The lawsuit against the Jacksonville Jaguars and their former kicker Brandon McManus over sexual misconduct allegations on a flight to one of their London games is already getting into some contentious back-and-forths in motions filed in June and August.
McManus is accused of sexually “grinding” on and harassing two airline attendants on the Sept. 28, 2023, privately chartered flight, while the team is accused of negligence in ”failing to supervise McManus and failing to create a safe environment for staff serving the team." The women’s attorneys are seeking damages in excess of $1 million “against the defendants for the reprehensible conduct.”
On June 6, McManus’ attorneys filed a motion to dismiss the case due to the accusers’ names being kept concealed.
“It is axiomatic that every pleading must contain the names of all parties,” according to the six-page document from the McLaughlin & Stern law firm. “The rationale for this well-established rule is that lawsuits are public events and the public has a legitimate interest in knowing the facts involved in them; including the identity of the parties. In addition, those defending against unverified and unproven allegations in a complaint would be at a serious disadvantage since they are required to defend themselves publicly while those making their unverified and unproven allegations proceed in anonymity.”
It was also noted that the lead counsel for the women lost a similar motion when he attempted to file anonymous claims in the more high-profile case of NFL quarterback Deshaun Watson in Texas.
All things Jaguars: Latest Jacksonville Jaguars news, schedule, roster, stats, injury updates and more.
Wednesday the attorneys for the women filed their response stating the Jaguars still haven’t responded from their end.
“Without filing an answer, it remains unclear what defenses, if any, the Jaguars will assert,” according to the five-page submission by the Buzbee and Chase Justice law firms. “Additionally, plaintiffs have no insight into the Jaguars’ positions in this litigation because they have not responded to plaintiffs' discovery requests.”
What are the arguments to dismiss the case against Brandon McManus?
Here are excerpts from McManus’ defense team’s motion:
“Plaintiffs’ counsel knew or should have known the relevant Florida procedural rule required them to name their clients in their complaint. Flouting this rule, they chose to conceal their names while engaging in incessant public attacks on McManus. In other words, plaintiffs’ counsel has been openly trying this case in the court of public opinion against McManus; but chose to conceal from the public the names of his own clients, presumably for self-serving reasons.
“In fact,” the motion continues, “plaintiffs’ counsel has repeatedly made media appearances, touting the unproven and meritless allegations in the complaint as supposedly gospel. Moreover, plaintiffs’ counsel has consistently used social media posts to thrust the allegations of this case into public view, imploring the public to reserve judgment about plaintiffs, while deliberately and publicly attacking McManus in a not so thinly veiled effort to convince the public at large to rush to judgment, all before McManus has had an opportunity to defend against plaintiffs’ claims.
“Additionally,” the document continues, “plaintiffs’ counsel has publicly invited and called for other alleged victims to contact him so he can presumably attempt to add additional frivolous allegations against McManus.”
“Since plaintiffs, through their counsel, have litigated this case in the court of public opinion; the public should know their identities as a matter of fairness to McManus. Even where a case is not being tried in the court of public opinion, the public has a strong and legitimate interest in knowing the facts involved in such Florida lawsuits; including one of the most crucial facts: the real names of the parties.”
The “ultimate test for permitting a plaintiff to proceed anonymously is whether the plaintiff has a substantial privacy right which outweighs the customary and constitutionally-embedded presumption of openness in judicial proceedings.”
“Given McManus’ public profile as a highly regarded player in the National Football League, plaintiffs’ counsel has improperly, but not unsurprisingly, chose to try this case in the media; which has caused and continues to cause McManus to suffer damage to his reputation and significant financial damage as a direct result of plaintiffs’ unverified, unproven and anonymous accusations in the complaint (and their counsel’s constant attacks on McManus outside the courtroom)… [It] puts McManus at a serious disadvantage because he must defend himself publicly while plaintiffs continue to make their unverified and unproven accusations in anonymity”
What are the arguments not to dismiss the case against Brandon McManus?
Here are excerpts from the flight attendants’ legal team:
“Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit in May 2024, and to date, the Jacksonville Jaguars have yet to file an answer. However, Jacksonville now seeks to compel the premature depositions of plaintiffs before any written discovery in this case has taken place.”
“Plaintiffs have already disclosed their positions by filing the lawsuit, but it’s unfair for the Jaguars to question them when the Jaguars haven’t disclosed its own positions or defense. This can only be done through filing an answer and responding to discovery. Taking a deposition prior to these things would be trial by ambush.
“Any deposition at this point in the litigation is premature and improper,” their motion continues. “Plaintiffs ask this court to deny the premature compel until foundational discovery has been completed and Jacksonville files an answer.”
“Plaintiffs are not, and should not be, required to present themselves for deposition until at least some written discovery has been conducted. As of today, plaintiffs have served discovery requests upon both defendants in this matter but have yet to receive any responses. Proceeding with depositions without the benefit of any foundational discovery would severely prejudice plaintiffs by forcing them to respond to information and documents for the first time during their depositions.
“Additionally, and equally as important,” the statement continues, “defendant Jacksonville has not even answered this lawsuit. This would mean that plaintiffs would be entering into a deposition in which they have zero knowledge of the deposing party’s position in the case. This further emphasizes the premature nature of the requested depositions. Plaintiffs should not be compelled to sit for depositions before all defendants file an answer and foundational written discovery is exchanged. Otherwise, this would amount to a trial by ambush, which is contrary to the principles of fair and equitable litigation.”
The motion also defends the women’s scheduling and availability, stating the defendant has mischaracterized them and is misleading the court.
“Plaintiffs are employed as flight attendants, a profession with an inherently unpredictable and ever-changing schedule. The date of August 30, 2024, was initially offered as a potential date for an in-person meeting with defendants, not for depositions. Jacksonville confirms as much in its motion. It is of note that the August 30th date was not selected for said meeting, and it was conducted on another date instead.
“It was weeks later that the Jaguars indicated for the first time that it would seek the deposition of plaintiffs before filing an answer or appearing in the lawsuit,” the document continues. “At this time, defense counsel self-servingly volunteered a previously suggested, but unsecured date of August 30th to take plaintiffs’ depositions, even though the 30th was never intended to be used for depositions. Since the 30th was originally provided, this date is no longer available due to newly scheduled obligations of plaintiffs’ counsel and the plaintiffs' own flight schedules.”
“When appropriate, plaintiffs fully intend to cooperate in scheduling their depositions once every named defendant answers the suit and foundational discovery is conducted. Plaintiffs are eager to participate in the deposition process as they wish to have their story heard, but it must be done fairly and in accordance with the procedural timeline. Compelling depositions at this premature stage would unduly burden plaintiffs and allow Jacksonville to ‘hide the ball’ as to its available information and defense.”
What else are the Jaguars accused of doing in the Brandon McManus case?
In a 14-page amended petition filed Aug. 20 on behalf of the flight attendants, the Jaguars are further taken to task about allegations of negligence. Here are excerpts:
"The NFL has a clear rule that players are prohibited from drinking aboard team flights. Most teams in the NFL disregard this rule. Whether it be secret drink carts, or allowing players to bring their own alcohol, the rule is commonly disregarded. When the rule is disregarded, this typically leads to the type of outrageous behavior that gives rise to this case. The rule is in place to protect crew, staff and other passengers. The Jaguars routinelydisregard this important rule by allowing players to bring alcohol on NFL flights by failing to enforce screening policies. The Jaguars also routinely disregard this rule also by allowing passengers to consume alcohol aboard."
"Despite this rule, the Jaguars created two different seating areas — one upstairs and one downstairs. One area was for those wishing to rest and follow the rules. The other area was for those wishing to drink to excess, play cards or dice, and party. In other words, despite having a rule that players cannot drink alcohol, the Jaguars allowed to exist a specific seating area such that that behavior could take place.
"As a result of the Jaguar’s non-enforcement of policy, defendant Brandon McManus drank alcohol to the point that he got drunk, along with others, and ultimately physically assaulted both plaintiffs," the amended petition continues. "The Jaguars created this circ*mstance by failing to enforce existing rules. Moreover, the Jaguars had actual notice (or certainly should have) of the situation as it was occurring in the open before players, player management, and others. Such conduct had occurred before, and indeed was routine. The Jaguars knew it and the rest of the team knew it as well. Shockingly, dozens of people ostensibly watched Mr. McManus assault the plaintiffs during the flight and did nothing to stop it — which allowed it to occur multiple times after the first assault."
What has the Jacksonville Jaguars said about the Brandon McManus lawsuit?
"We're aware of the complaint, and we acknowledge the significance of the claims," the team's statement said after the lawsuit was filed. "As we continue to look into the matter, it bears emphasizing that we insist on an organization built by people who represent our community and game with the highest character and class."
Coach Doug Pederson also said the lawsuit's characterization that the team flight "quickly turned into a party" is not the norm for how the team conducts itself on flights. "A typical flight is not that way ... It's a business trip," he said. "That's how we approach it from an organization standpoint and from a league standpoint. When I read that ... that part was disappointing."
When Pederson was asked about the seating on the flight and whether coaches were in a position to be aware of any issues such as described in the suit, he declined further comment, according to a previous Times-Union story.
In a statement to News4JAX Thursday, the team said, “The Jaguars are committed to maintaining a respectful and professional environment for all individuals. The allegations related to the team plane as claimed are outrageous, false and without merit. Contrary to the assertions by counsel for the plaintiffs, the Jaguars have a clear policy prohibiting alcohol consumption on charted team flights. This policy is strictly enforced."
What is Brandon McManus accused of doing?
Here are some excerpts from the complaint filed in Duval County on May 28:
“McManus is approximately 6’3” tall. Plaintiff Jane Doe I is 5’3” and Plaintiff Jane Doe II is 5’2”. Each time he violated plaintiffs, they were not only physically incapable of avoiding the attacks, but in fear for their safety if they attempted to struggle with a large, drunk, athletic man.”
“On September 28, 2023, plaintiffs staffed a flight to the United Kingdom that was privately booked for the Jaguars. The flight quickly turned into a party as defendant McManus and a number of his teammates disregarded the flight attendants’ personal space, air travel safety and federal law. Defendant McManus himself spent the 8-hour flight roaming the plane, and even entered the crewmember-only galley multiple times. Defendant McManus recruited three flight attendants (not the plaintiffs) to the party, passing out $100 bills to encourage them to drink and dance inappropriately for him. Based on information and belief, the three flight attendants drinking and dancing with defendant McManus no longer work for Atlas Air Worldwide Holdings.”
Gene Frenette: Lawsuit by kicker Josh Lambo against Jaguars a bizarre end to stellar career
“It was almost as if McManus targeted Jane Doe I because it was obvious she wanted no part in the activities. Defendant McManus first cornered Jane Doe … sat next to her and began talking to her. … Despite her obvious discomfort, defendant McManus leaned in to kiss Jane Doe I. She quickly put her hand up to block herself from defendant McManus’s attempted unwanted advances. She firmly told defendant McManus to go away, and he did in fact leave her alone for a short period of time.
“Jane Doe I spent the rest of the flight trying to avoid defendant McManus while still performing her job duties,” the motion continues. “Despite this, defendant McManus sought Jane Doe I out repeatedly. On two separate occasions, defendant McManus grabbed Jane Doe I and ‘grinded’ on her. Each time, she could feel his erect penis through his clothes as he rubbed himself on her. Both incidents were unprovoked, unwanted and reprehensible.
“The first time … she was standing in an aisle and serving the flight’s first meal service to other passengers. Jane Doe I was holding a food tray that required the use of both of her hands, and she could not move suddenly without spilling the contents of the tray. As McManus was grinding against her, Jane Doe I froze and made eye contact with another Jaguars player, who looked ashamed of his teammate’s behavior. McManus eventually stopped and walked away.” The second time with Jane Doe 1 was similar, according to the flight attendant.
“Defendant McManus also targeted Jane Doe II when she was occupied with job duties and unable to move away from his violative conduct. When Jane Doe II was serving the flight’s second meal service, defendant McManus approached her from behind, grabbed her waist, and 'grinded' on her. As was the case with Jane Doe I, Jane Doe II could not move away or push McManus away because she was shuffling down a galley aisle and carrying a full service tray. Like Jane Doe II, she could feel defendant McManus’ erect penis through his clothes as he rubbed himself on her. When Jane Doe II turned around and confronted defendant McManus, he simply smirked and walked away. She was humiliated and embarrassed.
“Each time defendant McManus violated plaintiffs, he waited until they were engaged in a job duty that made evading his attacks difficult,” the complaint continued. “Each time defendant McManus violated plaintiffs, they felt deeply humiliated. The sexual misconduct occurred in front of plaintiffs’ professional peers and in front of high-profile clients. Plaintiffs felt severely anxious, ashamed and terrified that their careers were at risk.”
Did the Jaguars cut Brandon McManus because of the lawsuit?
The team did not re-sign McManus after he struggled toward the end of last season, missing five of his last seven field goal attempts as the Jaguars’ playoff aspirations collapsed.Pederson said the team was unaware of the allegations at the time they decided not to resign him.
Did Brandon McManus get signed by another team?
The 10-year kicker signed a one-year deal with Washington in March for $3.6 million, but the Commanders released him days after the lawsuit became public.
