Sharae Mayes v. Smart and Final, 2:17-cv-01136

Plaintiff Sharae Mayes, a senior assistant store manager with ~15 years at Smart & Final, sued her employer and several supervisors alleging retaliation, racial and sexual harassment, conspiracy, and related claims under federal law.
Mayes alleges she reported supervisors for failing to remove expired/defective products and thereafter was labeled a “snitch,” subjected to racial slurs by a promoted manager (Pogue), and sexually harassed by another employee (Orozco), causing her medical leave.
She alleges Smart & Final refused to pay accrued sick leave, impeded benefits (CIGNA denied disability), and intends to terminate her upon reinstatement.
Mayes moved for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction seeking to prevent retaliation, withholding of wages/benefits, and termination; the case was transferred from the Central District of California.
The employer submitted declarations and documents showing Mayes had no accrued sick leave, was informed about CIGNA disability options, CIGNA denied benefits, and that the employer had no plan to terminate her.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Mayes is likely to suffer irreparable harm absent preliminary relief	Mayes: loss of sick pay caused repossession, utilities off, imminent loss of home, and risk of termination—so injunction required	S&F: losses are speculative or past, Mayes had no accrued sick leave, CIGNA denied disability, and S&F has no plan to terminate	Denied — Mayes failed to show imminent, non‑speculative irreparable harm
Whether plaintiff raised serious questions and balance of hardships tips sharply in her favor (alternative Winter test)	Mayes: ongoing retaliation and health harms justify relief under relaxed test	S&F: submitted evidence rebutting alleged ongoing harms and lack of benefits; harms are monetary or already occurred	Denied — Mayes did not meet the alternative standard because she failed to show irreparable harm
Whether pure economic harms justify injunctive relief	Mayes: economic harms (lost pay, risk of foreclosure) are irreparable	S&F: economic harms are compensable by damages and thus not irreparable	Held that purely economic harms are generally not irreparable and Mayes did not show inadequacy of legal remedies
Whether employer’s factual submissions defeat emergency relief	Mayes: accusations and prior filings support immediate relief	S&F: declarations and leave approval letter show no withholding and no termination intent	Court credited S&F evidence and found Mayes offered no rebuttal evidence; injunction denied

Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (standard for preliminary injunction requires likelihood of success and irreparable harm)
Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2011) (articulates alternative, relaxed test when serious questions exist)
Stuhlbarg Intern. Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832 (9th Cir. 2001) (TRO and preliminary injunction analyses substantially identical)
U.S. Philips Corp. v. KBC Bank N.V., 590 F.3d 1091 (9th Cir. 2010) (purpose of preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo)
Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Brotherhood of Teamsters, 415 U.S. 423 (1974) (purpose of TRO to preserve status quo pending hearing)
Caribbean Marine Servs. Co. v. Baldrige, 844 F.2d 668 (9th Cir. 1988) (irreparable harm must be immediate and not merely speculative)
Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe, 794 F.3d 1039 (9th Cir. 2015) (economic losses generally compensable and not irreparable)
Herb Reed Enters., LLC v. Fla. Entm’t Mgmt., Inc., 736 F.3d 1239 (9th Cir. 2013) (plaintiff must show legal remedies are inadequate for irreparable harm)
Garcia v. Google, Inc., 786 F.3d 733 (9th Cir. 2015) (confirming Winter’s injunction standard in Ninth Circuit)