Court Opinion

ID: 9465349
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 00:44:02.073344+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:39:08.254328
License: Public Domain

SPRECHER, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent because of my opinion that the district court did not abuse his discretion in granting the preliminary injunction.
Ekanem was transferred to the Community Development Health Program in December, 1974, because his employer thought he was undermining management. About two years later on February 2, 1977, CDHP was phased out and its employees, with the exception of Ekanem, were transferred to other positions. The district court found that the employer maintained a policy and practice of retaining and reassigning employees who were performing satisfactorily when their jobs were phased out. Given these facts, I conclude that the district court exercised proper discretion in determining that Ekanem showed a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits, and that Ekanem’s inability to participate in some professional associations amounted to irreparable injury. Mrs. Marshall’s case is not as strong as Ekanem’s but I would depend upon the district court’s discretion in her case also.
I would affirm the order granting the preliminary injunction.