Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, REMEDIES, DAMAGES—S.D. Ohio: Raymond James employees granted narrowly tailored TRO against former intern’s cyber harassment, (Jan 22, 2025)

By Kathleen Kapusta, J.D.

The intern purportedly used several fictitious email accounts to spread false and malicious information about the employees.

Although it could not enjoin a former Raymond James summer intern from speaking to or about two former coworkers against whom he had engaged in a cyber-harassment campaign that included accusing them of illegal insider trading, rape, and membership in a neo-Nazi organization, a federal court restricted him from accessing the email accounts he had previously used in the campaign and from creating new email accounts in furtherance of the campaign. Granting in part the employees’ motion for a temporary restraining order, the court also found it likely they would succeed on the merits of their defamation claim against the intern (Raymond James & Associates, Inc. v. Saba, No. 1:25-cv-10 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 17, 2025)).

During his internship in Raymond James’ Atlanta office in the summer of 2024, one of the employees acted as the intern’s mentor. When he was not offered a position with the company at the conclusion of his internship, he began a cyber-harassment campaign against the mentor and another employee by creating several fictious email accounts and sending emails to their coworkers and individuals outside of the company, including other members of the investment banking community.

Cyber harassment. Throughout the month of December, the former intern sent emails accusing the employees of illegal insider trading and rape. He also sent an email to his mentor’s girlfriend at her place of employment accusing her of illegal insider trading. Some emails implicated the two employees in inappropriate romantic relationships, implied they were engaged in an extramarital affair, and included sexually explicit images.

In late December, the intern sent an email from an account impersonating a banker working from Raymond James inviting numerous outside recipients to join a fictious neo-Nazi banking club. Recipients were directed to respond to the mentor’s Raymond James email address.

Cease and desist. The company’s Cyber Threat Center, which had been working to discover the perpetrator, finally determined, through examination of the metadata on a PDF attached to the email, that the intern was the author. The Cyber Threat Center was then able to connect the other emails to the intern. In early January, Raymond James’ in-house counsel sent a cease-and-desist letter to the intern and all email attacks stopped after that.

Due to the barrage of emails and resulting security threats, Raymond James closed its Atlanta office for two days in early January. The employees subsequently sued the intern, asserting state-law claims for defamation, false light, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and telecommunications harassment. They also moved for a temporary restraining order.

Ex parte proceedings. As a preliminary matter, the court noted that although the employees attempted multiple times and with multiple methods to serve the intern, including through his father, an attorney who would not accept service on his son’s behalf, the intern was seemingly unable to be found. As a result, the court proceeded ex parte on the TRO motion.

First Amendment implications. The court next observed that a portion of the employees’ requested relief directly implicated the First Amendment. Specifically, they sought to enjoin the intern from “[s]ending... any emails or other communications” about them, other Raymond James employees, or their significant others, and from publishing defamatory material about them, which, said the court, amounted to a classic example of a prior restraint. Further, the court stated, in considering a TRO that involves a “prior restraint on pure speech, the hurdle is substantially higher: publication must threaten an interest more fundamental than the First Amendment itself.”

Explaining that it could not grant the employees’ broad request to enjoin the intern’s speech because it would amount to a prior restraint before a final adjudication on the merits, the court instead restricted the intern from accessing the email accounts previously used in the cyber-harassment campaign, as well from creating new email accounts in furtherance of the campaign. “In this way, the Court enjoins Defendant from continuing his course of conduct without issuing a prior restraint on his speech.”

Likelihood of success. Turning to the four well-established factors used in analyzing whether to grant a TRO, and specifically the likelihood of success on the merits of the employees’ defamation claim, the court noted that the intern sent two emails to individuals both inside and outside of the company accusing the employees of rape. These specific statements were both verifiably false and inappropriate in the context of professional email communications.

In addition, emails accusing the employees of criminal convictions that were sent to individuals outside of the company—who were third parties to this matter—were sufficient to satisfy the publication to a third party requirement.

Moreover, the court stated, the intern’s conduct in publishing the defamatory emails rose to the level of intentionality as he created a network of fictious email addresses to spread numerous false statements about the employees. Because the repeated nature of his conduct displayed a specific intent to publish the defamatory statements, the court found he was at fault for publishing the defamatory material.

Noting finally that the intern falsely charged the employees of being convicted of rape in his emails to individuals both within and outside of Raymond James, the court found the emails on their face appeared defamatory. Thus, the employees established, for purposes of a TRO, a strong likelihood of success on the merits of their defamation claim.

Irreparable harm. The employees next argued that without a TRO, they would continue to suffer “immediate and irreparable injury and damages to their reputation and business.” The intern’s conduct, they alleged, if allowed to continue, would further harm their professional and personal reputations and would lead to the loss of goodwill. In support, they pointed out that many of the emails he sent went to competing investment bankers and prospective clients and falsely accused them of horrific crimes and membership in detestable hate groups.

Agreeing that his conduct, if allowed to continue, would cause great harm to the employees’ business, and that monetary damages could not compensate them for the loss of customer goodwill and trust, the court found they sufficiently established irreparable harm.

Substantial harm to others or the public. Turning to the third and fourth prongs of the TRO analysis, which require assessing the harm to the opposing party and weighing the public interest, the court found no indication the TRO here would harm parties beyond this lawsuit. Further, the court observed, the narrowly tailored injunction—which prevents the intern from creating new email accounts in furtherance of the harassment campaign, from accessing or deleting any existing email accounts in furtherance of the campaign, and from accessing or deleting any electronic files concerning the employees or from coming within 100 yards of them, their personal residences, or any Raymond James office—causes little harm to the intern.

Finding finally that the public interest weighed toward granting limited relief, the court explained that the narrowly tailored TRO, which focuses upon the intern’s potential conduct rather than pure speech, serves the public interest by effectuating the law, as well as preserving evidence to foster a fair and efficient adjudication of this matter. Accordingly, the court granted the narrowly tailored TRO.

The case is No. 1:25-cv-10.

Judge: McFarland, M.

Attorneys: Andrew J. Dorman (Reminger Co.) for Raymond James & Associates, Inc.

Companies: Raymond James & Associates, Inc.

Cases: RemediesDamages TortClaims StateLawClaims OhioNews