Injunctions in EEOC pattern or practice lawsuits are rare at least before a finding of on-going, systemic discrimination. In the case of EEOC v Evans Fruit Co. Inc., No. 10-CV-3033-LRS (E.D. Wash. Oct. 5, 2010), the EEOC just secured one, which is exceedingly rare. The order may telegraph another tactical tool it intends to use when retaliation is alleged during the course of a case. The underlying complaint brought by the EEOC alleged that Evans Fruit created a hostile work environment for women, targeting Evans Fruit manager Juan Marin in particular. After the suit’s filing, the EEOC received allegations that Marin and others were intimidating witnesses, including following them from the facility, tracking their movements, and even photographing witness meetings. The EEOC sought emergency injunctive relief; the Court held a four day hearing to determine if a preliminary injunction was necessary to stop the retaliatory conduct. The Court concluded that, while an injunction was an “extraordinary remedy,” it was appropriate given the strong evidence that the government’s investigation would be compromised if the alleged intimidation continued. The facts of this case are fairly extreme and overt intimidation like that alleged in Evans Fruit is uncommon. But given the success of this injunction tactic in this litigation, the EEOC may be primed to expand its use of this tool to less obvious situations, both to gain momentum in the underlying litigation as well as early positive media coverage.