Hardeman v. Chrysler Credit Corp.

How later courts describe this case

• recognizing that not all constitutional harms are synonymous with irreparable harm, and that the mere assertion of a First Amendment right does not automatically require a finding of irreparable harm; rather, the movant must show a “chilling” effect on protected activity
• recognizing that not all constitutional harms are synonymous with irreparable harm and that mere assertion of a First Amendment right does not automatically require a finding of irreparable harm; rather, the movant must show a “chilling” effect on protected activity
• relying on Alexander to find that Title VII not subject to waiver through arbitration clause
• holding the presumption to be constitutional
• “Alexander makes clear that Congress intended the right in employment discrimination cases to have access to judicial remedies to outbalance the federal policy favoring arbitration.”
• movant must make “clear showing of immediate irreparable injury”