Marshall v. Goodyear Tire_Rubber Co by aiowmnyv

VIEWS: 1,718 PAGES: 2

									Humble Oil & Refining v. Harang, 262 F. Supp. 39, 1966 Issue Reasoning
The necessity of an injunction must be demonstrated It is apparent that П may be irreparably injured if documents necessary to prove its claim are destroyed. Rule 37 Civ Pro: No penalty if Δ should destroy the records sought before an order for their production can be obtained. П offered no proof that there was an imminent threat of destruction or concealment. Not sufficient to say “Issue it because it won’t hurt the other party.”


An injunction should issue only to prevent irreparable injury. o Not justified merely b/c it, an event might occur. Party seeking an injunction must show: o Potential irreparable injury o Real danger that the acts to be enjoined will occur o There is no other remedy available o Under these circs, the court should exercise its direction to afford the unusual relief of an injunction. Lack of hardship not of itself sufficient for granting an injunction.

An EE of Humble, passed proprietary co. info to Harang who would that info to take leases before Humble could. Humble sought an injunction to prevent the Δs from destroying documents relating to these transactions. o The Δ testified that it had all the records sought and had no intention of destroying them.

Held П argues Δ argues

Denied. No hardship to Δ if an injunction was issued.

Marshall v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 554 F.2d 730, 1977 Issue Reasoning
Hodgson: o There was evidence of discriminatory hiring policy. o All hiring was done centrally by one personnel office. o Co ad sought a “young man” Brennan: o Injunction against ER’s entire operation (60 retail outlets) o There was a companywide policy with regard to the pay differential In here, no evidence of discriminatory companywide policy or practice. o It was the isolated action of one store manager. o o The scope of past violations determines the scope of the remedy against future violations. Court has broad power to restrain acts which are of the same type or class as unlawful acts found to have been committed or whose commission is the future, unless enjoined, may fairly be anticipated from the Δ’s conduct in the past. Any kind of fact about the scope of violation can limit the scope of relief. Court’s geographic JX is no obstacle to a nationwide injunction


Injunctive relief is a drastic remedy, not to be applied as a matter of course. A nationwide or companywide injunction is appropriate only when the facts indicate a company policy or practice. o Existence of a discriminatory hiring policy.

Gov sought to enjoin Goodyear from violating the Age Discrimination act based on one act: the firing of a William Reed by a store manager who believed he could more effectively run the store with “young people around.” (gov also sought to recover Reed’s lost wages)

o o

Held П argues Δ argues

Relief should be limited to the one store. Sufficient proof of multiple violations to warrant a nationwide injuction.

To top