WWE Chairman Vince McMahon is being investigated by the company’s board for a $3 million payment to an ex-employee who he allegedly had an affair with.
The Wall Street Journal has reported that Vince McMahon’s own company board is investigating a $3 million payment said to have been made by him to a former employee of the company in return for them signing a non-disclosure agreement.
The employee was hired by the company as a paralegal in 2019 with the report saying an anonymous email was sent to WWE’s board on March 30th, 2022 by a friend of the employee in question which alleged that the employee’s salary was doubled from $100,000 to $200,000 after beginning an intimate relationship with the WWE Chairman.
That email is also said to have mentioned McMahon’s longtime legal counsel Jerry McDevitt as it read “My friend was so scared so she quit after Vince McMahon and lawyer Jerry paid her millions of dollars to shut up.”
Jerry McDevitt told the Journal that regarding payment to the now ex-employee, “WWE did not pay any monies on her departure.” McDevitt also added that the employee had made no claims of harassment against Vince McMahon.
However, directors received a copy of that $3 million agreement on June 12th with the paperwork laying out the terms of the payments. $1 million is said to have been paid upfront while $2 million is then spread over five years.
This is not the only payment being probed after older NDAs also came to light involving allegations of misconduct made by former female WWE employees against both Vince McMahon and WWE’s Head of Talent Relations, John Laurinaitis.
The number of these NDAs is unknown but payments said to be made from McMahon’s personal funds, run into the millions of dollars. The paralegal at the centre of the $3 million claim was moved from the legal department of the company to work as Laurinaitis’ assistant in 2021.
A WWE spokesperson added that Vince McMahon was co-operating fully with the investigation and that any alleged relationship between McMahon and the 41-year-old employee was consensual.