Court refuses to freeze employer’s assets pending outcome of discrimination case — Business Management Daily: Free Reports on Human Resources, Employment Law, Office Management, Office Communication, Office Technology and Small Business Tax Business Management Daily

Court refuses to freeze employer’s assets pending outcome of discrimination case

by on
in Discrimination and Harassment,Human Resources

Here’s a happy ending to a case that could have made very bad law for employers.

A federal judge has rejected a former employee’s request for the court to seize an employer’s assets pending the outcome of the case.

Recent case: Shirley Hardin was fired from her job with a health department, where she had worked under a physician she accused of sex and national-origin discrimination.

When the doctor left the country to practice medicine overseas, she asked the court managing her discrimination lawsuit to issue an injunction freezing his assets. She was afraid she might win the case but not collect her damages.

The court rejected the request, reasoning that she could not prove she would be irreparably harmed even if the doctor did hide or spend his assets before she could win the lawsuit and demand payment. (Hardin v. Kateh, et al., No. 3:10-CV-260, WD NC, 2010)

Final note: It would set bad precedent if the court had granted Hardin’s request. Employers effectively would have been taken over by the court system while discrimination cases were pending. Fortunately, the court made clear that injunctions are only appropriate in those rare situations where real harm would result without court intervention. For example, courts hearing a pollution lawsuit can order corporations to stop doing things like discharging chemicals into a river because money would be an inadequate remedy for the potential harm.

{ 8 comments… read them below or add one }

Shirley December 8, 2011 at 10:05 pm

I SEE THAT YOU GAVE SHIRLEY HARDIN’S FIRST AND LAST NAME BUT NOT THE DOCTORS WH IS THIS MAN PEOPLE NEED TO KNOW

Reply

Shirley December 8, 2011 at 9:32 pm

WAY TO GO SIMMONS. BEST OF LUCK.

Reply

crystal December 8, 2011 at 9:32 pm

The judge should have set a precedent. What is the doctors name?
Your example dont make sense. Companies should STOP polluting or causing harm.

Reply

Shaw December 8, 2011 at 9:28 pm

Way to go Simmons good advice. I wish you all the best.

Reply

Shirley December 8, 2011 at 9:21 pm

That is my mom you are talking about, and my friends and i are proud of her. She is brave enough for justice no one else in the county is willing to lose their job to do what is right. My mom come to the high school and teaches us about self esteem, and unity. Anson County is racist, and even my math teachers resigned because they could not take the racism here. i never knew about racism until we moved here to Anson County, and now my friends and I know plenty. My mom says someone has to make a difference. This is a very unhappy ending for the young people in the county.

Reply

SIMMONS December 8, 2011 at 9:20 pm

Non-Lawyer-I have given Ms. Hardin legal advice. The doctor left the country abruptly. As a Per Se litigant she does not have the resource to find hidden assets. I do not see anything happy about DISCRIMINATION.

Reply

DENZEL December 8, 2011 at 9:14 pm

THE PER SEE LITIGATE MADE THE RIGHT MOVE BECAUSE THE ALLEGED DOCTOR LEFT THE COUNTRY ABRUPTLY, AND SHE DID NOT HAVE THE RESOURCES TO HIRE A LAWYER.

Reply

Pamela Cassagnol December 8, 2011 at 9:10 pm

the nerve of you to write anything negative about this plaintiff. she has done free wellness program all over the county. I admire her for standing up for her rights. yea just go ahead and futher mistreat her while the guilty party flees the country after demoting several American workers. Why didn’t you report that she reported the employer to homeland security., and that she has been dealing with this case fo 3 years being a single parent, and still managing to get her MPH, please write about that happy endings.

Reply

Leave a Comment