## Facts

- Dr. Joy Hochstadt, a Ph.D. research scientist, worked for the Worcester Foundation for Experimental Biology.
- She complained internally and to co-workers about alleged sex discrimination in pay, promotion, benefits, and related employment practices, and she filed a charge with the EEOC.
- The Foundation acknowledged that some of her activities constituted opposition to practices she believed unlawful under Title VII.
- The Foundation also documented workplace problems, including misuse of telephones and administrative services, mishandling and delay in a grant renewal effort, and conduct the trial court found to be insubordinate, uncooperative, and disruptive.
- The Foundation decided to terminate her employment, citing performance and disruption; Hochstadt asserted the termination was retaliation for her protected opposition and EEOC activity.
- Before the EEOC completed its investigation, Hochstadt sued in federal court seeking interim injunctive relief to halt the termination and maintain her employment pending EEOC action.
- After a five-day evidentiary hearing, the district court denied a preliminary injunction for failure to show a likelihood of success on the retaliation claim; Hochstadt appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a federal court may grant interim injunctive relief in a Title VII matter before the EEOC completes its investigation and decides whether to sue.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion or clearly erred in finding no sufficient likelihood that Hochstadt would prove retaliatory discharge under Title VII § 704(a).
3. Whether protected opposition activity shields an employee from discipline when the employee’s conduct is found to be substantially disruptive or otherwise inappropriate at work.

## Decision

- The First Circuit affirmed the denial of the preliminary injunction.
- The court assumed, without deciding, that interim injunctive relief could be available before EEOC proceedings conclude.
- Applying deferential review, it held the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding Hochstadt failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits.
- The court accepted the district court’s finding that the termination was supported by legitimate concerns about performance and disruption, rather than retaliation for protected activity.
- The court also upheld the district court’s weighing of equities, noting the burden of compelling continued employment where the employee was found to be seriously disruptive.

## Legal Principles

- A preliminary injunction requires consideration of likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, balance of harms, and the public interest.
- Appellate review of a preliminary-injunction ruling is limited; reversal is warranted only for abuse of discretion or clearly erroneous factfinding.
- Title VII § 704(a) protects employees from retaliation for opposing practices made unlawful by Title VII, but the protection is not absolute.
- Protected opposition does not immunize an employee from discipline for workplace conduct that is disruptive or otherwise exceeds reasonable bounds, even if intertwined with protected activity.
- In retaliation disputes, courts examine whether the employer’s action was motivated by protected activity or by legitimate, nonretaliatory performance and workplace-management reasons.

## Conclusion

The First Circuit upheld denial of interim reinstatement because the district court reasonably found that the employer acted for legitimate performance and disruption-related reasons, and Title VII’s anti-retaliation provision did not bar discipline for conduct exceeding reasonable workplace limits.


Hochstadt v. Worcester Found. for Experimental Biology, 545 F.2d 222 (1st Cir. 1976)