Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Walther v. Florida Tile, Inc.

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division

August 28, 2017

JAMES WALTHER, Plaintiff,
v.
FLORIDA TILE, INC., et al., Defendants.

          AMENDED ENTRY AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER (DOC. 7)

          THOMAS M. ROSE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This unlawful termination case under Ohio's whistleblower statute, Ohio Rev. Code § 4113.52, is before the Court on the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 7) filed by Plaintiff James Walther ("Plaintiff"). Plaintiff, a former employee of Defendant Florida Tile, Inc. ("Florida Tile"), alleges that his former supervisor at Florida Tile called Plaintiff's prospective employers and current employer to interfere with his efforts to secure further employment in the tile industry. Plaintiff seeks a temporary restraining order that would prohibit Florida Tile from communicating with his employer or any prospective employers regarding him and this litigation. Florida Tile filed a Memorandum in Opposition (Doc. 9) to the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, in response to which Plaintiff filed a Reply (Doc. 11), and the Court held a telephone conference on August 23, 2017, during which the parties made arguments on the record. This matter is therefore ripe for the Court's review.

         As Plaintiff has not presented evidence showing that he would suffer irreparable harm without the requested injunction, the Court DENIES the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order.

         I. LEGAL STANDARD

         The factors to be weighed before issuing a temporary restraining order are the same as those considered before issuing a preliminary injunction. Workman v. Bredesen, 486 F.3d 896, 904-05 (6th Cir. 2007). When deciding a motion for preliminary injunction, a district court must consider:

(1) Whether the movant would suffer irreparable harm without the injunction;
(2) Whether issuance of the injunction would cause substantial harm to others;
(3) Whether the public interest would be served by the issuance of the injunction; and
(4) Whether the movant has demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on the merits as to each claim.

Overstreet v. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Gov't, 305 F.3d 566, 573 (6th Cir. 2002). While these factors are not prerequisites, but factors to be balanced together, a finding that there is no likelihood of irreparable harm or no likelihood of success on the merits is often fatal. Gonzales v. Natl Bd. of Med. Exam'rs, 225 F.3d 620, 625 (6th Cir. 2000). "The party seeking a preliminary injunction bears a burden of justifying such relief, including showing irreparable harm and likelihood of success." Kentucky v. U.S. ex rel. Hagel, 759 F.3d 588, 600 (6th Cir. 2014), quoting Michigan Catholic Conf. & Catholic Family Servs. v. Burwell, 755 F.3d 372, 382 (6th Cir. 2014).

         II. ANALYSIS

         Plaintiffs Motion for Temporary Restraining Order fails because he has not shown that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm if the requested injunction is not granted. Plaintiff claims that his former supervisor at Florida Tile - a man named Jason Tackett - contacted Plaintiffs current employer on August 16, 2017 and discussed Plaintiffs employment. (Doc. 7-1 at ¶ 4.) Plaintiff also asserts that Tackett previously attempted to contact Plaintiffs prospective employers on at least four occasions. (Id. at ¶ 3.) Plaintiff does not know of any business reason why Tackett would call his current employer and therefore fears that Tackett is defaming him and attempting to sabotage his career. (Id. at ¶¶ 5-6.)

         What is most significant about these assertions is what Plaintiff does not know. Plaintiff does not know what Tackett said to his current employer or what Tackett planned to say to his prospective employers. Plaintiff also does not know what his employer thought of the August 16th discussion with Tackett-assuming Tackett defamed Plaintiff - and whether the employer plans to take any action in response. Thus, there is no evidence that Plaintiff is in any real jeopardy of losing his current job or that he would be unable to secure other employment if he did. These are significant unknowns that make it impossible for Plaintiff to establish that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm without an injunction.

         It is also significant that Plaintiff is currently employed, despite whatever actions Tackett might-or might not-have taken to sabotage Plaintiffs career. As Plaintiff stated during the telephone conference on his motion, what is at issue is Plaintiffs duty to mitigate the damages on his claim for unlawful termination of employment under Ohio's whistleblower statute. Where a harm can be remedied by money damages, however, it is not irreparable. Plaintiff also asserts that the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.