the district court abused its discretion by denying the motion for preliminary injunction failing to apply what's been set out by the ninth circuit at least three times with regard to a situation as ours where the professor hi nicky is being denied his right to pursue his chosen  case in that case a teacher had was diagnosed with aids it was it the school board prevented him from teaching it was his chosen profession injunction to be allowed to continue to teach to find out whether there was well you are applying those cases but what about the sampson case and many other cases that appear to indicate that if a person is temporarily suspended if that's not the type of injury that's considered a reprimand harm well you are respectfully sampson there wasn't a temporary suspension and that was g expectation in our promise of continued employment or in this case professor heinecke he's a tenured professor he's been there for forty years he's got a promise that he can only be says if if you've got a job and it's the joy of your life that something that isn't compensable money doesn't make up for losing the ability to pursue your job or your career and money just doesn't cut it he's not doing this this is but in this case through a lawsuit the professor might be able to get his job back it's not iran or imminent it's not some kind of permanent loss well of course it is he seventy nine years old he loses his job he has to go out into a job market at seventy nine years old being terminated for alleged sexual harassment that didn't do there's no chance what is the current state of the  an internal appeal which is still pending which is still pending but we're concerned that there's no way to really get first of all whatever happens that internal appeal it has no jurisdiction over is age discrimination claims it's breach of contract claims it's damage claims his injunctive or well they could they could reinstate him but  the way internal procedure is that santa clara university even if the faculty dishful board somehow said yes we're going to reinstate you santa clara university can appeal to itself its board of trustees and they well it's it's an appeal from the president's determination that professor hi nicky should have been suspended should be terminated they've suspended him so they've already decided the case he's been precluded from teaching which under chalk on heart is irreparable harm for over six months now and there's a hearing that scheduled  before this faculty judicial board that we've been running around about they won't allow us to call all the witnesses that the but it's that it's a potential hearing  was well that's more like irreparable harm than what we have here how do you how do you ever give someone that remedy the opportunity become a lawyer hear the the professor could be rehired and there was nothing to show that she couldn't become a lawyer she was going to take the test as before she took the test she wanted an accommodation the court the court said that be irreparable harm not to give her the accommodation because she might be precluded from taking the bar it wouldn't be anything to preclude her from taking the bar exam a second or third time but the court felt that it would be irreparable harm if she was precluded from having an accommodation failed the test and that would be damage to her reputation completely contrary to what the sampson case was the harm to the reputation is an irreparable harm the ninth circuit says it is and that was that was followed by arizona here it's not money you say it's reputation the problem with that is i don't know how this is going to fix his reputation so it's not as much as repetition it's it's the loss of the ability to to pursue that he's suspended or terminated everybody in the university always colleagues the whole community that it lives in thinks that there's merit to this it's not going to provide otherwise we're sure this is back to him people are waiting to find out if he really did it especially in today's society i mean what's going on to today and accusations made some by his reputation is teacher has its own you know sort of satisfactions and life affirming nature which is being interfered with and that i mean the woman and samson was a or something else were martin marr our argument is it isn't just reputation is the loss of the opportunity to pursue the joy of your job where you get tremendous satisfaction and joy and pleasure out of participation in their lies a source of mentors personal satisfaction and joy to him but i don't remember seeing any of that in any of the proof submitted to the court it wasn't as repeatedly in his declarations  junction i believe in the first one he did talk about it i think it was a forty paragraph declaration and in the second appeal from the denial of his preliminary injunction he elaborated on that he talked about all the work he does mentoring his students is a very specialized part of the business school it's an m b a for analytics and statistics and they deal with silicon valley companies and part of his job and part of what he does is he got shepherds these students through the program and get some jobs with silicon valley firms and that's a bricklayer where a subject you're talking about i've spo well with regard to balance of harms and there's absolutely no harm to the university he's having he's well he's being that's seems difficult i mean if again given the current atmosphere if a person who's been accused but found guilty of sexual harassment has june there is obviously some harm to the her sitting having him in a classroom now well not if it's not true and i was independent investigator based on a lack of evidence you've got you've got we submitted evidence by the accuser ms janks own e mails fifteen times she requested to meet with him  am i'm not correct that the investigation concluded that he had done this and that determination was based on that myself but that's supposedly true that's ok well we question i buy leave that that's not the real motivation but yes years it's not like he's thirty five in some spring chicken he's seventy nine years old he doesn't have that many years to teach if that's the joy of his life somebody said to me i could you can't be a lawyer anymore for for improper reasons and i enjoy no it limited is judged limited or decisions she didn't think that losing your job or being deprived of the opportunity to teach was irreparable harm and she left it at that and  we believe that it's clear and just to answer your question your honor the balance of harm if it turns out that that he's right he didn't sexually harass ms jang then he's of you please the court will and berg of gordon raise four said to clara university and jane this court should not stop a university from suspending a professor pending administrative review of sexual harassment claims united states supreme court this court and others have all held that economic harm and damage to reputation are not there reparable harm in the context of the joining sampson it seems to me says not go as far as you're saying it was a purely first of all it was she was a temporary employee she had purely a procedural argument she didn't have the kind of reputational interest  that is at stake here and she also didn't have and maybe this is a lead us or something but she does the kind of job she had and didn't seem like the kind of job in which just the inherent  what the court said there was that even if she had strong evidence of all those things that would still fall fall fall far short of what was necessary for an injunction because those are the kind of things that are ex factors common to most just charged with lawyers and that's exactly what happened here now it's also true i guess if he was accused of something that he were guarded and say personal maro attacked and most people would that's number one he wasn't just a fire for being incompetent or fired for some other reason but he was fired because he gets something you know right now we all can see here and you know really bad thing to do when he says he did that that any interest right there now of the differences between this case and this and the three cases of wisconsin most realize is that this case involves suspension in fact a paid suspension suspensions by definition temporary and yes it's later this month there will be was nothing temporary about the denial of access to the bar exam in new york there was nothing temporary about the non teaching get a new job in shock which is going to big distinction between this case and case there are certainly nothing temporary about the denial of driver's licenses large number of injunctions in cases in joining terminations where a group of employees because of a threatened terminations addressed salutary germination there are several different injunctions that i that do that and i don't think that's particularly unusual the notion being once they're terminated they're retaliatory motive has been accomplished and this is how up at least more nuanced then has appeared so far in this case it seems to me and the question is why i mean i would be a lot more comfortable with this if the district judge had a looked at matters at the whole mix of issues dealing with the harms in this case i e to the university to the public and so on and to have taken a look at the merits i mean to truncate the whole in pointis way  e claims for the irreparable harm stigma we've heard loss of the joy debility to pursue one's profession well that's going to be true again in almost every single employment case ok law grounds for an injunction that instead of being exception injunctions would be the rule we see them all the time and the idea that stigma alone ought to be enough can almost never be true and part of the reason for that is because even the fact that an investigation is happening causes a stigma so that if he's saying that well there's stigma so that allows me to enjoy a suspension i suppose and then the next step is well you can even investigate me because that would that would be some kind of stigma and further let's think about this the worse the stigma is because of the stigma is worse in relation to how bad the charge actually are so if stigma alone justified an injunction then the people who were actually guilty of the worst bad acts would be the ones most entitle to an injunction when there's no there's if it's art out of the argument i think for professor here is also his own facts in other words his already the fact that for him to be suspended at this time and not be able to work presents more of a harm him because he may never be able to come back again how does that fit into this that doesn't that make irreparable harm situation than if you had let's say a younger person who was earlier in their career and could come back after the litigation was over there's no guarantee that dr arnie he would ever be able to return to his profession but say no for a couple of reasons one let's compare this to the end year and year the problem about not being able to pursue the profession was that she couldn't ever pursue that profession unless she got the with with stanley another decision by this court where someone tried to get an injunction to get to get actually her job back and the court approved denial of that injunction and she argued all the same thing i really love my job i'm really good at it the kids need me i'm stressed about having to deal with this issue and the court said no you're not required to have them have an injunction that i'd also point out that in shock the only approach and without regard to the merits it all seems to me not to work for him well it does leave us with a less complete picture than we would otherwise have does that mean that the decision that was made is incorrect or the abuse of discretion i can't see it see that it is suit two quarters how many more quarters of the seventy nine you're going to have i don't know there is nothing in his and the evidence as to his life expectancy and of course we all have only a limited amount of time and you said that was going to be an evidentiary hearing is there so i believe that's true them testify they've got no subpoena power no rules of evidence we can't call the witnesses that we want so there's no fair hearing it a minimum which they have this case remanded for an hearing so the judge judge poe would use all the factors look at all the factors for a preliminary injunction and with regard to this attempt to try and distinguish chalk that that whole case was about a reparable harm this man had had aides he had a limited amount of time they shot first and ask questions later they suspended them that was a suspension case and he was moved to a different position he if if santa clara can still fire him if they can prove that he sexually harassed this woman ms jang who's no longer a student there's no but there's not even a complainant but even if they could