Brown v. Board of Commissioners Port of New Orleans
Filing
33
ORDER and REASONS denying 20 Motion to Restrain Defendant ; 30 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Judge Helen G. Berrigan on 9/13/11. (mm, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
FREDERICK H. BROWN
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 10‐4564
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS,
PORT OF NEW ORLEANS
SECTION ʺCʺ (3)
ORDER AND REASONS
This matter comes before the Court on the plaintiff’s motion for temporary
restraining order. Having considered the record, the memorandum of counsel for the
plaintiff and the law, the Court has determined that the motion should be denied for the
following reasons.
The plaintiff, Frederick H. Brown (“Brown”) sues his employer, Board of
Commissioners, Port of New Orleans (“Port”) for racial discrimination and retaliation
under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e. Brown seeks an injunction against the Port restraining them
from continuing the plaintiff’s suspension and proceeding with his termination.
Here, because the opposing party has received notice of this motion,“the
procedure that is followed does not differ functionally from that on an application for a
preliminary injunction and the proceeding is not subject to any special requirements.” Id.
The requirements for a preliminary injunction under Rule 65 are mirrored in those
pertaining to a temporary restraining order. A preliminary injunction is available only
where the mover shows: (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a
substantial threat that failure to grant the injunction will result in irreparable injury; (3)
that the threatened injury outweighs any damage that the injunction may cause the
opposing party; and (4) that the injunction will not disserve the public interest. Ridgely
v. Fed. Emergency Mgmt. Agency, 12 F.3d 727, 734 (5th Cir. 2008); Charles Alan Wright,
Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, 11A Federal Practice & Procedure; Civil 2nd §2951
(West).
Brown argues that his refusal to comply with a Port directive that he keep an
office door closed are pretextual and in retaliation for previously filing charges with the
EEOC. He also argues that he is likely to suffer irreparable injury because he is an older
employee and “will suffer irreparable lost earnings,” because the Port is moving toward
termination in state civil service proceedings while this lawsuit is pending and because
his medical condition will be aggravated by the stress of prolonged suspension and
termination. Finally, Brown argues that equities tip in his favor and an injunction will
allow him to “better vindicate his civil rights in a federal forum.” Rec. Doc. 30 at 16.
The Court finds that the plaintiff’s motion fails as to all four factors required for
injunctive relief. Given the history provided by the Board for the ongoing civil service
proceedings, the Court can not find that the plaintiff has a substantial likelihood of
2
success on the merits as to a claim for discrimination or retaliation. In addition, the
damages alleged are monetarily compensable and not irreparable. The plaintiff’s medical
condition and stress may well continue because of the pendency of the federal
proceedings even if an injunction was issued. Finally, consideration of private and
public interests do not weigh in favor of the extraordinary relief sought.
This order is directed only to the appropriateness of a temporary restraining order
and preliminary injunction. The Court does not express any opinion as to the
appropriateness of any other relief sought by the plaintiff.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order and/or
preliminary injunction is DENIED. Rec. Docs. 20, 30.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 13th day of September, 2011.
________________________
HELEN G. BERRIGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?