New McMahon filing, WWE official response both argue for arbitration in Grant case

Late yesterday (May 14), Vince McMahon’s legal team filed a “Statement of Undisputed Material Facts” in support of his previous motion to compel arbitration in the lawsuit pending against him in which former WWE employee Janel Grant alleges McMahon emotionally and sexually abused her over the course of their multi-year relationship.

McMahon’s lawyers continue to argue the matter should be settled in private arbitration per the terms of the “confidential settlement agreement” he & Grant agreed to when their relationship ended in January 2022. Specifically, the latest filing seeks to document negotiations of the confidentiality agreement and the compensation Grant was to receive in exchange for signing it. After taking part in that process, signing the agreement it produced, and accepting the initial payment of $1 million dollars (out of $3 million she was to receive between signing and Feb., 2026), McMahon’s team argues that Grant should be compelled to adhere to the agreement — specifically the provisions requiring arbitration.

The filing also addresses the ongoing issue of a preliminary statement documenting McMahon’s version of events described in Grant’s suit that his lawyers included with his initial response to the case. Grant’s lawyers have moved to strike claiming it was part of McMahon’s attempts to intimidate Grant. Yesterday’s filing states:

Defendant believes the material facts stated below are undisputed and conclusively resolve the forum dispute before the Court. Should the Court find it necessary to conduct a hearing on any issue, Defendant respectfully reserves his right to introduce additional evidence that bears on witness credibility, sophistication, state of mind, and similar issues.

Shortly after McMahon’s latest filing, WWE officially responded to the suit. As they indicated they would, the company joined fellow co-defendant John Laurinaitis in supporting McMahon’s motion to compel arbitration:

WWE disputes Grant’s allegations. But, as a threshold matter, this dispute cannot be heard in court because Grant agreed to arbitrate her claims. WWE therefore moves to compel this action to arbitration.

Simply put, Grant has no claims actionable in this Court because the separation and non-disclosure agreement she signed with McMahon and WWE (the “Agreement”)—the monetary benefits of which she concededly accepted and retained—contains an arbitration provision that unambiguously precludes this Court from adjudicating her claims.

WWE’s filing also argues that Grant committed to arbitration via the confidentiality agreement she agreed to and had a role in crafting, and challenges her lawyers argument that the agreement is nonbinding under the Speak Out Act and Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000:

Grant alleges that the Agreement as a whole is unenforceable under the Speak Out Act. But the Speak Out Act concerns pre-dispute “nondisparagement” and “nondisclosure” clauses. It does not mention or concern arbitration, and thus does not evince any congressional intent to preclude arbitration. Id. A claim brought pursuant to the Speak Out Act therefore is still subject to the claimant’s agreement to arbitrate.

Grant also asserts violations of the TVPA. The TVPA likewise does not mention or refer to arbitration. Nor is there any indication in the TVPA’s legislative history that Congress intended claims brought under it to be non-arbitrable. To the contrary, courts routinely find TVPA claims are subject to arbitration.

A timeline agreed upon by all parties and submitted to the court last week points to a decision on the arbitration matter coming this summer.