Free Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:07-cv-00052-SLR Document 40 Filed 08/11/2008 Page 1 of 3
IN THE LINITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
AUBREY WESTON, et al., )
Plaintiffs, g
v. g Civ. No. 07-52-SLR
MOUNTAIRE FARMS, INC., et al., g
Defendants. g
O R D E R
At Wilmington this 11th day of August, 2008, having reviewed pIaintiffs’ motion
for a temporary restraining order and defendants’ response thereto;
IT IS ORDERED that said motion (D.I. 32) is denied, for the reasons that follow:
1. Standard of review. When considering an application for a temporary
restraining order, "[t]he [c]ourt must consider whether (1) the movant has shown that
there is a reasonable likelihood that it will succeed on the merits; (2) the movant has
demonstrated that it will suffer irreparable harm absent the relief sought; (3) other
parties will be substantially injured by the relief; and (4) where the public interest |ies."
Tootsie Roll Industries, Inc. v. Sathers, Inc., 666 F. Supp. 655, 658 (D. Del. 1987). "In
order to grant an applicaiton for a temporary restraining order, the [c]ourt must conclude
that each of the four factors weighs in favor of granting temporary injunctive re|ief."
Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc. v. U.S., 918 F. Supp. 813, 820 (D. Del. 1996).
2. Background facts. Plaintiffs have filed the instant lawsuit against

Case 1:07-cv-00052-SLR Document 40 Filed 08/11/2008 Page 2 of 3
defendants, asserting that defendants have failed to pay plaintiffs the overtime
compensation to which they are entitled under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA"),
based on defendants improperly classifying plaintiffs as "exempt" employees. Plaintiffs
claim that defendants’ noncompliance with the FLSA is willful and that defendants’
conduct also violates the Wage Payment and Collection Act, 19 Del. C. §§ 1101 et
seq.. Plaintiffs recently have asserted claims of retaliation, based on the following
allegations:
a. Plaintiffs Weston and Sampson have been relieved of their Crew
Leader responsibilities and reassigned to the poultry processing p|ant;‘
b. Various of the plaintiffs claim they have been intimidated by the
comments of Live Haul IVIanager Bruce West.
3. Analysis. Assuming that plaintiffs could demonstrate a reasonable likelihood
of success on the merits of their claims, nevertheless, the law is clear that they cannot
establish irreparable harm on the facts they assert. In the first instance, a change in
employment status, even termination, does not constitute irreparable harm absent
extraordinary circumstances. g Sampson v. Murray, 415 U.S. 61, 90-92 & n.68
(1974); Moteles v. University of Pennsylvania, 730 F.2d 913, 919 (3d Cir. 1984).
Plaintiffs may argue that reassignment to the plant constitutes extraordinary
circumstances because the reassignments are alleged to have been motivated by
retaliation. However, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has
‘These plaintiffs have not lost any income as a result. Defendants indicate,
however, that at least one more crew likely will be replaced by an independent
contractor, with the same results.
2

Case 1:07-cv-00052-SLR Document 40 Filed 08/11/2008 Page 3 of 3
explained that a claim of retaliation ordinarily is not sufficient, in and of itself, to
constitute irreparable harm. g Marxe v. C.W. Jackson, 833 F.2d 1121, 1126-27 (3d
Cir. 1987). Here, where the reassignments follow defendants’ decision to replace some
of their own chicken catching crews with an independent contractor, there is little fodder
for plaintiffs to exploit in this regard?
4. Conclusion. Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate irreparable harm.
Therefore, their application for injunctive relief is denied without prejudice.
United States gistrict Judge
2The court notes that none of defendants’ employees should be talking to
plaintiffs about the litigation, absent their counsel’s knowledge.
3