Connect with us


Did a CEO order his employees to follow and harass his girlfriend?



The respondent took the case to the appellate court. He argued that there was not enough evidence to support the issuance of the protective order.

Protective order upheld

In the case of Allen Gerard Hollimon v. Valencia Lana Williams, the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas mostly affirmed the order of the trial court. The appellate court modified the protective order by omitting the finding that the respondent committed family violence and was likely to commit family violence in the future.

Some evidence supported the trial court’s finding that the respondent knowingly made the applicant feel harassed, annoyed, alarmed, abused, tormented, embarrassed, or offended, the appellate court said. It rejected the respondent’s argument that the applicant never saw him and only encountered the NIS employees driving company cars.

As the CEO or owner of NIS, the respondent had the right to control its employees’ activities while they were at work, the appellate court determined.

The appellate court found that it could reasonably infer from the evidence that the respondent knowingly directed his employees to engage in the allegedly harassing and annoying conduct. Specifically, the appellate court considered the evidence of the frequency of the encounters between the applicant and the NIS employees together with the respondent’s testimony suggesting that relatively few company cars operated in Houston.

Read the full article here