Jennifer Smith, a tenured law professor at Florida A&M University, was terminated following an investigation into an altercation with a student and her own complaint regarding a pay disparity with a male colleague. Smith alleged violations of the Equal Pay Act, Title VII, breach of contract, and First Amendment retaliation. She sought a preliminary injunction to be reinstated to her position while her underlying claims proceeded. The district court denied the motion, finding that Smith could not show irreparable harm since she could be made whole with back pay and reinstatement after a full trial, and that reinstating her would harm the public interest given the circumstances of her termination.
The Eleventh Circuit reviewed the denial of the preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion, applying the standard four-factor test. First, regarding irreparable harm, the court held that an injury is only irreparable if it cannot be undone through monetary remedies. Citing Van Arsdel v. Texas A&M University, the court reasoned that because Smith sought reinstatement and back pay, her alleged injury was redressable post-trial. The court rejected Smith's argument that a presumption of irreparable harm attached to her Title VII claims, noting that the operative complaint at the time she filed the motion did not include a Title VII claim. Second, regarding the public interest, the court noted that when suing a government entity, the third and fourth factors merge. The court agreed with the district court that granting the injunction would force students to attend classes taught by a professor terminated for retaliating against a student, which was contrary to public policy and university standards.
The district court's order denying reinstatement stands. Smith remains terminated pending further litigation on the merits of her discrimination and retaliation claims. The decision reinforces that courts are reluctant to order reinstatement via preliminary injunction when the plaintiff can be made whole with monetary damages and when the termination was based on conduct contrary to public policy.