Jaiyeola v. Apple, Inc
- Edward Davila
- 5:23-cv-03462
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Jaiyeola v. Apple, Inc., Judge Davila denied the second restraining-order request, denied the injunction as moot, vacated a hearing, and denied in part and deferred in part another application.
Ganiyu Ayinla Jaiyeola and Apple, Inc.; the order denied or deferred Jaiyeola’s requests for emergency relief and related procedural extensions, while leaving Apple’s motion to dismiss for a later hearing.
What happened
In Jaiyeola v. Apple, Inc., Ganiyu Ayinla Jaiyeola asked the court to order Apple to return him to work and prohibit further retaliation after Apple notified him that his employment would end. He had previously sought similar emergency relief.
The court found that Jaiyeola had not shown a likely chance of success or likely irreparable harm. It also determined that the preliminary-injunction request had become moot after his employment ended.
Judge Davila denied the second temporary restraining order, denied the earlier application as moot, vacated the scheduled hearing, and denied in part and deferred in part Jaiyeola’s later application. The court denied as moot requests for more pages and more time to respond to Apple’s motion to dismiss, while deferring the request to amend the complaint.
The detailed version
- Jaiyeola v. Apple, Inc · No. 5:23-cv-03462
- Edward Davila
- Aug. 22, 2023
Background
Ganiyu Ayinla Jaiyeola previously sought a temporary restraining order, an emergency court order, to stop Apple from harassing or terminating him. On July 26, 2023, the court denied that request because Jaiyeola had not shown a likely chance of success on the merits or likely irreparable harm. The court converted the request into a motion for a preliminary injunction and scheduled a hearing for August 24, 2023.
Jaiyeola filed a renewed emergency application after receiving notice on August 8, 2023, that Apple would terminate his employment effective August 15, 2023. According to the opinion, during an August 8 meeting, a supervisor told Jaiyeola that the termination was based on performance issues. Apple collected his work devices and identification card, retrieved his personal items, and escorted him from the building. Jaiyeola asked the court to order Apple to return him to work and prohibit further retaliation.
Court’s Analysis
The court applied the requirements for a preliminary injunction: the person seeking relief must show a likely chance of success, likely irreparable harm without an order, a favorable balance of hardships, and that the order would serve the public interest.
The court concluded that Jaiyeola’s renewed application did not provide additional facts supporting discriminatory or retaliatory intent. Although the termination was an adverse employment action, the court found that Jaiyeola’s assertion that he had filed several complaints with Apple’s equal-employment office was insufficient to show a likely chance of success. The court also noted that his long and continuous history of complaints in 2022 could weaken the causal connection between those complaints and the later termination.
The court again found no likely irreparable harm. It stated that lost employment and benefits could be remedied with money damages. It also found that Jaiyeola’s statement about past emotional distress did not show future irreparable injury, and that his claim about a chilling effect on other Apple employees was speculative and unsupported by evidence. The court found that the balance of hardships and public interest did not favor either side.
The court further determined that the preliminary-injunction request had become moot because Apple had terminated Jaiyeola’s employment. The opinion also states that Apple had filed a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), which was scheduled for a later hearing; the court did not decide that motion in this order.
Rulings
The court:
- Denied Jaiyeola’s August 9, 2023, application for a second temporary restraining order. - Denied as moot Jaiyeola’s July 20, 2023, application, which had been converted into a motion for a preliminary injunction. - Vacated the August 24, 2023, hearing. - Denied in part and deferred in part Jaiyeola’s August 17, 2023, ex parte application. The requests for additional pages supporting the preliminary injunction and additional time to respond to Apple’s motion to dismiss were denied as moot. The request for leave to amend the complaint was deferred until the hearing on Apple’s motion to dismiss.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.