Eberra v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc.
2:25-cv-02307
| D. Kan. | Jul 15, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Mark D. Eberra, proceeding pro se, brought claims against various Walmart entities and employees for alleged race discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and the Kansas Act Against Discrimination.
- Plaintiff alleged Walmart employees who previously supported him have stopped communicating due to fear of retaliation, including blacklisting and termination.
- Eberra claimed Walmart promoted and covertly celebrated a manager involved in his alleged termination, thereby deterring other employees from supporting him or opposing discrimination.
- Plaintiff also alleged destruction of records that would support his contribution to Walmart’s performance and claimed he was being blacklisted from other jobs due to Walmart’s actions.
- Plaintiff filed an ex parte emergency motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and preliminary injunction to prevent Walmart from influencing, retaliating against, or disciplining actual or potential witnesses.
- The court ruled only on the TRO, not the preliminary injunction, at this stage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| TRO: Irreparable Harm | Walmart's conduct causes witness chilling, evidence loss, and blacklisting, risking irreparable harm. | No imminent, irreparable harm or concrete link to actions. | TRO denied; Plaintiff failed to show irreparable harm. |
| Witness Intimidation/Chilling | Walmart's retaliation chills or silences supportive witnesses. | No direct threats or harm alleged; legal process can compel testimony. | TRO denied; allegations speculative, not imminent harm. |
| Celebration of Alleged Perpetrators | Walmart's secretive celebration deters complaints, injuring Plaintiff. | Plaintiff lacks standing for others' harm; no ongoing conduct shown. | TRO denied; no concrete harm or imminent injury. |
| Evidence Destruction and Blacklisting | Walmart is destroying evidence and blacklisting Plaintiff with false records. | No evidence of continued destruction or causal link; remedies available at law. | TRO denied; allegations speculative, damages adequate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mrs. Fields Franchising, LLC v. MFGPC, 941 F.3d 1221 (10th Cir. 2019) (lists four-factor standard for TROs and preliminary injunctions)
- Colorado v. EPA, 989 F.3d 874 (10th Cir. 2021) (requiring a clear and unequivocal showing on all TRO/principal injunctive relief factors)
- Heideman v. South Salt Lake City, 348 F.3d 1182 (10th Cir. 2003) (defining irreparable harm for injunctive relief)
- Sampson v. Murray, 415 U.S. 61 (1974) (absence of irreparable injury fatal to preliminary injunctive relief)
- Turner v. Publ. Serv. Co. of Colo., 563 F.3d 1136 (10th Cir. 2009) (spoliation sanctions and remedies for evidence destruction)