former/current employees and reviewed their evidence, what would that reveal about culture, use of power, treatment of people, and the status quo in practice?

As reflected in Wall Street Journal reporting, federal agents executed a search warrant and delivered a subpoena in the summer of 2023 for documents related to any allegation of “rape, sex trafficking, sexual assault, commercial sex transaction, harassment or discrimination against current or former employees” of this company. That reporting also notes that multiple names appeared in a grand jury subpoena in connection with settlement agreements related to allegations of sexual misconduct including mine. The article dated February 2, 2024 speaks for itself.

This is why I received letters like this – and why I continued to receive them up until a few months ago. The status quo in practice is how we arrived here. This is our starting line ahead of the vote on Raised Bill S.B. 355.

As the right people are meeting at the right time ahead of this vote, I hope this helps bring clarity and supports productive, dignified conversations that lead to solutions.“

Friday night saw the latest development in the Janel Grant vs. Vince McMahon lawsuit and one that didn’t go the plaintiff’s way, for now anyway.

Grant was seeking early discovery to support her case for avoiding arbitration in the lawsuit, first filed in January 2024, against McMahon and WWE in which she is claiming McMahon sexually assaulted her and trafficked her. Due to the NDA Grant signed with McMahon that contained a private arbitration clause, his side is claiming that should be followed.

First reported by Brandon Thurston for Post Wrestling, judge Sarah Russell ruled that Grant “had not established ‘good cause’ for obtaining records and depositions before the defendants file their anticipated motions to compel arbitration.” However, Russell stated in her judgment that she could reconsider “limited, reciprocal discovery” once the aforementioned arbitration motions are submitted by McMahon.

Part of the reason for Russell’s ruling was that the court “cannot evaluate from the current record whether discovery from Defendants is required to resolve the applicability of defenses Plaintiff may raise to arbitration. Thus, Plaintiff has not met her burden to show good cause for taking discovery before responding to Defendants’ Motions to Compel Arbitration. Plaintiff may renew her Motion for Leave to Take Discovery in conjunction with filing her response in opposition to Defendants’ Motions to Compel.”

It was the first movement on the case in seven months. To that end, Russell ordered both Grant and McMahon’s legal teams to meet in order to decide on McMahon’s motions to compel arbitration, dates for arguments on that issue, and whether both sides want to be referred to a magistrate judge for a possible settlement.

To this point, neither side has commented on the ruling.